STOLEN GENERATIONS’ REPORT by RON BRUNTON
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BETRAYING Backgrounder THE VICTIMS THE ‘STOLEN GENERATIONS’ REPORT by RON BRUNTON The seriousness of the ‘stolen generations’ issue should not be underestimated, and Aborigines are fully entitled to demand an acknowledgement of the wrongs that many of them suffered at the hands of various authorities. But both those who were wronged and the nation as a whole are also entitled to an honest and rigorous assessment of the past. This should have been the task of the ‘stolen generations’ inquiry. Unfortunately, however, the Inquiry’s report, Bringing Them Home, is one of the most intellectually and morally irresponsible official documents produced in recent years. In this Backgrounder, Ron Brunton carefully examines a number of matters covered by the report, such as the representativeness of the cases it discussed, its comparison of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal child removals, and its claim that the removal of Aboriginal children constituted ‘genocide’. He shows how the report is fatally compromised by serious failings. Amongst many others, these failings include omitting crucial evidence, misrepresenting important sources, making assertions that are factually wrong or highly questionable, applying contradictory principles at different times so as to make the worst possible case against Australia, and confusing different circumstances under which removals occurred in order to give the impression that nearly all separations were ‘forced’. February 1998, Vol. 10/1, rrp $10.00 BETRAYING THE VICTIMS: THE ‘STOLEN GENERATIONS’ REPORT bitterness that other Australians need to comprehend INTRODUCTION and overcome. A proper recognition of the injustices that Aborigi- nes suffered is not just a matter of creating opportuni- ties for reparations, despite the emphasis that the Bring- The Inquiry and its background ing Them Home report places on monetary compensa- Bringing Them Home, the report of the National Inquiry tion (for example, pages 302–313; Recommendations into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Is- 14–20). A civilized liberal society needs to approach lander Children from Their Families, addresses a very its own history with candour. Amongst other reasons, serious and difficult issue in Australia’s recent past.1 this is necessary to help in preserving the integrity of For a number of years, indigenous organizations and core moral principles that may have been compromised, their supporters have been arguing that previous poli- and to provide substance to the abiding hope that posi- cies which resulted in Aboriginal children being taken tive lessons can be learnt from previous mistakes. from their families were responsible for some of the Bringing Them Home makes a number of eloquent major social problems in contemporary Aboriginal com- statements along these lines. It quotes the words of a munities. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal member of the Chilean National Commission for Truth Deaths in Custody, which reported in 1991, found that and Reconciliation, established to investigate the of the 99 individual cases it investigated, 43 ‘experi- Pinochet regime’s violations of human rights: enced childhood separation from their natural families [S]ociety cannot simply block out a chapter of through intervention by the state, mission organiza- its history; it cannot deny the facts of its past, tions or other institutions’.2 This finding gave added however differently these may be interpreted. impetus to calls for an investigation that would chal- Inevitably, the void would be filled with lies lenge widespread public ignorance about these prac- or with conflicting, confusing versions of the tices and recommend appropriate responses from gov- past. A nation’s unity depends on a shared iden- ernment. tity, which in turn depends largely on a shared The Inquiry was conducted by the Human Rights memory. The truth also brings a measure of and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) after healthy social catharsis and helps to prevent the receiving a reference from the Attorney-General in the past from reoccurring (page 307). former Labor Government, Michael Lavarch, in May 1995. HREOC’s then president, Sir Ronald Wilson, Why the Inquiry betrayed Aborigines who and Mick Dodson, then the Aboriginal and Torres Strait suffered injustice Islander Social Justice Commissioner, had primary re- Because the issues at stake in the ‘stolen generations’ sponsibility for the Inquiry, but they were assisted by a inquiry are so important, and because these involve a number of other Commissioners, including indigenous number of matters of ongoing and heated contention, women appointed for each region visited by the In- it was imperative that the Inquiry did everything in quiry (page 18). its power to ensure that its accounts of past An understandable legacy of Aboriginal practices and its con- THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF bitterness clusions were beyond The forcible removal of innocent children from caring any reasonable ques- INNOCENT CHILDREN FROM parents by government or church officials is indefensi- tion. Otherwise the CARING PARENTS BY GOVERN- ble in a liberal democratic society, as is any legislation painful experiences or programme which uses racial or ethnic status as the which the Inquiry MENT OR CHURCH OFFICIALS IS major or sole determinant of the way in which people sought to make known will be treated. It is unfortunate that some commenta- could be easily dis- INDEFENSIBLE IN A LIBERAL tors who would normally stress the importance of the missed or ignored, as DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY family as an institution, or warn of the dangers of un- could their contempo- bridled state intervention into private spheres, seem rary implications. But insensitive to these matters.3 There can be no doubt the Commissioners unwisely seem to have interpreted that in many parts of the country during particular their role as being that of advocates, providing the periods of this century Aboriginal parents had an un- media with emotive commentaries on evidence as it derstandable fear that the authorities might take their was presented and indicating that they would be pro- children with very little or no excuse, and that this is moting the findings irrespective of the Government’s an important reason behind the legacy of Aboriginal views.4 2 IPA Backgrounder, Vol. 10/1, 1998 BETRAYING THE VICTIMS: THE ‘STOLEN GENERATIONS’ REPORT And unfortunately, anyone who expects to find a cluded court-ordered removals (page 5). Duress is used rigorous, sober and factual assessment of the past in to cover situations that involved threats or moral pres- Bringing Them Home will be sorely disappointed. The sure. The report states that this does not exclude ac- report is a most unworthy and tendentious document. ceptance by those affected. It also states that ‘defini- Amongst its many tions [of duress] commonly refer to illegally applied BRINGING THEM HOME faults, it is poorly ar- compulsion’ (page 6; emphasis in original). gued, it demonstrates This leads to some confusion, because the report goes BETRAYS THE ABORIGINAL VICTIMS considerable intellec- on to discuss whether Aboriginal parents in remote tual and moral confu- locations who agreed to sending their children to schools OF THE PAST ALMOST AS SURELY sion, it applies incon- in distant centres were submitting to duress. It argues AS WOULD A REPORT WHICH sistent principles at that while one interpretation would be that the fami- different times so as to lies were being given appropriate opportunities to have ATTEMPTED TO DENY THEIR create a ‘damned if you their children educated, ‘another focuses on the power do/damned if you relations between the makers of these offers and the EXPERIENCES COMPLETELY don’t’ situation, it mis- families. Viewed in that way there was clearly an ele- represents a number of ment of duress’ (page 8). It states that where the prom- its sources and ignores crucial information, and it read- ise of education was linked to a threat—for example, a ily makes major assertions which are either factually charge of neglect—if the offer was not accepted, ‘the wrong or unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is ensuing separation was clearly forced’ (page 9), although immaterial whether these defects are a result of a de- it is uncertain whether the authors think this means liberate attempt to distort, or whether they stem from that it was a case of ‘compulsion’ or ‘duress’. The re- the Inquiry’s inability to bring the requisite judgement port notes that the circumstances of offers of education and analytical skills to its task. When accounts that are generally not clear, purport to make people aware of injustices misrepre- and claims that it has THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS sent events, or omit relevant matters for reasons of par- not assumed that all tiality, or make unfounded claims, they dishonour the these removals oc- TO JUSTIFY TREATING BRINGING very people whose interests they claim to uphold. Bring- curred under duress. ing Them Home betrays the Aboriginal victims of the However, no examples THEM HOME AS ONE OF THE MOST past almost as surely as would a report which attempted have been provided INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY to deny their experiences completely. that might give an in- These are serious charges, and they are not made dication of whether the IRRESPONSIBLE REPORTS TO BE lightly. In this Backgrounder I will attempt to demon- Inquiry considered strate that they are warranted. Although considerations cases of children being PRESENTED TO AN AUSTRALIAN of length preclude a comprehensive examination