State Children Act 1936

570 Words2 Pages

However, these categories do not mention the methodology of determining aboriginality, nor does it mention under what circumstances the aboriginal children were to be forcibly taken. Although, the State Children Act (1907) stated that a ‘destitute child’ was to be classified as a child whose relatives are in ‘indigent circumstances’ or whose parents are not present; whilst also setting the classification of a ‘neglected child’ as ‘sleep[ing] in the open air’ and is without home and/or habitually begs or receives alms. This is arguably irrespective of the cultural practices of the aborigines, as it can be seen that this aspect of sleeping nude, in the open air is an integral part of their culture. This has been documented in a newspaper in 1838 …show more content…

However, this cultural clash being witnessed in 1905 is still evident in 1936, with the similar argument being put forth in The Aborigines Act (1936) arguing that children living in ‘insanitary or undesirable’ living conditions should be removed. Although, like previously, this does not set a criterion for the conditions that constitutes as this and thus was left open to interpretation.
However, the Moseley Royal Commission (Moseley, 1935), established to ascertain the treatment of aboriginal people, described the aboriginal living conditions in Northern Kimberley as being either in ‘the bush in their natural state’ or in ‘pastoral stations’ with the tribes fashioning shelters out of recycled petrol-cans, bags, and bush material. This is still reflective of the conditions that the State Children Act (1907) deemed to be unacceptable and when considering this in the aspect of child welfare and protection questions arise as to whether this aspect of aboriginal culture can be observed as in the best interests of a child. However, Moseley (1935) continues his report on these conditions with a statement that ‘the children… [were] trained from an early age to make [such improvised materials] useful’ and that they ‘wanted for nothing and displayed no signs of unhappiness’. This raises a fundamental issue regarding the ‘Stolen Generation’ practice; whilst the children were deemed to be in ‘undesirable’ conditions by the white settlers, it could be suggested that the children’s state of happiness undermines their ‘destitute’ state of

Open Document