Stolen Generation In Australia

The Australia Stolen generation

People of the stolen generation have been negatively affected by Australian polices. The stolen generation means “children of mixed descent who were removed from their Indigenous mothers and communities with the aim of assimilating them into white Australian culture” (Kennedy, 2011, p. 333). Thus the removal of mixed descent Indigenous children was part of the assimilation policy that was introduced in the early twenty century. By 1972 it was evidence that the policy of assimilation had negative consequences to the Indigenous population. Therefore the Whitlam government replaced the policy of assimilation to that of self-determination, which viewed that the government should accommodate for the Indigenous culture.

Furthermore, in 1995 the Keating government commission a national inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into the past polices of assimilation. As a result of the national inquiry the past polices of assimilation had been found to have breach human rights and could be considered genocide. In addition the national inquiry published a report titled Bringing Them Home, which may several recommendations for reconciliation such as a national apology. With this in mind the prime minster Kevin Rudd gave a national apology to the stolen generation in 2008. However despite this recognition and policies changes, Indigenous children are still being removed from the families as part of child welfare practices.
From the early twenty century until the 1970’s mixed descent children from the Indigenous population were removed from their families in an attempt to assimilate them with the European culture. The Australian Indigenous civilisation is considered to be the oldest and for approximately 40,000 years they had sole ownership to Australia (Gunstone, 2008). However when European’s arrived in 1788 they deemed the continent not occupied because they viewed the Indigenous population not a civilisation due to the fact they not made settlement through agriculture and towns (McIntyre & Mckeich, 2010). What’s more from the early days into the colonisation of Australia Indigenous children were being removed from their families to work on mission and work stations (Bretherton & Mellor, 2006). As Indigenous population was not given a wages, the removal of children early into the settlement of Australia provided cheap labour for many cattle station, farms and missions (Macintyre, 2009). By the start of the federation in 1901 Australian states and territories were responsible for making laws to govern over the Indigenous population (Sullivan, 2011). Thus in the late nineteen century and early twenty century there was an increased population of mixed descent children meaning Indigenous and European, which was viewed as a threat to the ideal of a white Australia (Moran, 2005). For this reason the policy of assimilation was introduced by the states and territories to address the mixed decent issue, which resulted in the removal of mixed descent children from their families (McCallum, 2006). According to Fejo-King (2011) the ideas of assimilation policy is that the mixed descent children would assimilate to the white Australia whilst the full blood Indigenous population would die out. In other words the views of the assimilation policy is that the minority group must give up on its unique culture to adopt the culture of the deemed superior culture (Chesterman, 2005). As a result from the start of 1910’s until the 1970’s the policy allowed for children of mixed descent to be forcibly removed by relevant authorities from their families and raise in institutions, foster care or adopted out to Non-Indigenous members (Manne, 2000). Moreover, in order to for children to assimilate to the white culture they were not allowed contact with their families, speak their own language or engage in any culture traditions (Kennedy, 2011). Murphy (2011, p.482) suggested that “it is unclear the exact amount of children remove part of this policy but it estimate one in three in 1910’s and one in ten in 1970’s”. Consequently the assimilation policy for the children removed and the families created a loss of cultural identity as well as integrational loss and trauma (Krieken, 2004).
Early into the 1970’s the assimilation policy had ended and was replaced by the policy of self-determination.

The constitution was changed in 1967 with a 90 per cent of population voting yes in the referendum (Griffiths, 2006). Thus changes in the referendum deemed that commonwealth was responsible for Indigenous affairs and for the first time the Indigenous population were to be counted in the census (Attwood & Markus, 2007). Therefore with changes to constitution the federal government could now have greater involvement in Indigenous affairs (Attwood & Markus, 2008). Hence in 1972 when the Whitlam government was elected into power they replaced the assimilation policy with the policy of self-determination which is still in effect today (Chesterman, 2005). The self-determination policy came as a reaction to problematic assimilation policy, which saw the displacement of many Indigenous people. The policies of self-determination argued that government policies should accommodate for the indigenous culture (Kowal, 2008). Additionally the self-determination policy viewed that the Indigenous people should have involvement in decisions that affect their lives (McIntyre & McKeich, 2010) Furthermore, the outcomes of the self-determination policy saw the end to the forcibly removing mixed descent children from their families and communities (Young, 1998). In addition self-determination policies saw for the first time a separate government department to address Indigenous affairs (Neil, 2002). As well as saw the start of community services and government organisations that address specific Indigenous issues, such as Link Up an organisation the assist members of the stolen generation find lost family members (Sullivan, 2011). What’s more self-determination policy saw the start of providing funding by the government to address the high rates of children that had been removed as part of the assimilation policy (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997). However,

whilst the self-determination policy saw the end to forcibly removing children on the basis to assimilate, Indigenous children were still being removed from their families through child protection policies (Windschuttle, 2009).
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity commissioned a National Inquiry of the Separation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and their Families. In 1995 Keating government warranted under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity commission to inquiry about the past polices and laws that led to the removal of Indigenous children from their families (Reilly, 2009). The national inquiry was directed by Mick Dodson the first Indigenous social justice commissioner, Ronald Wilson the HE&EOC president, several Indigenous and non-indigenous commissioners (HR&EOC, 1997). The national inquiry lasted from 1995-1997 for the purpose of investigating the past polices and laws from 1910 until 1970’s that led to separation of Indigenous children from their families (Cuthbert & Quarlty, 2013). Moreover, the national inquiry went all over Australia in order to gather evidence from Indigenous agencies, government organisation, non-government agencies, members of the community and members of the stolen generation (Short, 2008). Thus this was the first time Indigenous stolen generation could tell their stories to an inquiry, and reveal stories of trauma and abuse experience as a result of these polices (Barta, 2008). Furthermore the outcomes of the national inquiry are detailed in bringing them report published in 1997 and it stated that assimilation policy was a breach of human rights (Kennedy, 2011). In addition the report claimed that the removal of mixed descent children in attempt to breed out their culture could be considered an act of genocide under the United Nationals International Law (Windschuttle, 2009). As a result of the assimilation policy the report found that the Indigenous population suffered from a loss of culture identity, alienation from their culture, alcoholism, domestic violence’s, dependency of welfare and health problems (Young, 1998). Besides the review of past policies the national inquiry also look into and made recommendations to current laws, policies and practices relating to the stolen generation (Young, 1998). The bringing them home report made a total of fifty-four recommendation, thus one of these was for the government to make a national apology to the stolen generation for past laws and policies that allowed Indigenous to be forcibly removed their families (Reilly, 2009).
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, prime minster Kevin Rudd of Australia gave a national televised apology to the stolen generation (Barta, 2008). The national apology came after more than ten years after the Bringing Them Home report recommended for a national apology to the stolen generation (Lewis, 2009). With this in mind the previous Howard government refused to give a national apology because Howard viewed it not in the interested of his government to take responsibility for past policies that his government was not a part of (Manne, 2000). Additionally, Howard had concerns that a national apology could have significant legal implications (Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, 2000). However with the Change of government in 2007 from Liberals the government of John Howard to Labour government, Kevin Rudd made it his first order of business for a national apology (Fejo-King, 2011). Thus in his speech Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generation for past laws and policies that enforced the removal Indigenous children from their communities, families and country (Reilly, 2009). In addition, Kevin Rudd apologies the pain, suffering, trauma, loss the past laws and policies have inflicted on the stolen generation (Barta, 2008). As a result of the the national apology many of the indigenous population saw this as a acknowledge of responsibility from non-indigenous Australia’s and government officials for past polices (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). As well as, the national apology recognised the past polices of forcibly removing Indigenous children was wrong and created intergenerational harm (Culthbert & Quarlty, 2013). Hence the intergenerational harm cause from these policies created significant disadvantages in the Indigenous communities such as lack of housing, unemployment, alcoholism, domestic violence, lack of identity, health problem (Fejo-King, 2011). In particular communities and families that have been directly affected by past assimilation policy, have higher rates of children being removed on child protection orders (McIntyre & McIkeich, 2010).
Today Indigenous children are still being removed from their families as part of the child welfare system. According to Fernandez (2014) child welfare is the responds to children who have been or at risk of abuse and/or neglect within the family dynamics. In addition the policies of child welfare allowed for the removal of children to be place into care outside of the family home for protective reasons (Tibury, 2008). The “Indigenous population makes up only approximately 2.7 per cent of the population of Australia, however sadly they make up a total 20 per cent population of children in care (Harris-Short, 2012, p.6 ). Compare with Non-Indigenous children they are six times more likely to be on a protective order (Tibury, 2008). Ryan claims that the high over-representation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system is direct impact of the intergenerational trauma caused to the stolen generation. Hence the trauma and loss of past policies of forcibly removing children from Indigenous communities is still felt today. As a result this contributed to many issues for the Indigenous population such as health, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). Due to these issues with the Indigenous population abuse and neglect may be present within the family home, resulting in the removal of the children through children welfare (Fernandez, 2014). McVeigh (2013) suggests the most common reason for children protection order in Indigenous community is that of neglect. Furthermore, according to McCallum (2007) there is a significant effort to be culturally appropriate when dealing with the removal Indigenous children and to promote to keep the connection to their family, culture and community. Changes to child welfare system to become more cultural sensitive came with the introduction of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles Established in 1987. The principles are in place in each state and territory, which states Indigenous child removed by welfare agencies must first look to the extended family, or community if that is not successful a person of Indigenous descent (Neil. 2002). Only when these options for placement are not appropriated can the child be placed with a Non-Indigenous person. Sadly a high portion of Indigenous children are placed with Non-Indigenous care providers (Tibury,2008). In fact there has been a “decreased in children place in line with the child placement principles from 69 per cent in 2001-02 to 32 per cent in 2010-11 (McVeigh, 2013, p.27 ). What’s more in the bringing them home report in was recommended that Indigenous people should be able to self-govern their own child welfare. However this recommendation has not been implemented in the child welfare system (Harris-Short, 2012). According to Ryan (2011) whilst protecting children is important, a welfare system that is self-govern by the Indigenous community could ensure that it is done it a way that’s take account the cultural and spiritually needs of the Indigenous population. Clearly there have been changes to the child welfare to make the practice removing Indigenous children more culturally sensitive. However despite these changes the practice of removing Indigenous children and placing them with Non-Indigenous care providers is still an ongoing issue.
In summary, since the assimilation policy there have been changes to the practice of removing Indigenous children from their families. Firstly, no longer is it allowed by law that Indigenous children can be forcibly removed based off reasoning such as to assimilate into the white culture. Thus children who are removed now from Indigenous community are done to protect them from harm through child welfare services. Secondly in the assimilation policy the purpose was for the children to lose their cultural identity and adapt to the white culture. What’s changed in the removal of Indigenous children now is that it accommodate for of the Indigenous culture and for the children to keep their cultural identity. Therefore, to ensure the cultural identity is maintained the child placement principles was established in 1987 in each state and territory of the child welfare system. The principles states that when removing Indigenous from the families this must be done it a culturally appropriate way and must consider the extended family or within their community member first for placement. If a placement cannot found within the extended family or within the community, then the child should be place with an Indigenous care provider. Furthermore if an adequate placement cannot be found with these options then the child can be place with Non-Indigenous care providers. Consequences a high portion of Indigenous children in the child welfare system are place with care providers that are Non-Indigenous. Moreover, what has stayed the same from start of the assimilation policy is the fact children from Indigenous communities are still being removed from their families and place with Non-Indigenous care providers. Furthermore it the bringing them home report it found the past polices of assimilation cause integrational trauma and loss of cultural identity to the Indigenous population. Therefore it is important for the child welfare system to find a balance that both protect Indigenous children from harm and whilst maintaining connection to their family, community and cultural.