Australian PrehistoryHistory - AustralianAustralian CultureAustralian IdentityCultural Comparisons Between Australia and other Countries

Buckely's Chance

Share |

Relations between Aborigines
and colonists

Aboriginal War
Friends or foes?

History Wars
Denying contestability

Black Woman and White Man
Rape or love?

Myall Creek Masscare
Causes and consequences of colonial violence

The Stolen Generations
It's not so black and white

Jimmy Govenor
Not a good fence builder

Mary Anne Bugg
Female Bushranger

Justice or resistance?

1967 referendum
The myths

Contemporary racism against Indigenous People

Convicts and their legacy

Convict legacy
How the past shapes the present

Convict life
Regrets and floggings

Convict crimes
Power and morality

Convict punishments
What purpose?

Larrikin Convicts
Breaking rules

Thinking different

Convict women
Moral diversity


The Apology to the Stolen Generations

When should genocide not be punished?

In 1997, the government report: "Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families" detailed policies of genocide by Australian governments towards Aborigines. The report stated that at least 100,000 Aboriginal children had been removed from their families between 1900 in 1970 in a calculated policy to destroy the black race. In the report's own words:

"The continuation into the 1970s and 1980s of the practice of preferring non-Indigenous foster and adoptive families for Indigenous children was also arguably genocidal. The genocidal impact of these practices was reasonably foreseeable … The policy of forcible removal of children from Indigenous Australians to other groups for the purpose of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture and people could properly be labelled ‘genocidal’ in breach of binding international law from at least 11 December 1946 (confirmed by Justice Brennan in Polyukovich 1991 page 587). The practice continued for almost another quarter of a century. "

Most of the removals were carried out by state governments but after 1967, the federal government gained power to make laws for Aborigines and created a special minister for the task. Although the ministers whose actions were defined as genocide were not named in the report, they were Peter Howson (Liberal Party), Billy Wentworth (Liberal Party), Les Johnson (Labor Party), Ian Viner (Liberal Party), Fred Chaney (Liberal Party), Peter Baume (Liberal Party), Clyde Holding (Labor Party) and Gerry Hand (Labor Party).

Oddly, despite detailing genocide, the report's authors made no recommendation for the government ministers responsible for the policies to be put on trial or extradited to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to answer for their crimes. As the authors would have known, Australia is a signature to international treaties that require that genocide be punished.

The reluctance to recommend that any state or federal minister be charged with genocide would perhaps indicate that the report's authors didn't think genocide was a crime worth punishing or just didn't believe their own words when they defined the removal of children as genocide. Either way, it seemed politics was more important than truth when telling the stories of the path.

In the case of the stolen generations, there definately is some conjecture about what happened and whether a crime occured. The term Stolen Generations was coined in 1981 by Peter Reid; a white historian from the University of Sydney in reference to placement of mixed race children in missions and orphanages. Reid was also the first historian to define the removal of children as genocide.

Reid's interpretation was disputed by anthropologist Ron Brunton. Although Brunton found that Aboriginal people had been subjected to a ridiculously high level of government interference in the operation of their daily lives, he found no evidence of a government policy to place children in Catholic missions on the basis of their skin colour. Instead, he found evidence that children had been abused, or seen as outcasts in Aboriginal communities, because they were not full bloods.

Simply going to books to check whether governments ever had a policy to remove children was a little problematic because the laws were not consistent and it was not always clear about what they allowed. Specifically, laws in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia made Aboriginal children wards of the state. NSW and Victoria did not make Aboriginal children wards of the state. Tasmania did not have any laws concerning Aborigines because Tasmanian Aborigines were considered to have died out in the 19th century. The Federal Government didn't have any laws either because they had been constitutionally forbidden from making laws targeted at Aborigines until 1967. (Admittedly, the Northern Territory had a federally appointed administrator who did make policy targeted at Aborigines.) It was only after 1967 that the Federal government gained powers to make laws targeted at Aborigies and in the process, created a designated minister for Aboriginal affairs.

In regards to the regions where Aboriginal children were wards of the state, governments were expected to act in the children's best interests. This didn't mean that governments had the power to remove children from loving parents to pursue a policy of genocide but it did mean they could remove children using subjective criteria of "disadvantage." For example, the child of an unmarried woman (of any race) was defined as disadvantaged, which led to forced adoptions. Finally, defining who was Aboriginal and who was not also changed from state to state. It was very common at the time for someone to have an Aboriginal parent, but not be defined as Aboriginal.  

While the government report put the figure at 100,000 children that were stolen, academic Robert Manne later received a grant of $62,000 to write about the Stolen Generations. He then revised the figure to 30,000 children. Journalist Andrew Bolt then challenged Manne to produce the names of 10 people who were removed because of the colour of their skin alone. Manne was unable to provide the names. Because no verifiable names were provided, Bolt argued that the existence of a policy to remove children based on their skin colour was a fabrication.

In 2000, the courts heard test cases which were designed to prove that at least two children were removed unfairly. The legal action was initiated by Lorna Cubillo, 62, and Peter Gunner, 53 - both of whom had been removed as children. If successful, the two test cases would have been followed by many other people also seeking compensation - which some lawyers estimated could total around $5 billion dollars. Both Ms Cubillo and Mr Gunner wept as they testified about the way they were stolen from their mother's communities, and subsequently suffered sexual, physical and psychological abuse at the hands of missionaries.

The official records showed Lorna Cubillo was born in 1939 on the Banka Banka Cattle Station. She was taken from her grandmother's care in 1940 and placed with the Aboriginal community in the Ration Depot at Seven Mile Creek. Peter Gunner was born in 1948 on Utopia Cattle Station. He was committed by the Director of Welfare, Harry Giese, to St Mary's Hostel in Alice Springs in 1956. In a deflating revelation for Mr Gunner, the government was able to show that the committal was only approved after receiving the consent of his mother, who wanted him to have an education. Justice Maurice O'Loughlin dismissed the federal government's liability on the grounds that there had been a failure to prove that the Commonwealth authorities had ignored the children's best interests by removing them from their families.

In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations, but refused to pay compensation. In addition to refusing to pay compensation, Rudd made no legislative change nor named and shamed any former prime minister or state premier for their policies. Furthermore, Rudd failed to even mention Commonwealth ministers for Aboriginal affairs or the comparable ministers from any state or territory government that had been responsible for the policies.

The apology helped Rudd achieve the highest level of popularity of any Australian Prime Minister in history.

In summation, there was one academic saying mixed-race children were stolen from full blood communities, one academic saying they were rejected by full-blood communities, there was a government report stating that there were 100,000 victims of a policy to remove mixed-race children, a government-funded academic saying that there were 30,000, a court saying that the test cases did not show the existence of a government policy to remove children on the basis of race, a journalist saying the whole thing was a fabrication, and a prime minister saying there had been a policy to remove on the basis of race, that the Federal government was responsible, but that no compensation would be paid, no legislative changes would be made to stop it happening again and there would be no prosecution of government ministers for their crime of genocide. The wide discrepancies between academics, the court, the government report, journalists, and also the prime minister, suggested that there had been some extremely sloppy or deliberately biased research occurring.

Perhaps the story of Lowitja O’Donoghue, the former head of the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission (ATSIC), provided the best illustration of the problems associated with not checking testimony as well as some of the problems with fabricating history for political purposes. O’Donoghue initially claimed to have been a member of the Stolen Generations, and blamed the government for causing her to grow up in a mission without access to her culture and her mother's love. Like many others, O’Donoghue’s story was initially taken as sincere and no attempt was made to verify it. Consequently, O’Donoghue was appointed co-patron of the National Sorry Day committee and was seen as one of the 100,000 people who had been stolen as a child.

The Herald Sun newspaper checked O’Donoghue's background and discovered that her white father had placed her and her four sisters in a Catholic boarding school, and paid for their upkeep. Her mother may or may not have agreed to giving up her children. The mission where she was placed did not prevent parents from visiting, and the parents of other children did in fact come to see their kids.

After being shown evidence of how she was placed in the mission, O’Donoghue conceded that she had not been stolen in the technical sense of the word, but blamed the mission for not keeping her in contact with her mother and expressed anger at her deceased father. In that regard, she stated that she had been removed as a child and that the word stolen was misleading.

Transcript with O'Donoghue before she discovered the circumstances of how she was placed in the mission. Interviewer: Robin Hughes
Recorded: March 22, 1994

According to the typical narrative of a child being put into the missions because of their skin colour, O’Donoghue was not a member of the Stolen Generations; however, it could be argued that she was a victim of race-based government policy. Specifically, O'Donohue's parents lived together until the South Australian government amended the Aborigines Act to prosecute white men who were consorting with Aboriginal women. Tom O'Donohue (Lowitja's father) was convicted of carnal knowledge and fined £5 with 10 shillings costs. He was then forced to sell his lease, abandon his defacto wife of 20 years and move to Adelaide. In short, a loving family was broken apart because South Australian law makers were confronted by inter-racial relationships.

Queensland and Northern Territory also had laws that could prosecute non-Aborigines having sexual relationships with Aborigines. Even if the men weren't prosecuted, the stigma of the laws made it difficult for them to have socially respected relationships with Aboriginal women.

By making an apology to the Stolen Generations, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd prevented two very important issues of history being considered. The first issue was whether governments should have the power to make laws targeted at a specific race.  The Federal Government was not responsible for what happened to O'Donoghue (or any other government policy targeted at Aborigines in any state) because until 1967, the Federal Government had been constitutionally forbidden from making laws for Aboriginal people.  If Rudd had clarified that the Federal government was not responsible because it lacked the power to make laws targeted at Aborigines until 1967, he could have triggered a debate about whether the right question was asked in 1967. Basically, the 1967 referendum asked whether the race-power provisions of the constitution should be extended to include Aborigines. The provisions had initially been created in 1901 to give the Federal government the power to discriminate against non-white migrants, but by the 1960s, governments decided that they should be extended so that the Federal government could discriminate in favour of Aborigines. (The state laws that made Aboriginal children wards of the state and prosecuted non-Aborigines who had sex with Aborigines were also designed to discriminate in favour of Aborigines.) Unfortunately, by apologising for something the Federal government was not responsible for, this important question was not considered.

The second issue was the extent to which governments should be allowed to interfere in the lives of people. By saying sorry, Rudd was saying sorry for past governments being racist, which allowed Rudd to communicate an image that he was not racist. It must be stressed; however, that Rudd was not saying sorry for governments passing judgements on what constitutes a "moral" relationship between two consenting adults, or deciding that governments should be able to interfer in people's lives in the name of "helping" them. Today, governments continue to pass judgement on the relationships of consenting adults and continue to pass laws that inpose undue restriction on what people can and can not do. Furthermore, Aborigines continue to be subjected to disproportionately high numbers of social engineering programs designed to help them. These programs are not based on need, but on skin colour. The government's own reports indicate that the programs often don't help and have actually resulted in Aborigines going backwards in many areas.

Because Rudd was apologising for an attitude that may or may not have existed, rather than power to make race-based laws that definately existed, Rudd didn't have to answer questions about whether the Federal government should lose its power to make laws targeted at Aborigines or non-Aborigines that associated with Aborigines.

Considering that various state laws prosecuted white men for having sexual relationships with Aboriginal women, and even prosecuted them for just being in the women's presence, it is really no surprise that 100,000 children of mixed heritage ended up not knowing who their mothers or fathers were. For creating those laws, various state governments contributed to broken families. Despite contributing to family breakdown, there has yet to be a court case that has found that any state government used race over welfare when deciding whether to place mixed race children in the missions. It is unfortunate that, in the dispute over whether a law targeted mixed race children existed, the real lessons of history were not addressed.

Stolen Generations in Australian movies

The story of the Stolen Generations have been told by two movies, Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) and Australia (2009). Both movies were funded by the federal government and both took the perspective that it was racist attitudes that resulted in the children ending up in missions. Both movies showed ignorance of agreed laws and in their design, both movies showed many of the cultural fingerprints that they denounced.

Rabbit-Proof Fence told the story of three young girls being ripped from their mother's arms, taken to a mission thousands of kilometres away, but then escaping to go home. The movie was based on a true story, but elements had been altered for dramatic effect. Specifically, the bush camp was shown in idyllic terms, the removal was violent, the mission was a depicted as a cruel concentration camp and the children made it home to their mother.

While director Phillip Noyce stated that he wanted to show respect for Aboriginal culture, his movie showed that he had very little. Firstly, he preferred the music of Englishman Peter Gabriel to the music of the people he claimed he was fighting for. Secondly, his actions in making the movie shared a number of parallels with A.O Neveille, the bad guy of the movie. To be more precise, Noyce also scoured bush camps to find his Aboriginal actors and believed he was giving them an opportunity for a better life. Everlyn Sampi, the star of the movie, was not always grateful for the opportunity given to her by the white man. She was rude to Noyce and kept running away. In response, Noyce abused her and said she showed "signs of the worst behaviour that I’ve observed." Noyce then explained to journalists,

“During the rehearsals, she ran away twice. We found her in a telephone booth ringing up inquiries trying to book a ticket back to Broome….I found myself thinking, ‘I have to look after her. She can live with us. I’ll send her to school.'”

When reporter James Thomas asked Noyce if he had noticed a commonality between his own attitudes and those of Neville, Noyce said,

"Well, I suppose in one way you could say that in a different context, in a different time, I’m A.O. Neville promising these young Aboriginal children a better life, asking them to do things that are against their instincts, perhaps because it’s for their own good. But we do live in a slightly different world..."

Noyce failed to elaborate on how the worlds were different. For many Aborigines in bush camps, the lifestyle today isn’t much different to what it was like 70 years ago. Furthermore, whites such as Noyce continue to look upon the camps with the same judgemental attitudes that they did in the days of A.O Neville. The only real difference is that the whites deal with their prejudices in a different way.

Another feature of Noyce was his ignorance about the laws of Australian states that actually allowed social workers to do what they did. It was clear that he had not considered the laws at all when he said:

"For me, Rabbit-Proof Fence the movie will be as much about stolen history. History that we Australians needed to reclaim...Until 1967, Australian Aborigines couldn’t vote and were not counted as citizens."

The 1967 referendum that Noyce was referring to had nothing to do with voting or citizenship. It was whether the Federal government should be given the power to make laws targeted at Aborigines; the very power that states had and which his movie was meant to be denouncing.

While Noyce's movie at least tried to have some aspect of reality, Baz Luhrmann’s Australia was literally anchored in the Wizard of Oz, and listening to Somewhere Over the Rainbow seemed to have motivated Luhrmann to approach history as if it were fantasy. When selling the film to the American market, Lurhmann said,

"The President-elect of the United States is 47. If he was living in Australia, it is absolutely credible that the government, because he had one white parent and one black parent, could have taken him forcibly from his family. They would have put him in an institution, probably lied to him that his parents were dead, changed his name and reprogrammed him to be European, so he could have some sort of function doing something of service in white society. That would possibly have been Obama's journey."

By trying to sound like he had a social conscience, Lurhmann ended up sounding like a fool. Firstly, Obama was raised in a white family and ended up as part of mainstream American life. In fact, he was so engrained in mainstream life that he became the US president and served white America in the process. Secondly, proponents of the Stolen Generations campaign have only suggested that children were removed from Aboriginal communities. There has never even been a suggestion that children were removed from white mothers because their fathers had been black.

The Stolen Generation's story was further confused by Lurhmann's lead actor Hugh Jackman, who had a different take. For Jackman, the Stolen Generations wasn't motivated by a desire to make blacks serve white society, it was motivated by a desire to preserve the supremacy of the white race. When talking to an American audience, Jackman said:

"The stolen generation was a policy that was born out of eugenics. Eugenics in Europe, as we saw with Nazi Germany, was sort of popular at the time. This idea that if you mixed races or mixed breeds you lessened the blood or something and that you had an inferior human being, right?

So many well-intentioned people thought this was a good idea and in Australia if you had an Aboriginal parent and a white parent or a European parent, the government would take you away from your family, they would tell you your family had died or been killed in an accident, they would put you in an institution. "

If the Stolen Generations were indeed motivated by eugenics, then the whites who were removing the children wanted to weaken their own race by infusing Aboriginal genetics into mainstream Australian life. Meanwhile, they wanted to keep the Aboriginal race strong by keeping it pure. So in effect, they were doing the opposite to Nazi Germany.

Like Noyce's movie, Lurhmann's movie showed no understanding of the laws of the time. Specifically, Lurhmann showed an Aborigine being refused service in a bar because the barman was racist. In reality, it was illegal to serve alcohol to Aborigines. Many barman did, either to make money or out of an ethic of egalitarianism, but they broke the law to do so. Over time, this developed into a culture of "dog boxes", which were rear windows to bars in which Aborigines could be sold alcohol discreetly.

As well as showing ignorance or liquor laws, Australia showed ignorance of marriage laws. The hero of the movie (Hugh Jackman) had been married to an Aboriginal woman. At the time, it was illegal for whites to have sex with Aborigines and Aborigines could not marry without permission. By showing ignorance of the laws, Lurhmann showed that he hadn't bothered to study the laws that allowed the lives of Aborigines to be dictated by government.

In his movie, Jackman's Aboriginal ex-wife was dead, which ensured that Lurhmann didn't have to show a black woman and white man being romantic with each other. Instead, Jackman's love interest was a white woman. This would suggest that Lurhmann was as confronted by interracial relationships as the bureaucrats of history that once criminalised them. If he had really wanted to reveal the true attitudes that led to the various laws being created, Lurhmann should have had the interracial relationship front and centre so that his audience could be as confronted by it as generations were in the past. Admittedly, it would have harmed the movie's commercial prospects, but at least the heart of the issue would have been exposed.

Lurhmann ended the movie by telling the audience that the policy of assimilation ended in 1973. No where in the movie had Lurhmann ever addressed what the policy of assimilation was, or the specific laws that were intended to realise assimilation or even which government had the policy of assimilation. Was it the laws against the provision of alcohol? Inter-racial relationships? Movement of Aborigines around the state? The power of the Federal government to make laws targeted at Aborigines, which it gained in 1967?

In 2008, when Lurhmann made his movie, the Federal Government was spending almost $3.5 billion annually on programs specifically targeted at Aborigines and the Australian military was in the Northern Territory as part of an intervention to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. The policy of assimilation had certainly not ended.





John Caesare
The first

Our Ned Kelly
A story heard and considered

Eureka Massacre
Dying for liberty

Post Convicts

Why is it not celebrated?

White Australia Policy
From Convicts to Chinese

Baptism of Fire or Well of Tears

Simpson and his Donkey
A larrikin and a hero

Nancy Wake
A larrikin and a hero

The Depression
Australia's Greek Moment

World War 2
The eastern chapters

Cold War
The expression of transnational identities

Prime Ministers
Values and policies of Australian leaders




"Let no-one say the past is dead, the past is all about us and within"(Oodgeroo)