April 22nd 2000

  Buy Issue 2581

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Will Telstra be fully privatised?

EDITORIAL: The "stolen generation“

CANBERRA OBSERVED: John Howard trapped in Aboriginal mine field

RURAL AFFAIRS: WA report highlights declining rural infrastructure

HEALTH FUNDS: Will genetic tests lead to discrimination?

ECONOMICS: Lessons from Malaysia's Mahathir

TAXATION: Families may suffer under GST

Why Liberal and ALP economic policies are indistinguishable

RUSSIA: What Vladimir Putin's election signifies



Globalisation: As capital goes global, unions go global

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: How the "China factor" affects US relations with Asia

Bioethics: Move to harvest human embryo stem cells

INDUSTRY POLICY: Jobs for life: the Nucor approach

TAIWAN: Opposition wins presidential election

BOOKS: 'The Packaging of Australia: Politics and Culture Wars', by Gregory Melleuish

POLITICS: Straws in the Wind

TELEVISION: The Sopranos

Books promotion page

The "stolen generation“

by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, April 22, 2000
It has not been a good few weeks for the Federal Government, with Aboriginal leaders threatening protests and even violence during the forthcoming Olympic Games in Sydney. The Games, intended to be a showcase of the nation's achievements and way of life, threatens instead to become a focus of bitter divisions over the treatment of indigenous Australians, bringing Australia's reputation crashing down.

No government could have anticipated the way in which the issue of mandatory sentencing laws would fuse with the "deaths in custody" issue, arising from the suicide of an Aboriginal teenager in the Northern Territory. Despite Mr Howard's aversion to the Northern Territory law, his unwillingness to override his Northern Territory colleagues, who had just won a by-election on the issue, left him vulnerable to accusations of weakness and indecision.

A threatened backbench revolt was narrowly quelled when the Northern Territory leader, Denis Burke, agreed to amend the legislation, so that the age limit for the stricter mandatory detention provisions for adults is to be lifted from 17 to 18, and greater emphasis is to be placed on diversionary programs for juveniles, especially for the more minor property offences.

It is obvious that juveniles who are repeatedy convicted of property offences before they turn 18 are fundamentally disordered, and most probably, suffer from a socio-pathological illness. Diversionary programs should be used wherever possible, and even when detention in a juvenile facility is judged necessary, it should be accompanied by rehabilitation programs which treat the underlying problem.

Mandatory treatment, of a type appropriate to convicted drug addicts in an effort to treat their addiction, is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

The success of the media in embarrassing the Howard Government over Senator Herron's statement that "there never was a 'generation' of stolen children", could have been anticipated. The statement, taken out of context in most media reports, occurred in a detailed submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Stolen Generation.

The Prime Minister and Senator Herron have eached apologised to any Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed from their mothers, and who were offended by this statement.

They have made it clear that the Government is not denying that forcible removal occurred, nor is it defending the practices of the past. However, they are both standing by the validity of the Government's submission, and its critique of Sir Ronald Wilson's report on the removal of Aboriginal children from their families.

The Government has correctly pointed out that Wilson's upper figure of one in three Aboriginal children separated from their families is unsustainable and based on a misreading of the statistical sources. The more accurate figure of one in ten includes all those separated from their parents in the period 1910 to 1970, with the consent of the parents or otherwise, for good reasons or otherwise.

These fall into three quite distinct categories which Wilson misleadingly blurs together.

One category is represented by Charles Perkins, former head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, who recently called for violent protests during the Olympic Games. It happens that Mr Perkins' mother voluntarily put her sons into the care of an Anglican priest, Fr. John Smith, whose life was spent in heroic service to the people of the Outback, including Aborigines.

Mr Perkins obviously feels a deep sense of grief and anger over being removed from his mother; but his removal from his family has nothing to do with any government, and neither apology nor compensation is appropriate in the circumstances. It should be remarked that while separation of mothers from their children today occurs very infrequently, it was far more common when government support services to parents, particularly single parents, were almost non-existent. This was not confined to Aboriginal children.

A second category of Aboriginal children separated from their parents were those in real danger of death or injury. The best-known of thesewas the plaintiff in a recent compensation case, whose mother had left him as a baby to die in a rabbit burrow. Very fortunately, Aboriginal relatives of the baby retrieved him, and handed him over to the care of government welfare officers.

The third group of Aboriginal children, who could rightly be called "stolen", were forcibly removed from their parents, as a matter of government policy in separating half-caste children from their Aboriginal mothers. Wilson's allegation that this was intentionally genocidal is inflammatory and unjust.

Whatever the motivation of government officials who acted in this way - either in the mistaken belief that Aboriginal mothers did not love their children and would not care for them, or the view that such children should be brought up in white society - it was and remains fundamentally wrong to separate children from their families unnecessarily. This is not a problem confined to Aboriginal children.

Where the facts are proven, and government actions have caused quantifiable damage, compensation should be paid. However, blanket compensation to those Aboriginal children separated from their parents for justifiable reasons is not warranted.

In the meantime, what is needed is light, rather than heat.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am