Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supplementary Submission
No 36a
INQUIRY INTO REPARATIONS FOR THE STOLEN
GENERATIONS IN NEW SOUTH WALES Organisation: Coota Girls Corporation
Date received: 10/02/2016
Page 2
Contents
Section Topic Page
Key Issues and recommendations 3
1. NSW Government Role In Forcible Removal of AboriginalChildren Under The Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
Systematic racial discrimination in the Cootamundra DomesticTraining Home For Aboriginal Girls
Systematic racial discrimination while apprenticed by theBoards
Summary of systematic racial discrimination under theAborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
6
15
2. The End of Forcible Removal Under The Act 16
3. Number of Children Forcibly Removed Under The Act 1909-‐1969 (Stolen Generations)
17
4. National Population of Stolen Generations 17
5. Trans-‐generational Effects of Forcible Removal 19
6. The Bringing Them Home Recommendations
Right to reparation for human rights violations under theAborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
20
23
7. Commonwealth Government’s Response To The Bringing ThemHome Report
Summary of components of reparation provided to survivors ofCootamundra Girls Home by Commonwealth Government
25
31
8. NSW Government’s Response To The Bringing Them HomeReport
Summary of components of reparation provided to survivors ofCootamundra Girls Home by NSW Government
33
38
9. Coota Girls Corporation All One Statement 2015
Mapping the All One Statement against the Bringing ThemHome recommendations and the UN Basic Principles andGuidelines
Funding the All One Statement 2015 to provide a package ofcollective reparations for survivors of the Cootamundra GirlsHome.
Articulation All One Statement with NSW Government OCHREPlan
39
40
42
47
APPENDIX I Bringing Them Home Report Recommendations 49
APPENDIX II UN Basic Principles and Guidelines For Reparation 58
APPENDIX III Relevant Legislations 63
APPENDIX IV Viewing The Healing Journey of Survivors Of the Cootamundra Girls HomeThrough The Lens of The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines For Reparations
65
Page 3
Key Issues And Recommendations
The National Inquiry Into The Separation Of Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Children From TheirFamilies traced the past laws, practices and policies which resulted in the separation of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander children from their families by ‘compulsion, duress or undue influence’, referredto as ‘forcible removal’ between the years 1910 and 1972, and the effects of those laws, practices andpolicies’ (HREOC, 1997).
Key Issue 1: Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home suffered gross violations of their human rightsunder the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
During the period considered by the National Inquiry – 1910 to 1972 – a systematic race-‐basedsystem was established to remove Aboriginal children under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969in New South Wales.
While the stated purpose of the Aborigines Protection Act was to ‘provide for the protection and careof Aborigines’, it was used, first by the Aborigines Protection Board (1909-‐1939) and then theAborigines Welfare Board (1940-‐1969), to establish a system that supported the forcible removal ofAboriginal children in New South Wales over a period of sixty years, from 1909 until 1969.
The race-‐based system established under the Aborigines Protection Act to remove Aboriginal childrenoperated in a systematic, comprehensive and deliberate way. The Act constituted the Boards,identified and constrained the populations from which children were to be removed, defined thechildren to be removed, constituted the Training Homes to ‘receive, maintain and train’ removedchildren, and provided authority to vary child welfare and apprenticeship conditions for Aboriginalchildren. The practice of training and indenturing Aboriginal children continued long after thesemethods had been abandoned by the Child Welfare system. The Aboriginal-‐specific system operatedin parallel to the Child Welfare system 1909-‐1969. Activities that constituted systematic racialdiscrimination were explicitly described in the legislation and its amendments and in annual reportsfrom the Boards to Ministers of the NSW Government.
Once isolated in the Children’s Training Homes, Aboriginal children were subjected to systematic racialdiscrimination to remove their Aboriginal identity. Children in the Cootamundra Girls Home were alsosubjected to a systematic process of enforced assimilation to ‘think white, look white, act white’ andto fear and avoid Aboriginal people. From 1940, the systematic programs to remove Aboriginalidentity and enforce assimilation were implemented by NSW public servants. When apprenticed bythe Boards, work conditions were harsher, children were not protected from harm, and their wageswere paid to Board trust accounts.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home 1912-‐1969 experienced systematic racial discriminationand ‘gross violations of human rights’ under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969, whenremoved from their families, when in the Children’s Training Home constituted under the Act, andwhen employed or indentured as domestic servants.
Key Issue 2: Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home possess the right to receive reparations forhuman rights violations
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have individually and collectively suffered harm, includingphysical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of theirfundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international humanrights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law.’1 As such they possess a set ofrights provided under international law. These rights are articulated in the Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of InternationalHuman Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the UnitedNations General Assembly in 2005.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home possess a right to receive ‘adequate, effective and promptreparation’ for harm they have suffered by being forcibly removed under the Aborigines Protection
1 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Gross Violation of International HumanRights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
Page 4
Act. Full and effective reparation,’ includes the following forms: restitution, compensation,rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition.
Key Issue 3: Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have not received full and effectivereparations to date
To date, the Commonwealth Government has failed to discharge its international human rightsobligation to deliver ‘full and effective’ reparations to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home inaccordance with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines.
The right of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home to receive ‘full and effective’ reparations hasyet to be formally acknowledged by the New South Wales Government.
The absence of reparations in line with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines for Reparations, leavesthe right of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home to an appropriate remedy, unfulfilled.
Key Issue 4: The Coota Girls Corp proposes the All One Statement 2015 is funded to provide apackage of collective measures of reparations for survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home.
The Coota Girls Corporation requests the All One Statement 2015 is funded a package of collectivereparations for survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home. The measures included in the All OneStatement 2015 align with recommendations in the Bringing Them Home report and reflect the UNBasic Principles and Guidelines for Reparations.
The package of collective reparations are a package of complementary measures and need to beimplemented as a whole to address the harms caused by forcible removal.
Recommendations
1. That the NSW Government accepts Aboriginal children removed under the AboriginesProtection Act 1909-‐1969 and placed in the Children’s Training Homes constituted underthe Act, experienced systematic racial discrimination, and this was a gross violation of theirhuman rights.
2. That the NSW Government accepts Aboriginal children placed in the CootamundraDomestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969 experienced systematic racialdiscrimination from programs to remove their Aboriginal identity and enforce assimilationand this was a gross violation of their human rights.
3. That the NSW Government accepts Aboriginal children placed in the CootamundraDomestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969 experienced mandatoryapprenticeships under arrangements and conditions that did not meet Child Welfarestandards and exposed them to an increased risk of harm. Those apprenticed under theseconditions experienced gross violations of their human rights.
4. That the NSW Government accepts survivors of the Cootamundra Domestic TrainingHome For Aboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969 experienced systematic racial discrimination and‘gross violations of human rights’ under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969 and assuch they possess a set of rights provided under international law. These rights arearticulated in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparationfor Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations ofInternational Humanitarian Law, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005.
5. That the NSW Government accept survivors of the Cootamundra Domestic Training Homepossess a right to receive full and effective reparations for gross violations of their humanrights under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969. Reparations can be made collectivelyand include: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition.
6. That the Coota Girls Corporation All One Statement 2015, is accepted as representing fulland effective reparations for survivors of the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home forAboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969. All components of reparations in the All One Statement alignwith the Bringing Them Home recommendations and reflect the UN Basic Principles andGuidelines for Reparations.
Page 6
1. New South Wales Government Role In Forcible Removal of AboriginalChildren Under The Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969 (StolenGenerations)
Systematic racial discrimination under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
The following has been developed by the Coota Girls Corporation to provide access to informationconcerning violations and reparation mechanisms (UN Basic Principles and Guidelines VII (c)).
New South Wales was the first jurisdiction in Australia to develop a special system to separateAboriginal children from their families. Forcible removal of Aboriginal children was established andenforced under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969 (‘the Act’). This was the first piece oflegislation that dealt specifically with Aboriginal people in New South Wales.
While the stated purpose of the Aborigines Protection Act was to ‘provide for the protection and careof Aborigines’, it was used, first by the Aborigines Protection Board (1909-‐1939) and then theAborigines Welfare Board (1940-‐1969), to establish a system that supported the forcible removal ofAboriginal children in New South Wales over a period of sixty years, from 1909 until 1969.
The Aborigines Protection Act was amended in 1915, 1918, 1936, 1940, 1943 and 1963. Eachamendment represented a departure from welfare standards of the time, and served to create aparallel race-‐based system that resulted in the forcible removal of Aboriginal children across NewSouth Wales, until the Act was repealed in 1969.
There was little change in the methods adopted by the Aborigines Protection Board (1909-‐1939) orAborigines Welfare Board (1940-‐1969), which replaced it. Both Boards stated their intention toremove, train and indenture Aboriginal children as domestic servants and farm labourers and toprevent their return to Aboriginal stations and reserves:
‘With such an environment it can hardly be expected that they will acquire those habits ofcleanliness, obedience, and morality which are so necessary if they are to become decentand useful members of the community. The Board recognises that the only chance thesechildren have is to be taken away from their present environment and properly trained byearnest workers before being apprenticed out, and after once having left the aborigines'reserves they should never be allowed to return to them permanently’.5
The Aborigines Protection Board appointed under the Act in 1909 was charged with the responsibilityto ‘provide for the custody, maintenance, and education of the children of Aborigines’.6 The Actprovided the Board with the statutory power to bind Aboriginal children and neglected children ofthose with an ‘admixture of Aboriginal blood’ as apprentice domestic servants and farm labourers. Theconcept and purpose of the Children’s Training Homes constituted under the Act were developed byBoard member George Ardill.7 However, the Board’s actions were constrained to reflect the childwelfare standards of the time, provided in the Apprentices Act 1901 and the Neglected Children andJuvenile Offenders Act 1905. Parental consent or an appearance before a magistrate to establishneglect was required, and only those aged 14yrs or older could be ‘placed out’ as apprentices.
The Training Homes constituted and established under sections of the Act were fundamental to theprocess of removing Aboriginal children. Sections of the Act specified the Boards had a duty ‘toprovide for the custody, maintenance, education and training of the children of Aborigines’. The firstTraining Home to be established under the Act was the Cootamundra Girls Home, which opened in1912. However, the Board had trouble meeting the demand for ‘Aboriginal servants’, and found ‘thesupply of suitable apprentices is not equal to the demand’.8 In 1914, the Board reported:
‘The Board had a Bill drafted to amend the 'Aborigines Protection Act, 1909' with a viewto vesting sufficient powers in the Board to enable them to effectively deal with the
5 Report of Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 19106 Aborigines Protection Act 19097 Radi, R. (1979) Ardill, George Edward (1857–1945), Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol 7, Melbourne University Press,Melbourne. pp 90–928 Report of Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 1910 p.4.
Page 7
Aboriginal children by placing them in training homes and apprenticing them to suitableemployers. When the Amending Bill...has been passed by parliament, it is anticipatedthat the Board will have no difficulty in filling this Institution with girls whose parentshitherto withheld their consent to their transfer thereto, and who were unable to seethe advantage of having their children taken from surroundings which offered them nodecent prospect for their future welfare.’9
The departure from welfare standards began with the first amendment to the Act, in 1915.10 Thisallowed the Board to ‘assume full control and custody of the child of any Aborigine’ if it believed thiswas in the ‘moral or physical interest of the child’, without needing the consent of parents.11 The term‘neglected’ was removed from the Act, and the Board was able to set its own terms and conditions forapprenticeships. A common reason given for removal was ‘being Aboriginal’.12 At the time, the Boardstated the amendment ‘vests the Board with very considerable powers, and was designed with a viewto the effective administration of a policy dealing with Aboriginal children’.13 The Board appointed twoInspectors of Aborigines, which allowed it to ‘deal with the Aborigines in a uniform mannerthroughout the State’.14
The New South Wales Government was clear about the purpose of the 1915 amendment:
‘If we give the Protection Board these powers (that is, to take children from theirparents on the sole ground of their Aboriginality) the Aboriginals will soon become anegligible quantity and young people will merge into the present civilization and becomevery worthy citizens’. 15
The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (and amendments in 1915, 1936, 1940 and 1943) greatly increasedpolice powers in relation to Aboriginal people. The Board delegated its powers to managers atAboriginal stations and to police who supervised reserves not staffed by the Board.16 NSW policeplayed a fundamental role in the removal of Aboriginal children. For example, Aborigines ProtectionBoard records for the period 1916-‐1938, show 1600 children were removed under Board instructionsto the police, irrespective of the personal circumstances of each child.17
A second Training Home was established in 1918, for Aboriginal boys: the Singleton Boys Home. Thiswas later closed and residents transferred to the Kinchela Boys Home, when it was constituted underthe Act in 1924.
The Training Homes held children too young to be indentured and placed in service.18 Between them,the two Homes held an average of 100 children, with a turnover of approximately 25 children peryear.19 Institutions for Aboriginal children of pre-‐school age were not established under the Act.20
Children too young to be placed in the Training Homes were placed with homes run by religiousorganisations, such as the Bomaderry Aboriginal Children's Home run by the United AboriginesMission.21
In 1916, the NSW Department of Education developed a syllabus or ‘Course of Instruction forAboriginal Schools’. It emphasised practical work such as gardening, needlework, manual work (forboys) and laundry work (for girls). The syllabus reached the equivalent of Grade 3 in primary school.
9 Report of the Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 1914 .p.610 Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 (No.2)11 NSW State Records Authority12 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.13 Report of Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 191514 Ibid.15 Cited in NSW Government Response. Report of the National Inquiry Into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Children From Their Families, undated.16 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 Ibid.21 Ibid
Page 8
This syllabus was delivered in both Training Homes until the children were permitted to attend StatePublic Schools to school-‐leaving age in Cootamundra from 1946, and Kempsey from 1964.
In 1937, a Parliamentary Select Committee was established to investigate the administration ofAboriginal people in New South Wales. It requested the Public Service Board investigate the work ofthe Aborigines Protection Board and make recommendations for its future administration. The PublicService Board recommended ‘developing a policy of assimilation of Aboriginal people into the socialand economic life, particularly through education and training; with a view to eventually removingthem from the reserves, stations and homes’.22
This reflected the assimilation policy adopted by the Commonwealth and all State Governmentsfollowing the Commonwealth/State Conference on Native Affairs in 1937:
‘This conference believes that the destiny of the natives of Aboriginal origin, but not of thefull blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and ittherefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end.’23
By the time the assimilation policy was adopted nationally, the New South Wales government hadalready removed 2,600 Aboriginal children from the population of 7,37024 to 10,59325 who lived onAboriginal stations and reserves under the control of the Aborigines Protection Board 1909-‐1939.
In 1940, the Aborigines Protection Board was dissolved and the Aborigines Welfare Board constitutedin its place.26 The mechanisms of ‘protection’ were to be phased out, since the Aborigines WelfareBoard had the purpose of ‘assisting Aborigines to become assimilated into the general life of thecommunity’. The authority of the Aborigines Welfare Board was extended beyond Aboriginal stationsand reserves, to include all Aboriginal people in NSW.
In 1939, the Child Welfare Act was introduced to consolidate laws relating to children and youngpersons. All ‘neglected’ or ‘uncontrollable’ children were to be brought under the control of the stateas ‘wards’, to be apprenticed, boarded-‐out (fostered), placed-‐out (employed) or placed as adoptedboarders.27
While the child welfare system was moving to fostering (boarding-‐out) as a more humane method ofcaring for children, the Aborigines Welfare Board continued to use institutionalisation andapprenticeship of Aboriginal children.
From 1940, Aboriginal children charged with being ‘neglected’ or ‘uncontrollable’ were charged undersection 13 of the Aborigines Protection Act, rather than the Child Welfare Act 1939, and admitted tothe control of the Aborigines Welfare Board as a ‘ward of the Board’, rather than a ‘ward of thestate’.28 If Aboriginal children were to be placed in an institution, the institution was to be one of theBoard controlled Training Homes.29 Section 11 of the Act allowed the Board to ‘constitute andestablish under this Act homes for the reception, maintenance, education and training of wards andassign a name to such homes’.30
From 1943, Aboriginal children found to be ‘uncontrollable’ by the Children’s Court became theresponsibility of the Child Welfare Department, and were sent to State Corrective Institutions such asParramatta Girls’ Home or Mt Penang Boys' Training Home.31 Aboriginal children found to be
22 Report of the Public Service Board (1938) in NSW Parliamentary Papers 1938-‐39-‐40 Vol 723 Aboriginal welfare. Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal authorities, Canberra, 21-‐23 April 1937,Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra.24 Report of the Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 190925 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 193926 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.27 Child Welfare Act 193928 Ibid.29 Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1940 (No. 12)30 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.31 Haskins, V. & Jacobs, M., (2002) Stolen Generations and Vanishing Indians: The Removal of Indigenous Children as a Weaponof War in the United States and Australia, 1870-‐1940 in Children and War: A Historical Anthology. Marten, J. (Ed); New YorkUniversity Press. New York and London.
Page 9
‘neglected’ were committed to the Children’s Training Homes:
‘Neglected children may be committed to a Children's Home constituted under theAborigines Protection Act, for the reception, maintenance, education and training ofwards.’32
Under the Act, an Aboriginal 'ward' was defined as ‘a child who has been admitted to the control ofthe board or committed to a home constituted and established under section eleven of this Act’(emphasis added).33 As well as dealing with ‘wards of the Board’, the Board retained its authority toadmit ‘any (Aboriginal) child’ to it’s control and to ‘provide for the accommodation and maintenanceof any child admitted to its control until he is apprenticed, placed in employment, boarded out orplaced as an adopted boarder’.34 Children remained under control of the Board until they were 18yrsold.
It was an offence for any person (including parents) to enter or to try to communicate with ‘wards’placed in the Cootamundra Girls Home and Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Home, without the consent of theBoard. Those who did so could be fined twenty pounds or jailed for one month.35 Wards whoabsconded could be arrested by police and returned to the Home. Those who harboured wards who‘escaped’ from a Home could also be punished.36 From 1963, habitual absconders were made wardsof the state under the Child Welfare Act and/or sent to State Corrective Institutions such as theParramatta Girls’ Home or Mount Penang Boys' Training Home.
When children were removed and placed in the Training Homes, the Aborigines Protection Board(1909-‐1939) and the Aborigines Welfare Board (1940-‐1969) excluded parents from their children’slives. Children in the Homes were referred to as ‘inmates’ in Board reports 1909-‐1959 and manychildren were hundreds of miles from where their parents lived. Parents were unable to regain accessto their children until they turned 18yrs, or they appealed the actions of the Board under theNeglected Child and Juvenile Offenders Act 1905, the Child Welfare Acts of 1923 & 1939, or, from1946, gained an Exemption from the Aborigines Protection Act (‘dog-‐tag’).
When the children reached school leaving age (15yrs), they were indentured by the Board to work asdomestic servants or farm labourers in wealthy non-‐Aboriginal households and farms, until theyturned 18yrs.
A 1945 amendment to the Act allowed the Aborigines Welfare Board to arrange for ‘wards’ to be‘placed’ as fostered or adopted ‘boarders’. In 1954, the Board justified its continued use of Children’sTraining Homes, citing difficulties in securing a sufficient number of foster places.37 From 1956, wardsof ‘lighter caste’ were ‘placed-‐out’ (fostered) by the Board with ‘white people’.38
‘Modern thought on the question of the placement of dependent children, recognisesthat the best substitute for a child's own home, is a foster home. Institution care, at bestis a poor substitute for a normal home upbringing. With this in mind, and in view of thefact that many of the wards in the Board's care are of light caste, efforts were made latein 1955, to secure foster homes for these amongst white people. Furthermore, this wasregarded as being a positive step in implementing the Board's policy of assimilation’.39
The same year, the Board put out a circular to clarify its responsibilities and those of the Child WelfareDepartment: ‘cases of children with an admixture of Aboriginal blood who are less than half-‐castshould be referred to the Child Welfare Department’.40 From the early 1950s, the Child WelfareDepartment managed the adoption and fostering of Aboriginal children not under control of the
32 Aborigines Welfare Board Report For The Year 1954.33 Ibid34 Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 194035 Ibid.36 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 194437 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 1954.38 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 1956 p.4.39 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 195640 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.
Page 10
Board.41
Two systems of regulation and administration thus operated side by side: one for non-‐Aboriginalwards under the control of the Child Welfare Department and one for Aboriginal wards under thecontrol of the Board. Aboriginal children were removed from parents and ‘streamed’ into differentparts of the system according to perceptions of ‘caste’. ‘Lighter caste’ children and those found to be‘uncontrollable’ were streamed into the Child Welfare system. Those who ‘looked’ Aboriginal werestreamed into the Children’s Training Homes. Once in the Homes, children were ‘streamed’ again, with‘lighter caste’ children being placed-‐out with Board-‐arranged ‘white’ foster parents, and the remainderbeing employed or indentured as servants in non-‐Aboriginal households and farms, under harshconditions.
‘One day the matron called me to her office. She said it was decided by the Board thatKate and myself were to go and live with a lady in a private house. The Board thought wewere too `white' for the home. We were to be used as an experiment and if everythingworked out well, more girls would be sent later on. It wasn't long after we were back atthe Home and Matron called me to her office. I told her everything. She said theexperiment did not work and she would write to the Board for fear they would send moregirls out. It did not do any good though because more than half the girls were fosteredout over the next three years’ (Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
Those who absconded frequently entered State Corrective Institutions such as Parramatta Girls’ Homeand Mt Penang Boys' Training Home.
While the Aborigines Welfare Board acted as if was the legal guardian of Aboriginal wards, this wascalled into question by the Crown Solicitor in 1962. While section 9 of the Child Welfare Act 1939provided for the Minister to be guardian of wards ‘to the exclusion of the parent or other guardian’,there was no equivalent clause in the Aborigines Protection Act. The Crown Solicitor advised:
‘It is not specifically enacted in the Aborigines Protection Act that upon a child becominga ward of the Board the rights, powers and duties of the natural guardians of the childare suspended or annulled. It seems to me that the powers and authorities conferred bythe Act upon the Board do not constitute it as a guardian of a ward (emphasis added).’42
Aboriginal children in NSW continued to be removed, trained and 'apprenticed' in this way until themachinery of forcible removal was dismantled with the Aborigines Act 1969.43 This included the repealof the Aborigines Protection Act, the abolition of the Aborigines Welfare Board and the closure of theTraining Homes constituted under the Act.
The Aborigines Act 1969 had the effect of moving Aboriginal children into the same welfare system asnon-‐Aboriginal children, for the first time. This followed the national referendum in 1967 thattransferred responsibility for legislation relating to Aboriginal people to the CommonwealthGovernment and authorized their inclusion in the Australian census.
41 Ibid.42 Ibid. p.8843 Aborigines Act 1969
Page 11
Appendix III provides the titles of legislations that supported the forcible removal of Aboriginalchildren to be ‘received, maintained and trained’ in Children’s Training Homes under the AboriginesProtection Act 1909-‐1969, and the titles of relevant legislations that applied to non-‐Aboriginal childrenduring the same period – the ‘standards of the time’. This allows the two systems to be compared.
Note: The definition of ‘Aboriginal’ was determined by sections of the Act. Over time, both Boardsprogressively removed children who did not ‘look’ Aboriginal’44 from the populations it controlled, andfrom Board-‐controlled Children’s Training Homes. First, those aged 14yrs or older with a ‘trace ofAboriginal blood’45 were ejected from reserves and stations between 1909 and 1939; then, between1940 and 1969, ‘lighter caste’ children were diverted into the Child Welfare system to be fostered andadopted by non-‐Aboriginal parents; and finally, from 1956, ‘lighter caste’ children in the Children’sTraining Homes were sent to Board-‐arranged foster homes with ‘white’ families.
For example, between 1939 and 1969, 3,325 children were removed from Aboriginal parents in NewSouth Wales.46 While 825 children were placed in the Children’s Training Homes, 30047 were placed inBoard-‐arranged foster homes with ‘white’ families.
During the same period, 80048 ‘lighter caste’ children were diverted into the Child Welfare system tobe fostered or adopted by non-‐Aboriginal parents. It is likely the children diverted to the Child Welfare
44 Report of Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 191545 Report of Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 191046 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.47 Ibid.
Page 12
System grew up not knowing about their Aboriginal heritage, since the Child Welfare Department didnot record whether a child was Aboriginal or not, until 1973.49 These children represent a populationof Stolen Generations that exist outside of the Children’s Training Homes in New South Wales. Theirexperiences are likely to differ from those in the Training Homes and to require measures of reparationthat differ to those from the Training Homes.
Systematic racial discrimination in the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls1912-‐1969
For 22 years, from 1945 until 1967, the Cootamundra Girls Home was administered by Matron EllaHiscocks. This delivered a high level of uniformity and continuity in the treatment of children in theHome.
The Cootamundra Domestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls was a harsh place run along rigidlines. The girls slept in two dormitories separated by age, each holding up to 25 children. Their dailylives revolved around a strict routine, governed by a bell. The children were always managed as agroup, not as individuals and racial discrimination was directed collectively. They were poorlydressed and were often cold and hungry. The children did all the cleaning, laundry and gardeningwork in the Home and were taught to cook, sew, wash and iron.
The children did not feel loved or nurtured, and were not encouraged to succeed. They were choked,pushed, shoved, grabbed, slapped, had things thrown at them and were hit with a cane and otherhard objects such as a broom. They witnessed violence to others.
Formal punishments included being caned and being forced to scrub a concrete floor with atoothbrush. One of the most feared punishments was being locked in small dark rooms. A formerhospital, the Home had an old morgue which was used as a store-‐room and punishment room. Partof the verandah had been enclosed and was used as a box room and punishment room. Severalsurvivors of the Coota Girls Home referred to this practice in evidence given to the National Inquiry:
‘They were very cruel to us, very cruel. I remember once, I must have been 8 or 9, and Iwas locked in the old morgue. I screamed all night, but no one came to get me.’
‘Some of the staff were cruel to the girls. Punishment was caning or belting and beinglocked in the box-‐room or the old morgue.’
‘We've all been through the locking up period, locked in dark rooms.’
The National Inquiry found institutionalised Aboriginal children faced a hazard over and above thatexperienced by institutionalised non-‐Indigenous children:
‘This was the continual denigration of their own Aboriginality and that of their families. Theassimilation policy seemed to demand that the children reject their families. The tactics usedto ensure this ranged from continual denigration of Aboriginal people and values to liesabout the attitudes of families to the children themselves’. (HREOC, 1997).
Once isolated in the Cootamundra Girls Home, the children were subjected to a prolonged, collectiveand systematic process to remove their Aboriginal identity. Thus included a number of inter-‐relatedactions that were directed to all children in the Home. All children were systematicallydisconnected/cut off from:
i) Their cultural heritage: children were not permitted to know anything about their Aboriginalheritage and were punished for speaking in language.
ii) Their families: children were not permitted to know anything about their families. Some hadtheir names and dates of birth changed to prevent families from locating them. Childrenwho were related to each other (eg cousins) were not informed of this.
iii) Their parents: parents and parents’ culture were denigrated. Children were told they wereunwanted and had been rejected, or that their parents were dead.
48 Read, P. (2006) 2nd Ed. The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883-‐1969. NSWDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs: Sydney.49 Ibid.
Page 13
iv) Aboriginal people: children were taught to fear and avoid Aboriginal people.
This broke cultural connections, family links and relationships to country, with life-‐long consequences.Many survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have independently provided testimonies thatdescribed the daily denigration of their parents, and being taught to fear and avoid Aboriginal people:
`Your family don't care about you any more, they wouldn't have given you away. Theydon't love you. All they are, are just dirty, drunken blacks.' You heard this daily ... ‘(Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
‘I was there for 16 years and I was brainwashed every day of the week. You never gonear Blacks. Your people don't want you anyway. They're just dirty. They don't wantanything to do with you’ (Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
I don't know when I ever stopped being frightened of Aboriginal people. I don't knowwhen I even realised I was Aboriginal. It's been a long hard fight for me’. (Evidence toNational Inquiry, 1997).
‘They have gone through institutions that have taught them to fear Aborigines, to bescared of Aborigines, that Aboriginal people will kill them’ (Evidence to Legal andConstitutional References Committee, 2000).
‘But you see, you had that indoctrination that made it very hard to accept, or to go backto family, because we were taught fear of the Aboriginal race’ (Evidence to Legal andConstitutional References Committee, 2000).
In parallel, a program of enforced ‘assimilation’ was implemented where children were required toadopt a ‘white’ identity and ‘white’ values. The children were instructed to ‘think white, look white,act white’ and were punished if they did not. Many survivors of the Coota Girls Home haveindependently provided evidence about this.
‘We were taught to think and act like a white person, but we didn’t know how to thinkand act like an Aboriginal. We didn’t know anything about our culture. We werecompletely brainwashed to think only like a white person’ (Evidence to National Inquiry,1997).
‘All Aboriginal identity was wiped off. Being young and brainwashed thinking you’rewhite when you’re black, it’s a very hard thing to face. It’s very hard at our age now toassociate with our own people’ (Media interview, 2013).
Many survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home refer to this process of enforced assimilation as‘brainwashing’. The capacity to deliver systematic racial discrimination within the walls of theCootamundra Girls Home was enhanced by enforced isolation from parents and the Indigenous andnon-‐Indigenous communities. The group-‐based management of ‘inmates’ according to a stricttimetable or schedule ensured a commonality and intensity of experience unlikely to be matchedoutside the NSW Children’s Training Homes.
The programs to remove Aboriginal identity and enforced ‘assimilation’ of ‘white’ values, deeplyaffected survivors when they left the Cootamundra Girls Home:
‘We were completely brainwashed to think only like a white person. When they went tomix in white society, they found they were not accepted [because] they were Aboriginal.When they went and mixed with Aborigines, some found they couldn't identify with themeither, because they had too much white ways in them. So that they were neither blacknor white. They were simply a lost generation of children. I know. I was one of them’(Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
‘Most of us girls were thinking white in the head but were feeling black inside. Weweren't black or white. We were a very lonely, lost and sad displaced group of people.We were taught to think and act like a white person, but we didn't know how to thinkand act like an Aboriginal. We didn't know anything about our culture’ (Evidence toNational Inquiry, 1997).
Page 14
Given that children in the Cootamundra Girls Home ‘looked’ Aboriginal, this represented a distinctiveform of abuse. The long-‐term psychological consequences of this form of emotional abuse has yet tobe examined or understood by anyone other than those who experienced it.
The systematic program of enforced ‘assimilation’ resulted in the isolation of many survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home when they were discharged from control of the Boards aged 18yrs. This wasinfluenced by the age of removal and the length of time in the Home. Some left the Home believingtheir parents had rejected them and they would not be welcome if they returned. Others did not havethe information they required to return home. While children were in the Home, the AboriginalProtection/Welfare Boards had been active throughout NSW, closing reserves and stations and re-‐locating individuals, families and communities.
‘But a lot of girls didn't know where home was because their parents were moved andresettled miles away from their traditional homelands. They didn't know where theirpeople were and it took them a long time to find them. Some of them are still searchingdown to this present day’ (Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
When forcible removal of Aboriginal children was exposed in the 1980’s, many parents and otherfamily members had passed away, and family reunions were grave-‐side ones. As a result, manysurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have not re-‐established their connections to family andcommunity.
Systematic racial discrimination while apprenticed by the Boards
The Cootamundra Girls Home continued to train girls for domestic service long after the practice hadbeen abandoned for non-‐Aboriginal girls.50 Aboriginal children under sixteen years of age could be‘committed’ to the ‘care of any person’ to the ‘control of the Board’ or to a Home constituted underthe Act. The purpose of the Welfare Board was to assist ‘Aborigines in obtaining employment and ofmaintaining or assisting to maintain them whilst so employed, or otherwise for the purpose ofassisting Aborigines to become assimilated into the general life of the community’. If they ran away,they could be arrested and returned by police.51 Once sufficiently ‘trained’, the children wereemployed or indentured as apprenticed domestic servants with non-‐Indigenous households and farms,without systems in place to protect them from harm.
Under the Act, the Board was able to vary the ‘form and contents of agreements, appointments,apprenticeship articles, and other instruments and documents, the minimum rates of wages of wardsso apprenticed or placed in employment, and the liabilities of persons in respect of the welfare ofwards apprenticed to or placed in their care’, from the standards of the day.5253 Wages were paid tothe Board, to be paid to the ward when they reached 21yrs. Many experienced harsh workingconditions, a range of abuses, and non-‐payment of pocket money (sixpence a week) owed byemployers. The Board(s) did little to supervise the children’s employment, despite being party toapprenticeship contracts and explicit legal obligations under the Act to do so.
The children were placed in a variety of settings, for example the NSW register of ‘wards’ 1916-‐1928contained records for 570 girls working for over 1200 employers in city and country areas.54 Workusually consisted of scrubbing, cleaning, washing and looking after children. The Board(s) did little tosupervise the employment of the children.55 Many experienced harsh, demeaning and abusive workingconditions. Abuses included financial (‘pocket money’ not paid, wages paid to Board), physical (assault,unreasonable work hours and work loads), emotional/psychological (racial and cultural denigration)and sexual (sexual assault).
‘When the girls left the home, they were sent out to service to work in the homes and
50 Parry, N. Such a longing': black and white children in welfare in New South Wales and Tasmania, 1880-‐1940. University ofNew South Wales.51 Aborigines Protection (Amendment Act) 1940.52 Ibid.53 Aborigines Welfare Board. Report for the Year 1940.54 Walden, I. (1995) 'That Was Slavery Days’: Aboriginal Domestic Servants in NSW in the Twentieth Century’, Labour History,No. 69, p.20955 Indigenous Law Centre (2006) Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry Into Stolen Wages. Facultyof Law, University of New South Wales: Sydney.
Page 15
outlying farms of middle class white people as domestics ... On top of that you were luckynot to be sexually, physically and mentally abused, and all for a lousy sixpence that youdidn't get to see anyway. Also, when the girls fell pregnant, their babies were taken fromthem and adopted out to white families, they never saw them again.’ (Autobiography,1977).
‘The men, you know, molested them, and all that where they were working, and they hadto come back into Cootamundra Girls Home like, because they were molested, some ofthem was pregnant, you know. And having a baby. And they were twelve, thirteen yearsold.’ (Evidence to National Inquiry, 1997).
When aged 21yrs, they were unable to access the wages that had been paid to the Boards. Thisresulted in poverty when ‘discharged’ from Board control aged 18yrs, and contributed to what becameentrenched trans-‐generational disadvantage.56
Summary of systematic racial discrimination under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
A systematic race-‐based system was established under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969, to:forcibly remove Aboriginal children from their families to be trained; disconnect them from theirparents, families, communities and cultures; remove their Aboriginal identity; implement a programof enforced assimilation; and employ or indenture them as servants in non-‐Aboriginal householdsand farms, under harsh conditions, with wages paid to the Boards. This system operated in parallelto the NSW Child Welfare system, until it was dismantled in 1969.
The practices of the Boards did not differ during the sixty years the Act was in place. Aboriginalchildren were forcibly removed from their families and placed in the two Children’s Training Homesconstituted under the Act to ‘receive, maintain and train’ Aboriginal children. Children were forciblyremoved, and parents were prevented from protecting or maintaining contact with their children. Thepractice of training and indenturing Aboriginal children continued long after these methods had beenabandoned by the Child Welfare system.
Two systems of regulation and administration thus operated side by side: one for non-‐Indigenouswards under the control of the Child Welfare Department and one for Aboriginal wards under thecontrol of the Board. Aboriginal children were removed from parents and ‘streamed’ into differentparts of the system according to perceptions of ‘caste’. Those who ‘looked’ Aboriginal were streamedinto the Children’s Training Homes to be employed or indentured as servants in non-‐Aboriginalhouseholds and farms.
The child-‐removal system established under the Aborigines Protection Act consisted of: the AboriginesProtection Board 1909-‐1939; the Aborigines Welfare Board 1940-‐1969; and the Children’s TrainingHomes constituted under the Act, the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls1912-‐1969, and the Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Home 1924-‐1969. The systematic racial discriminationdelivered through this system was documented in the Act and its amendments, and progressarticulated and enumerated in annual reports published by the Boards.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969 experiencedsystematic racial discrimination and ‘gross violations of human rights’ under the Aborigines ProtectionAct 1909-‐1969, in the Children’s Training Home constituted under the Act, and when indentured asapprentices. As such they possess a set of rights provided under international law. These rights arearticulated in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 2005.Reparations can be made collectively and include: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (BTH Recommendations 3 and 4).
56 Indigenous Law Centre (2006) Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry Into Stolen Wages. Facultyof Law, University of New South Wales: Sydney.
Page 16
2. The End of Forcible Removal Under The Act
In 1966, a NSW Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assemblythat examined Aboriginal welfare, resulting in the Aborigines Act 1969.
The Aborigines Act 1969 dismantled the structure that underpinned forcible removal of Aboriginalchildren in NSW: the Aborigines Protection Act, the Aborigines Welfare Board and the Children’sHomes constituted under the Act.
Aboriginal children who had been under the care of the Aborigines Welfare Board were made wards ofthe State. All wards of the Board became Wards under the Minister for Child Welfare; boarded-‐outwards became foster children under the Child Welfare Act; wards placed with employers came underthe Child Welfare Act.57
The Aborigines Welfare Board trust accounts were closed down in 1969 and the funds transferred tothe Department of Youth and Community Services.
The Aborigines Act allowed the minister administering the Child Welfare Act 1939 to close Homesconstituted for the reception, maintenance, education and training of Aboriginal wards, if otherarrangements could be made for their care.
The Cootamundra Girls Home was closed in 1969.
Bimbadeen Girls Home was established in 1969 by the Department of Child Welfare in the buildingsused by the Cootamundra Girls Home. It housed Aboriginal and non-‐Aboriginal girls.
Bimbadeen Girls Home closed in 1974.
The 35-‐acre property was sold to Young Local Aboriginal Land Council which leased the property (99year lease), to the Aboriginal Evangelical Fellowship as a Christian training centre called BimbadeenCollege.
The Home was listed on the NSW Heritage Register in 2012.
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is the successor agency to the Aborigines Welfare Board andretains the right to set the access conditions for records associated child removals under the Act.
57 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.
Page 17
3. Number of Children Forcibly Removed Under The Act 1909-‐1969 (StolenGenerations)
1909-‐1915: An estimated 300 Aboriginal girls aged 14 – 21yrs were removed by the AboriginesProtection Board and trained and indentured as domestic servants in wealthy Sydney homes.
Note: Forcibly removed children would now be aged 100yrs or older.
1916-‐1938: The Aborigines Protection Board records show 2,30058 Aboriginal children were removed,trained in the Cootamundra Girls Home59 and Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Home and employed orapprenticed as domestic servants and farm labourers. Each Home accommodated an average of 50children. Children in the Homes were aged between 5 and 15yrs.
Note: Forcibly removed children would now be aged 77yrs or older.
Families and communities affected: Between 1909 and 1939, children were removed from thepopulation of 7,37060 to 10,59361 people who lived on Aboriginal stations and reserves under control ofthe Aborigines Protection Board.
To 1936, 80% of the children removed were female.62
1939-‐1969: The Aborigines Welfare Board records show 825 children aged between 5 and 15yrs wereremoved and placed in the Cootamundra Girls Home and Kinchela Boys Home to be trained andapprenticed as domestic servants and farm labourers. Between them, the two Homes held an averageof 100 children, with an average turnover of 25 children per annum.
Note: Forcibly removed children would now be aged 46 to 76yrs.
Families and communities affected: Between 1940 and 1969 children were removed from thepopulation of 15,440 Aboriginal people who lived outside of Sydney (including 6,000 on reserves).63
4. National Population of Stolen Generations
Analysis of national data from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey(NATSISS) conducted in 2008, revealed an estimated 10,500 people aged 45yrs or older – age groupswhen Stolen Generation policies were in place -‐ reported they were removed from their naturalfamilies by governments or welfare.64
An estimated 2,500 of these were located in NSW. This represented 11.3% or approx 1 in 10 of thoseaged 55yrs or older in NSW, and 6.2% of those aged between 45 and 54yrs in NSW, at the time of thesurvey.
Table: Report being removed from natural family by government or welfare
Age group Age group45-‐54yrs 55yrs & olderState
Number Proportion Number Proportion
Total aged45yrs andolder
WA 1,300 20.7% 1,500 26.8% 2,800NSW 900 6.2% 1,600 11.3% 2,500QLD 900 7.4% 1,400 12.1% 2,300VIC 600 18.7% 600 17.5% 1,200
58 Read, P. (2006) 2nd Ed. The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883-‐1969. NSWDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs: Sydney.59 While it is estimated there are between 500 to 1,000 survivors of the Home, no tracing has ever been done to estimate orlocate the population of survivors.60 Report of the Aborigines Protection Board for the Year 190961 Report of the Aborigines Welfare Board for the Year 193962 Goodall, H. (1996) Invasion to Embassy: Land in Aboriginal Politics in New South Wales, 1770–1972, Allen & Unwin, Sydneyp.4463 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs (1998) Securing The Truth. NSW Government Submission to the HREOC Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAA Sydney.64 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2008. Cat. No. 4714.0. ABS:Canberra.
Page 18
SA 500 20.4% 400 15.9% 900NT 300 6.1% 500 10.5% 800Total 4,500 6,000 10,500
Source: ABS (2010) NATSISS, 2008: State Tables. Canberra: ABS
Eight years have passed since the NATSISS was conducted, and most (1,600 or 64%) of those whoreported being forcibly removed in NSW would now be aged 63yrs or older. The 900 (36%) who wereaged 45-‐54yrs in 2008 would now be aged between 53yrs and 62yrs.
Population health outcomes for the Stolen Generations
Since 1994, respondents to national Aboriginal health surveys have been asked whether they wereremoved from their natural family by government or welfare. Responses are seen as an approximateway to identify members of the Stolen Generations: those aged 40yrs or older were seen to haveexperienced ‘forcible removal’ when discriminatory Stolen Generation policies were in place (before1972). Younger age group are seen to have experienced ‘contemporary removal’ under child welfarelegislations, with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle in place.
Analysis of the data from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey show StolenGenerations have been disproportionately affected by the social determinants health (and ill-‐health),when compared to children who were raised in Aboriginal families and communities.
Polices of forcible removal resulted in:
• Lower educational and employment outcomes: the majority (63%) did not receive aneducation beyond Year 9, compared to 50% of those not removed.
• Less participation in the labour force: 55% not participating, compared to 43% of those whowere not removed.
• Higher unemployment: the unemployment rate among the Stolen Generations is twice that ofthose who were not removed (14% compared to 7%).
• A lower proportion of wage earners: 39% are employed, compared to 52.7% of those whowere not removed.
• Poorer health: a larger proportion (77%) report a disability or long-‐term health condition(compared to 66%), and are more likely to report their health is fair or poor (46%), comparedto those who were not removed (36%).
Researcher, Dockery has coined the term ‘the Stolen Generations effect’ to describe the negativesocioeconomic outcomes in relation to health, education and employment evident in the 2002 and2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Surveys.65
Those who had been forcibly removed were more likely to engage in health-‐risk behaviours:
• Higher rates of smoking: almost half (49%) smoked cigarettes, compared to 40% of those notremoved.
• Higher rates of use of illicit substances: 22% reported use of illicit substances, compared to13% of those not removed.
• Despite consuming alcohol at rates similar to those who were not removed, a higherproportion (13.6%) reported they or their family and/or friends were affected by alcohol-‐related problems, compared to those who were not removed (6%).
In addition, members of the Stolen Generations were more likely to:
• Experience discrimination: twice as likely to have experienced discrimination (13%), comparedwith those who were not removed (5%).
• Come into contact with the criminal justice system: almost half (49%) reported being chargedby police, compared with 32% of those who were not removed.
• Be incarcerated: a quarter (25%) reported they had been incarcerated at some point in theirlives, compared with 10% of those who were not removed.66
65 Dockery, A. (2009), ‘Culture and Wellbeing: The Case of Indigenous Australians’, Discussion Paper 09/1, Centre for LabourMarket Research.
Page 19
Childhood adversities and trauma such at those experienced in the NSW Children’s Training Homeshave been shown to have life-‐long effects. A decade-‐long study examining specific types of adversityin the first 17 years of life, termed Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) demonstrated those whohad experienced four or more categories of adverse childhood events had a significantly higher riskof adult onset of chronic disease, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, anddiabetes; a four to twelve-‐fold increase in risk for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicideattempt; and a two to four-‐fold increase in smoking.67 68
Many of the problems identified in these studies tend to more common among members of theStolen Generations, compared to children raised in Aboriginal families and communities.
Thus, Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their families and raised in non-‐Indigenoussettings did not end up healthier, better educated or more likely to get jobs than those who wereraised in Aboriginal communities. Rather, forcible removal led to a cycle of poverty, ill-‐health,discrimination and incarceration.
As a result, the Stolen Generations are one of the most disadvantaged groups within the broaderAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.
‘Most people who are from the stolen generation, because of loss of opportunity to havejobs and loss of opportunity to have an education, have lived in a state of extremepoverty, their children have lived in extreme poverty’ (Evidence to Senate Legal andConstitutional References Committee, 2000).
The entrenched disadvantage experienced by members of the Stolen Generations has leftdescendants vulnerable to contemporary removal (BTH recommendation 40 social justice).
5. Trans-‐generational Effects of Forcible Removal
The Bringing Them Home Report highlighted a number of intergenerational effects of forcible removal,and found that 'the overwhelming evidence is that the impact does not stop with the childrenremoved. It is inherited by their own children in complex and sometimes heightened ways'69.
In 2008, almost one-‐third (30%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people aged 15-‐24yrsreported they had relatives who had been removed from their families. Grandparents and great-‐grandparents were the relatives most frequently reported as being removed (14%), followed by auntsand/or uncles (9%) and parents (7%).70 It is likely these are the descendants of the Stolen Generations.
Young people in families where older relatives had been removed were more likely than those whohad not, to identify with a language group (63% compared with 46%) and recognise their traditionalcountry (74% compared with 56%).71
Despite this, they were more likely than their peers, to report:
• Being discriminated against (39% compared with 19%)• Experiencing psychological distress (36% compared with 26%)• Being arrested in the last five years (23% compared with 14%)• Using illicit substances (30% compared with 22%).
Young people who reported relatives had been removed reported higher levels of discrimination,psychological distress, use of illicit substances and incarceration than peers from families unaffectedby forcible removal. The proportions of descendants reporting discrimination and use of illicit
66 Ibid.67 Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., Koss, M., & Marks, J. (1998). Relationship ofchildhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse ChildhoodExperiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 14 (4): 245–58.68 Burke, N., Hellman, J., Scott, B,. Weems, C. & Carrion, V. (2011). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urbanpediatric population. Child Abuse & Neglect.69 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney.70 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2008. Cat. No. 4714.0. ABS:Canberra.71 Ibid.
Page 20
substances (39% and 30%), were higher than those reported among the Stolen Generationsthemselves (22% and 13%).
The Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey (WAACHS) conducted in 2001-‐2002 toexamine the effect of removal on descendants, found children cared for by primary carers who hadbeen forcibly removed from their natural family were more than twice as likely to be assessed asbeing at ‘high risk of clinically significant emotional or behavioural difficulties’ (such as conductdisorder, ADHD and emotional problems), compared to those with primary carers who had not beenremoved. However, it was found these effects did not extend beyond two generations.72
6. The Bringing Them Home Recommendations
The National Inquiry Into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children From TheirFamilies (the National Inquiry) stated:
‘Principles for responding to the effects of forcible removals must be developed from anunderstanding of Australian history as having included gross violations of human rights. That,for the purposes of responding to the effects of forcible removals, `compensation' be widelydefined to mean `reparation'; that reparation be made in recognition of the history of grossviolations of human rights; and that the van Boven principles guide the reparationmeasures’.73
The term ‘gross violations of human rights’ has specific meanings in international law. By adopting thisapproach, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission placed forcible removal of Aboriginalchildren within an international human rights framework.
‘Gross violations of human rights’ constitute crimes under international law, and entail legalconsequences. A State may be subject to international censure if it fails to implement treaties orconventions it has ratified, or acts in a manner that is inconsistent with its international obligations.
Those who experience ‘gross violations of human rights’ are automatically awarded an additional right,the right to reparation. ‘Reparation’ has the aim of repairing the damage by relieving suffering andachieving justice and may include: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction andguarantees of non-‐repetition.
The van Boven Principles
In 2005, the United Nations adopted the ‘van Boven Principles’ to guide international practiceregarding reparations for gross violations of human rights. This represented 15 years of work byindependent experts, Theo van Boven Special Rapporteur and Cherif Bassioni to synthesise relevantexisting human rights conventions.
The van Boven Principles were in draft form when the Human Rights and Equal OpportunityCommission used them to frame the program of reparations developed to address forcible removal ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The final version was adopted by the United Nations in2005.
The full title of what are now referred to as the ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines’ is: Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of InternationalHuman Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines have adopted a ‘victim oriented’ perspective.74 As a result, theyappear to fit comfortably with survivors’ intuitive understanding of what needs to happen for healingto occur following human rights violations.
72 Silburn, S., Zubrick, S., Lawrence, D., Mitrou, F., De Maio, J., Blair, E., Cox, A., Dalby, R., Griffin, J., Pearson, G. & Hayward, C.(2006) The intergenerational effects of forced separation on the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal children andyoung people. Family Matters No 75. Australian Institute of Family Studies.73 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney.74 Preamble, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Gross Violation of InternationalHuman Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16thDecember 2005.
Page 21
While all violations of human rights have a right to reparation, the UN Basic Principles and Guidelinesfocus on the worst or most serious violations of international humanitarian law.75
In situations characterized by systematic and gross human rights abuses, large numbers of humanbeings are usually affected. The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines define victims as ‘persons whoindividually or collectively suffered harm’ and allows for reparations to be made collectively.
It is recognized victims/survivors of ‘gross violations of human rights’ often suffer physical andpsychological effects, long after the events. van Boven’s description of the type of trauma/sufferinggenerated by ‘gross violations of human rights’, was included in the Bringing Them Home report:
‘It is well-‐established that for many victims of gross violations of human rights, the passageof time has no attenuating effect; on the contrary, there is an increase in post-‐traumaticstress, requiring all necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance andsupport over a long period of time.’76
Victims of gross violations of international human rights law therefore have a right to be providedwith full and effective reparations, as laid out in UN Basic Principles and Guidelines, principles 19 to23, which include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction andguarantees of non-‐repetition.
A copy of the Basic Principles and Guidelines is provided at Appendix II.
Basis for adopting the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines to provide reparation to the StolenGenerations
Australia had ratified several international human rights instruments during the period considered bythe National Inquiry: 1910-‐1972.
These included the:
• United Nations Charter of Human Rights (1945)• United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1949)• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
Chapter 13 of the Bringing Them Home report examined whether these human rights conventions hadbeen breached during the period 1910-‐1972, giving rise to ‘gross violations of human rights’ and theneed to provide ‘reparations’. It found forcible removal of Aboriginal children breached the followinginternational human rights instruments:
Laws that enabled the removal of Aboriginal children by compulsion, duress or undue influencedenied common law rights which Aboriginal people should have enjoyed equally with otherAustralians, under the Universal declaration of Human Rights ratified by Australia in 1948.
Maintaining a system of separate and discriminatory laws for Aboriginal children was in breachof the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratifiedby Australia in 1965.
Laws and practices that supported the forcible removal of Aboriginal children to be raised innon-‐Indigenous settings was in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime of Genocide ratified by Australia in 1949. The Convention identifies ‘forciblytransferring children of the group to another group’ as one of five acts of genocide.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that, although there is nouniform definition of gross human rights violations in international law, the following practices ‘wouldgenerally be included: genocide, slavery and slavery-‐like practices, summary or arbitrary executions,
75 van Boven T. (2010) The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation For Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.76 van Boven, T. (1993) Study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violationsof human rights and fundamental freedoms. Commission On Human Rights Sub Commission on Prevention of Discriminationand Protection of Minorities. United Nations: Geneva. Para 135.
Page 22
torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary and prolonged detention, and systematic discrimination’.77
The National Inquiry found ‘States breach their obligations when they fail to prevent human rightsviolations by others, as well as when human rights are violated by state action. In either event, victimshave a right to reparation.’78
The Commonwealth Government rejected the National Inquiry findings regarding the Convention onthe Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, maintaining the ‘intent’ of removingAboriginal children was benign. 79 80
The National Inquiry found removal of Aboriginal children was also in breach of international humanrights obligations to prevent systematic racial discrimination. William Jonas, Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, drew attention to systematic racial discrimination asgrounds for gross violations of human rights in 2001:
‘In Bringing them home, HREOC had found that forcible removal policies amounted togross violations of human rights -‐ on the grounds that it amounted to genocide andsystematic racial discrimination. This second ground is quite vital -‐ for while there hasbeen much controversy about the genocide finding the government has simply ignoredthe finding of systematic racial discrimination of such a scale that it constitutes a grossviolation of human rights (emphasis added).’81
The National Inquiry found that from about 1950 onwards, the continuation of separate welfare lawsfor Indigenous children was in breach of the international legal prohibition of racial discrimination.
The International Law Commission has stated to be regarded as systematic, a violation would have tobe carried out in an organized and deliberate way.82
Gross violations of human rights under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
The removal of children under the Aborigines Protection Act was carried out in a systematic,comprehensive, organized and deliberate way for a period of sixty years. The Act constituted theBoards, identified and constrained the populations from which children were to be removed, definedthe children to be removed, constituted the Training Homes to receive, maintain and train removedchildren, and provided authority to vary child welfare and apprenticeship conditions for Aboriginalchildren. The Aboriginal-‐specific system operated in parallel to the Child Welfare system 1909-‐1969.Activities that constituted systematic racial discrimination were described in the legislation and inannual reports from the Boards to Ministers of the NSW Government.
Once isolated in the Children’s Training Homes constituted under the Act, Aboriginal children weresubjected to systematic racial discrimination to remove their Aboriginal identity. Children in theCootamundra Girls Home were subjected to a systematic process of enforced assimilation to ‘thinkwhite, look white, act white’. From 1940, the systematic programs to remove Aboriginal identity andenforce assimilation were implemented by NSW public servants (Aborigines Welfare Board staff wereemployed under public service conditions). When apprenticed by the Boards, work conditions wereharsher, children were not protected from harm, and their wages were paid to Board trust accounts.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have therefore suffered gross violations of their humanrights as a result of programs of systematic racial discrimination implemented by the NSWGovernment under the NSW Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969.
77 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012) The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: AnInterpretative Guide”, UN doc. HR/PUB/12/02, p. 6.78 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney.79 Hall, A. (2008) Stolen Generations Revisited: Is individual compensation justified? Civil Liberties Australia.80 Herron, J. (2000) Federal Government Submission: Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into theStolen Generation, Canberra.81 Jonas (2001) Moving forward -‐ from 'practical reconciliation' to social justice. Speech by Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderSocial Justice Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Moving Forward: Achieving reparations for thestolen generations conference. University of New South Wales.82 International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, withCommentaries. Commentary to Article 40, p. 113
Page 23
Right to reparation for human rights violations under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
It is a fundamental principle of international law that every violation of an international obligationwhich results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation.83
Reparation is a principle of law that has existed for centuries, referring to the obligation of awrongdoing party to redress the damage caused to the injured party.
Victims of crimes under international humanitarian law are defined as:
‘Victims are persons who individually or collectively suffered harm, includingphysical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantialimpairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions thatconstitute gross violations of international human rights law (Principle 8).’ 84
Victims possess a set of rights provided under international law. These rights are articulated in theBasic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of GrossViolations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International HumanitarianLaw, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 2005.
Under international law, 'reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of theillegal act and re-‐establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had notbeen committed.' (Principle 19) 85
The right to reparation is a victim-‐oriented right involving a duty on the part of the State to providereparation and the possibility for victims to seek redress from the perpetrator.86
States are obliged to provide those who experience gross violations of their human rights with‘adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparations’ (Principle 2).
Those who experience gross violations of their human rights have a right to receive ‘full and effective’reparations for harm suffered (Principle 18), which include the following forms: restitution,compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principles 19 to 23).
These are listed below.
UN Basic Principles and Guidelines Principles 19-‐23: full and effective reparations for harm suffered
Principle 8: Claimants.Victims are those who individually or collectively suffered harm, includingphysical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantialimpairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions thatconstitute gross violations of international human rights law.
Principle 18: Components of reparation.Full and effective reparations for victims of gross violations of human rights aslaid out in principles 19 to 23, which include the following forms: restitution,compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition.
Principle 19: Restitution.Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situationbefore the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violationsof international humanitarian law occurred.
Principle 20: Compensation.Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage.
Principle 21: Rehabilitation.
83 Buti, A. (1996) International Law Obligations to Provide Reparations for Human Rights Abuses, Murdoch University ElectronicJournal of Law 1999-‐6.84 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Gross Violation of International HumanRights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.85 International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, withCommentaries.86 van Boven, T. (2013) Victim-‐Oriented Perspectives: Rights and Realities. In T. Bonacker and C. Safferling (eds.), Victims ofInternational Crimes: An Interdisciplinary Discourse. Asser: The Hague.
Page 24
Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal andsocial services.
Principle 22: Satisfaction.Satisfaction refers to a range of measures, depending on the situation. Includesa public apology, and commemorations and tributes to victims.
Principle 23: Guarantees of non-‐repetition.Guarantees of non-‐-‐repetition include a range of measures, which contribute toprevention.
Principle 13: Allows groups of victims to present claims for reparation and to receivereparation, as appropriate.
The full text of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines are provided in Appendix II.
In part 4 of the Bringing Them Home report (chapter 14 titled Reparations), the Human Rights andEqual Opportunity Commission drew upon testimonials and evidence provided during the NationalInquiry (including from survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home) and applied the UN Basic Principlesand Guidelines to develop a set of recommendations to deliver a program of reparations forAboriginal children who were forcibly removed (ie members of the Stolen Generations).
Recommendation 3. That, for the purposes of responding to the effects of forcible removals,`compensation' be widely defined to mean `reparation'; that reparation be made in recognition of thehistory of gross violations of human rights; and that the van Boven principles guide the reparationmeasures. Reparation should consist of:
1. Acknowledgment and apology2. Guarantees against repetition3. Measures of restitution4. Measures of rehabilitation5. Monetary compensation.
Recommendation 4. That reparation be made to all who suffered because of forcible removal policiesincluding:
1. Individuals who were forcibly removed as children2. Family members who suffered as a result of their removal3. Communities which, as a result of the forcible removal of children, suffered cultural and
community disintegration4. Descendants of those forcibly removed who, as a result, have been deprived ofcommunity ties, culture and language, and links with and entitlements to their traditionalland.
‘Full and effective’ reparations include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principles 19 to 23).
Four of the five types of reparations for children who were forcibly removed were provided in BTHrecommendations 3 to 20.
BTH recommendations 3 to 20 include: Principle 19 restitution; Principle 20 compensation, Principle22 satisfaction, and Principle 23 guarantees of non-‐repetition.
The fifth type of reparation – Principle 21 rehabilitation – concerned services to be provided tochildren who had been forcibly removed to address the ‘physical or mental injury, emotional suffering,economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights’ they suffered as a result of beingforcibly removed.
When discussing rehabilitation services, the Bringing Them Home report suggested these should beprovided to members of the Stolen Generations, along similar lines to the specialised multi-‐disciplinaryrehabilitation care currently provided to torture survivors. Rehabilitation would be based on researchthat identified the range and extent of harms caused by forcible removal (BTH recommendation 32)with services being delivered within an Indigenous wellbeing model (BTH recommendations 33a, 33b,33c), through Healing Centres, where a broad range of clinical and non-‐clinical services would beprovided to address issues such as cultural restitution, trauma, substance abuse, parenting support
Page 25
and traditional healing (see BTH chapter 18, Mental Health Services).
Note: The Bringing Them Home report found communities affected by forcible removal of childrenshould receive reparations in the form of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guaranteesagainst repetition, but not compensation.87
7. Commonwealth Government’s Response To The Bringing Them HomeReport
Survivors of the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home For Aboriginal Girls 1912-‐1969 haveindividually and collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering,economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions thatconstitute gross violations of international human rights law, or serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law (Principle 8).’88
They therefore possess a set of rights provided under international law that are articulated in the BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations ofInternational Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted bythe United Nations General Assembly in 2005.
Further, survivors of the Coota Girls Home possess a right to receive ‘adequate, effective and promptreparation’ for harm they have suffered (Principle 11).
The 54 recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report were developed as a package ofcomplementary measures to be implemented as a whole, to address the harms across the nationcaused by forcible removal.89
If the BTH recommendations had been implemented as a whole, surviviors may have received‘adequate, effective and prompt reparation’ for the harm they suffered.
However, the right to reparations was not accepted by the Commonwealth Government:
‘While the government acknowledges that some Indigenous people may have been harmedas a consequence of child separation practices, it does not accept that the application of thevan Boven principles for reparations for gross violations of human rights is appropriate.’ 9091
The Commonwealth Government’s stance was formalised in its submission to the Senate Legal andConstitutional References Committee in March 2000.92 The Commonwealth Government had rejectedall recommendations apart from those relating to support for counseling, preservation of records, therecording of stories and support for Link-‐Up services. Described as a ‘programmatic response’, this wasframed as complementing the government’s major policy direction in indigenous affairs, which was to‘address the effects of the severe socio-‐economic disadvantage suffered by Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander people by improving outcomes in health, housing, education and employment.’93
The focus of the national debate then shifted to a bitter and acrimonious debate about the intentbehind the laws, policies and practices of the past and whether governments could be consideredliable for actions that were lawful at the time. Until the National Apology in 2008, the CommonwealthGovernment remained firm in its resolve that Aboriginal children were only removed if there was‘good reason’ to do so, and the ‘treatment of separated Aboriginal children was essentially lawful and
87 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney. P.25688 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Gross Violation of International HumanRights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.89 Ridgeway, A (2001) Reparations for the stolen generations -‐ Government responds. Speech delivered by Senator AdenRidgeway. Moving Forward -‐ achieving reparations for the stolen generations conference.90 Commonwealth Government (1997) Government response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report'Bringing Them Home'. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.91 Herron, J (2000) Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Federal Government Submission To Senate Legaland Constitutional References Committee Inquiry Into The Federal Government's Implementation Of The RecommendationsMade by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Bringing Them Home.92 Ibid93 Ibid.
Page 26
benign in intent.’ 94
There were several problems with the ‘programmatic response’. While Link Up services wereexpanded (BTH recommendations 11, 30a and 30b), counseling services were not included as part offamily tracing and reunion. The Commonwealth Government’s major investment was to providestand-‐alone Bringing Them Home Counsellors, that were added to an existing Indigenous MentalHealth program established the year before, in response to the Ways Forward report. The combinedprograms were known as the Bringing Them Home Counselling and Indigenous Mental Healthprogram, which operated independently from Link Up services. While the National Inquiryrecommended ‘the development and implementation of a program of research and consultations toidentify the range and extent of emotional and well-‐being effects of the forcible removal polices (BTHrecommendation 32), this was not done95 and the effect of forcible removal on health and mentalhealth, have yet to be described, documented or analysed in a systematic way.96 The resultingprogram, the Bringing Them Home Counselling and Indigenous Mental Health program (BTHrecommendations 32, 33a, 33b, 33c), therefore lacked a coherent policy base.
Two Senate Committee Inquiries97 98 and an independent evaluation99 found services deliveredthrough the Bringing Them Home Counselling and Indigenous Mental Health program to beinadequate, unsuitable, ineffective and unable to meet the specific needs of the Stolen Generations.A consistent finding was that members of the Indigenous community in general had been thebeneficiaries of Bringing Them Home counselling services funded in response to the Bringing ThemHome report ($175 million to end of 2009).100
When developing its ‘programmatic response’ the Commonwealth Government did not consult withmembers of the Stolen Generations,101 and witnesses to the Senate Legal and Constitutional AffairsCommittee Inquiry into the Stolen Generations Compensation Bill 2008 remained critical of theCommonwealth Government's unwillingness to see the Stolen Generations as having unique needsthat differed to the non-‐removed population, or that rehabilitation strategies needed to vary to meetthe needs of Stolen Generations.
A consistent criticism of the government’s ‘one-‐size-‐fits-‐all’ response to the Bringing Them Homereport has been the perception that the population of Stolen Generations constituted a singlehomogenous population where all members shared a similar experience of forcible removal,regardless of how they were removed, or the type of placement that followed removal – institution,foster care or adoption. There was no capacity to vary rehabilitation services according to need. Onlyone type of rehabilitation service was offered: one-‐on-‐one, office-‐based generalist counselling, morethan 30yrs after removal. This response actually posed a hazard to survivors of the Cootamundra GirlsHome, since ‘counselling’ served as a traumatic reminder of being ‘brainwashed’ in the Home.
Those who had been removed and placed in ‘Homes’, dormitories or other institutions, includingsurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, consistently stated they had not been consulted about theirneeds, and had been unable to benefit from stand-‐alone, one-‐on-‐one counselling services. All groupsreported they had experienced systematic racial discrimination in their respective institutions, andrequested collective rehabilitation measures, where they could be supported to heal together as an
94 Ibid.p.1195 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney. P.341.96 Wilczynski, A, Reed-‐Gilbert, K, Milward, K, Tayler, B, Fear, J & Schwartzkoff, J. (2007), Evaluation of Bringing Them Home andIndigenous Mental Health Programs. Report prepared by Urbis Keys Young for the Office for Aboriginal and Torres IslanderHealth, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.p.126.97 Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (2000) Healing: a legacy of generations: the report of the inquiry intothe Federal Government's implementation of recommendations made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissionin Bringing Them Home. Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee.98 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2008) Inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.99 Ministerial Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) (2003) Evaluation of Responses to the BringingThem Home Report. Final Report.100 Wilczynski, A, Reed-‐Gilbert, K, Milward, K, Tayler, B, Fear, J & Schwartzkoff, J. (2007), Evaluation of Bringing Them Home andIndigenous Mental Health Programs. Report prepared by Urbis Keys Young for the Office for Aboriginal and Torres IslanderHealth, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.101 Ibid.p.111
Page 27
institutional ‘family’.
Stolen Generations groups who grew up together have consistently expressed an unmet need for:
• Collective rehabilitation/healing, as institutional ‘families’ or communities• Support to overcome entrenched socio-‐economic disadvantage• Support to pay for health care costs and cost of funerals• Monetary compensation.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gave evidence to the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee Inquiry Into The Responses To The Bringing Them Home Report in 2000 andthe Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Stolen Generation CompensationBill in 2008, and provided input to the evaluation of the Bringing Them Home Counselling andIndigenous Mental Health program in 2007.
Each time, institutional groups, such as survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, stated they saweach other as ‘family’ and wished to be resourced to host regular reunions for collectiverehabilitation/healing, to support each other during times of crisis, assist each other to trace theirfamilies, accompany each other on family reunions, and attend each other’s funerals.
Each time, criticisms of the Commonwealth Government’s ‘programmatic response’ to the StolenGenerations were seen as justified, the special needs as institutional groups were recognized as valid,their suggestions for collective rehabilitation were accepted, and their entrenched disadvantage wasacknowledged. Each time recommendations were made to allocate resources to meet their specificneeds in relation to reunions, health, housing, ageing, funding for funerals, and other family supportservices.
For example, the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry Into The ResponsesTo The Bringing Them Home Report commented ‘there seems to be no reason why a specific amountof money could not have been quarantined for ‘stolen generation organisations and individuals’ andrecommended ‘an independent audit of the allocation of funding against the needs of the targetpopulation.’102
An Innovative Grants Program was established to distribute small grants to Stolen Generationsorganisations working with Link Up services, to provide alternatives to face-‐to-‐face counselling, suchas support for reunions of institutional groups and return to institutions where members were raised.This was administered in three rounds between 2001-‐2004 to a total of $2.1 million.
The evaluation of the Bringing Them Home Counselling and Indigenous Mental Health programrecommended the Innovative Grants program be re-‐established, with ‘priority to be given to projectswhich meet the needs of first generation Stolen Generations members eg back-‐to-‐country reunions,activities conducted in collaboration with Stolen Generations groups etc.’103 However, this did notoccur.
In a cruel irony, the Commonwealth Government acknowledged its obligations under internationalhuman rights law in its evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsStolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008, but stated it had already met its obligations with its‘programmatic response’:
‘Existing international law requires States to provide effective remedies for violations ofinternational human rights obligations. The government’s response to the BTH Reportclearly satisfies this requirement.’104
102 Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (2000) Healing: a legacy of generations: the report of the inquiry intothe Federal Government's implementation of recommendations made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissionin Bringing Them Home. p.248.103 Wilczynski, A, Reed-‐Gilbert, K, Milward, K, Tayler, B, Fear, J & Schwartzkoff, J. (2007), Evaluation of Bringing Them Home andIndigenous Mental Health Programs. Report prepared by Urbis Keys Young for the Office for Aboriginal and Torres IslanderHealth, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.p.111104 Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Submission Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee(2008) Inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008. p.611
Page 28
In 2008, largely in response to the evidence given by survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home andother institutional groups, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs StolenGeneration Compensation Bill 2008, recommended ‘that the Federal Government's 'closing the gap'initiative be extended to establish a National Indigenous Healing Fund to provide health, housing,ageing, funding for funerals, and other family support services for members of the Stolen Generationas a matter of priority.’105 The National Indigenous Healing Fund was to be incorporated within theCOAG 'closing the gap' initiative as an additional and discrete element of funding focused specificallyon the Stolen Generations (emphasis added).
Instead, $26 million was allocated to establish a Healing Foundation to address trauma and healingwithin the wider Indigenous community, with a focus on Stolen Generations.106 Unfortunately, theHealing Foundation does not deliver the health, housing, ageing, funding for funerals, and otherfamily support services that survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home and other institutional groupsidentified as urgent and unmet needs arising from forcible removal.
It is somewhat ironic that the funds made available through the consideration of compensation for theStolen Generations, were diverted as reparations to ‘communities affected by forcible removal’ (BTHrecommendation 4), rather than to those who were forcibly removed. This contradicted the BringingThem Home report’s recommendation107that communities be excluded as recipients of measures of‘compensation’. Communities affected by forcible removal were to receive reparations in the forms ofrestitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees against repetition, but not compensation(Principles 19, 21, 22 and 23). Measures of compensation (Principle 20) were to be restricted toindividuals and families affected by forcible removal.
Failure to provide components of rehabilitation or compensation to the Stolen Generations
As already stated, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission drew upon evidenceprovided during the National Inquiry and applied the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines to develop aset of recommendations to deliver reparations for those who had been forcibly removed (ie membersof the Stolen Generations). ‘Full and effective reparation,’ includes the following forms: restitution,compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principle 18).
Four of the five types of reparations were provided in BTH recommendations 3 to 20 (Principle 19restitution; Principle 20 compensation, Principle 22 satisfaction, and Principle 23 guarantees ofnon-‐repetition).
The fifth type of reparation – Principle 21 rehabilitation – was to be addressed by the CommonwealthGovernment’s ‘programmatic response’, which accommodated the following BTH recommendations:11 (assistance to return to country), 30 (family tracing and reunion services), 32 (research), 33(Indigenous wellbeing model) and 35 (mental health worker training).
However, when each of these measures are examined, it becomes apparent they consist ofcomponents of restitution (Principle 19), and not rehabilitation (Principle 21).
Restitution aims to restore the victim to the original situation before the violations occurred. The BTHrecommendations 11 (assistance to return to country), 12 (language, culture and history centers), and13 (Indigenous identification) were conceptualized as measures of ‘restitution’.
‘The purpose of restitution is to re-‐establish, to the extent possible, the situation thatexisted prior to the perpetration of gross violations of human rights. The children whowere removed have typically lost the use of their languages, been denied culturalknowledge and inclusion, been deprived of opportunities to take on cultural
105 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2008) Inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008. p.ixand p.77.106 Australian Government Response: Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report On StolenGeneration Compensation Bill 2008.107 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney. P.256
Page 29
responsibilities and are often unable to assert their native title rights.’
These measures allowed those who had been forcibly removed to restore their Aboriginal identity byreturning to country, establishing their place in community genaeologies; providing access to regionallanguage, culture and history centres; and confirmation of Aboriginality. However, BTHrecommendations 11-‐13 were subsequently categorised as measures of ‘rehabilitation’, rather than‘restitution’.
As a result, it appears ‘rehabilitation’ was conceptualized as restoring Aboriginal identity, rather thanproviding access to medical, psychological care and legal and social services (Principle 21rehabilitation). The Commonwealth Government has repeatedly justified its ‘programmatic response’as meeting the most pressing priority identified by the National Inquiry: ‘assisting family reunions isthe most significant and urgent need of separated families.’ Outside of the services included in the‘programmatic response’, no other measures of rehabilitation have been offered to those who wereforcibly removed.
While the ‘programmatic response’ was framed as complementing the government’s policy directionto address disadvantage, the known gaps in ‘health, housing, education and employment’ outcomesbetween the Stolen Generations and the broader Indigenous population, have yet to be targeted inclose-‐the-‐gap initiatives. When such an approach was recommended by the Senate StandingCommittee in 2009, it was expressly prevented.
As a result, descendants have remained vulnerable to contemporary removal due to the social andeconomic disadvantage that survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have suffered (BTHrecommendation 42 social justice). Despite this, the Commonwealth Government found componentsof guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principle 23) were the responsibility of the NSW government (BTHrecommendations 8a and 8b school education, and 9a and 9b professional education).
The absence of any access to reparation components of rehabilitation (Principle 21) has beencompounded by the refusal to provide components of compensation (Principle 20). As a result,survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have been left without any remedy for the harms caused bythe ‘racial discrimination, pain and suffering, economic loss, and loss of opportunities’ they havesuffered as a consequence of being forcibly removed. These are the heads of damage identified in theBTH recommendations 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. When formulating its response, theCommonwealth Government specifically excluded BTH recommendations 14-‐20, stating there was ‘nopractical or equitable way of paying cash compensation for racial discrimination, pain and suffering,economic loss and loss of opportunities’ to those who suffered as a result of forcible removalpolicies.108
Yet, if survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home had been provided with compensation (Principle 20),they may have been able to mitigate their own suffering by self-‐funding their own rehabilitation(Principle 21) services such as health, housing, ageing, funding for funerals and other family supportservices.
Despite the National Apology in 2008, the nation response to the Bringing Them Home report hasremained unchanged since it was first developed in 1997. Any additional funds allocated to the StolenGenerations have been invested in the set of services included in the ‘programmatic response’ (egmore counsellors) or the Healing Foundation.
At the end of the day, the Commonwealth Government has rejected the notion that members of theStolen Generations, including survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, have collectively sufferedharm through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law(Principle 8), and does not believe they possess a right to receive full and effective reparations for theharm they have suffered (Principle 18).
The refusal to adopt a reparations or human rights framework has prevented the national responsefrom providing ‘full and effective’ reparations to the Stolen Generations, including survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home.
108 Herron, J (1997) 'Bringing them home': Commonwealth initiatives. Statement tabled in Parliament out of session on 16December 1997.
Page 32
Thirty-‐two survivors met at the Marque Hotel in Sydney August 9-‐10 2010 and drafted the All OneStatement By Coota Girls About Our Support Needs (2010).
In it, survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home proposed an innovative model of rehabilitation where,rather than providing counselling, the Bringing Them Home Counsellor position would supportsurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home to support each other, ie to engage in collectiverehabilitation, and to receive the practical support they required as they aged, ie measures of health,housing, ageing, funding for funerals and other family support services.
While government initially supported this idea, survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home received thestandard funding allocation for a Bringing Them Home Counsellor position ($110,000 pa), without theadditional resources they required to support their proposed model. The position was auspiced by anorganization, and the arrangement worked well as a component of rehabilitation (Principle 21) for aperiod of two years.
The auspice organization obtained funds for a 100yr Centenary Commemoration event held at theCootamundra in 2012, and a film about survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home shown at the event(Principle 22 satisfaction).
From the end of 2012, survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home were unable to obtain support fromthe Coota Girls Support position, and it no longer served as an effective component of reparation(Principle 21 rehabilitation).
In July 2013, a forum was held where the auspice organization informed survivors that it was nolonger able to support the Coota Girls Support position with ‘property, infrastructure andadministration’ and options for a restructure were presented.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home obtained a grant from the Healing Foundation to meet atTweed Heads November 26-‐27 2013 to consider their options. A decision was made to form theCoota Girls Aboriginal Corporation and to register this with the Office of the Registrar of IndigenousCorporations (ORIC). Registration with ORIC was achieved in December 2013. The All One Statementwas identified as articulating the aims of the Coota Girls Corporation.
To date, the Commonwealth Government has failed to discharge its international legal human rightsobligation to deliver reparations to the Stolen Generations, including survivors of the CootamundraGirls Home in accordance with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines.
The absence of appropriate national response leaves the right of survivors of the Cootamundra GirlsHome to an appropriate remedy, unfulfilled.
When considering the issue of reparations/compensation (BTH recommendations 14 to 20) in 2000,the Commonwealth Government asserted that ‘states were responsible for practices within theirborders at the time, and remain responsible for any current effects their past practices have had.’109110
In 2000, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated its concernsabout the on-‐going effects of the ‘previous policy of removing Indigenous children from their families’and recommended that the State party ‘intensify these efforts so that the victims themselves andtheir families will consider that they have been afforded a proper remedy.’111
109 Herron, J. (2000) Federal Government Submission: Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into theStolen Generation, Canberra.110 Ruddock, P. (2001) Reparations for the stolen generations -‐ Government responds. Speech delivered by the Honorable PhilipRuddock, MP. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Moving Forward -‐ achieving reparations for the stolengenerations conference.111 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2000. Concluding observations of the Human RightsCommittee. Australia p.2
Page 33
Commonwealth Government reaffirmed its views again in 2008, when it suggested it would be ‘morerealistic and appropriate for the States to be directly liable to compensate the children whom theyremoved’.112
In 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted the National Apology, andrecommended ‘the State party should adopt a comprehensive national mechanism to ensure thatadequate reparation, including compensation, is provided to the victims of the Stolen Generationspolicies.’113
The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, noted theCommonwealth Government’s intention not to provide monetary compensation to StolenGenerations, where claims could be directed to state governments, in the 2010 report of his visit toAustralia.114
8. New South Wales Government’s Response to The Bringing Them HomeReport
Rather than discuss all of the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report, the question ofreparations for those who were forcibly removed represents only a subset of the 54recommendations.
As discussed, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission drew upon evidence providedduring the National Inquiry and applied the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines to develop a set ofrecommendations to deliver full and effective reparations for those who had been forcibly removed.‘Full and effective reparation,’ includes the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principle 18).
BTH recommendations 3 to 20 represent four of the five types of reparations to be provided to thosewho directly experienced forcible removal (ie members of the Stolen Generations): restitution,compensation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principles 19, 20, 22 and 23).
The fifth type of reparation – Principle 21 rehabilitation – was to be provided in services funded bythe Commonwealth Government. However, institutional groups such as survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home have reported they were unable to obtain any remedy from the‘programmatic response’ and have requested measures of collective rehabilitation, and othermeasures such as health, housing, ageing, funding for funerals and other family support services.
In addition, the NSW Government was seen to be responsible for reparation Principle 23 guaranteesof non-‐repetition, by implementing BTH recommendations 8 (school education) and 9 (professionaltraining). The education recommended by the Bringing Them Home report is not cultural awarenesstraining. Rather, it is education that aims to prevent the repetition of human rights abusesexperienced by Aboriginal children in NSW under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969.
The table below maps the BTH recommendations 3 to 20 as representing four of the five types ofreparations (Principles 19, 20, 22 and 23) to be provided to members of the Stolen Generations. Thisincludes recommendations 8 and 9 as components of guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principle 23). Thefifth type of reparation to be provided to survivors is rehabilitation (Principle 21), addressed by BTHrecommendations 30, 32, 33 and 35.
The BTH recommendations have been mapped against the five types of reparations to be provided tomembers of the Stolen Generations in order to deliver ‘full and effective reparations’ in line with theUN Basic Principles and Guidelines.
In addition, the fourth terms of reference of the National Inquiry, was to examine contemporary formsof separation of Aboriginal children from their families. The BTH report concluded that removals
112 Ruddock, P. (2008) Reparations for the stolen generations -‐ Government responds. Speech delivered by the Honorable PhilipRuddock, MP. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Moving Forward -‐ achieving reparations for the stolengenerations conference.113 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations-‐ Australia, UN Doc CCPR/C/AUS/CO/5 (2009), para 15114 Anaya, J. (2010) Special Rapporteur, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms of Indigenous People. United Nations: Geneva.
Page 38
Protection Act (Stolen Generations) by the NSW Government, without remedy to survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home.
Summary of components of reparation provided to survivors of Cootamundra Girls Home by NSWGovernment
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home possess a right to receive ‘adequate, effective and promptreparation’ for the gross violation of their human rights (Principle 11) that occurred under theAborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969.
‘Full and effective reparation,’ includes the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principle 18).
The right of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home (a Children’s Training Home constituted underthe Act to ‘receive, maintain and train’ removed Aboriginal children 1912-‐1969), to receive ‘full andeffective’ reparation (Principles 19-‐23) for gross violations of their human rights has yet to be formallyacknowledged by the New South Wales Government.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have received components of two types of reparation fromthe NSW Government: Principle 19 restitution (BTH recommendation 11 and 30 with counsellingincluded in family tracing and reunion) and the Aboriginal Trust Repayment Scheme in 2004; andPrinciple 22 satisfaction (BTH recommendations 5a and 5b public apology). Small grants have beenprovided to Link Up NSW to provide additional support to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home inline with Principle 19 restitution and Principle 21 rehabilitation.
The New South Wales Government has therefore failed to discharge its obligation to deliver ‘full andeffective’ (Principles 19-‐23) reparations to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home in accordancewith the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines.
The absence of appropriate response from the NSW Government leaves the right of survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home to an appropriate remedy, unfulfilled.
Guarantees of non-‐repetition and contemporary removals
The education recommended by the Bringing Them Home report as reparation to prevent repetition(BTH recommendations 8a & 8b, 9a and 9b, 34a and 34b) was not cultural awareness training. Rather,it was education to prevent the repetition of human rights abuses experienced by Aboriginal childrenunder the Act 1909-‐1969.
Despite the history of forcible removal under the Act, Aboriginal children are reported andinvestigated by the child protection system at far higher rates than non-‐Indigenous children in NSW.At June 30, 2013, there were 5,590 children on care and protection orders in NSW. The rate ofAboriginal children on care and protection orders in NSW was 10 times that of non-‐Indigenouschildren: 77 per 1,000 Aboriginal children, compared to 7 per 1,000 non-‐Indigenous children.116
Out-‐of-‐home care is considered an intervention of last resort, with the emphasis being to keepchildren with their families wherever possible. Nationally, the rate of Aboriginal children in out-‐of-‐home care is 57.1 per 1,000 children, compared to non-‐Indigenous rate of 5.4 per 1,000 children.
At 30 June 2013, there were 13,952 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-‐of-‐home care.Almost half of these, 6,177 children, were in NSW. More than one thousand (1,133) or nearly one-‐in-‐five (18.3%) were placed with non-‐Indigenous carers.117
While rates of abuse (physical, sexual and emotional) are similar or slightly lower than those found inthe non-‐Indigenous population, the most common type of substantiated abuse for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander children was neglect. Higher rates of neglect are consistent with thedisadvantage experienced by Aboriginal people in NSW, with inadequate housing being a majorcontributing factor.
116 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014). Child protection Australia: 2012–13. Child Welfare series no.58. Cat.no.CWS 49. Canberra: AIHW.117 Ibid.
Page 39
While some have suggested high rates of neglect reflect members of the Stolen Generations being sotraumatized and disadvantaged, they are unable to provide a safe and stable environment forchildren,118 an alternative explanation may be the failure to implement strategies to prevent theentrenched disadvantage experienced by survivors of the NSW Children’s Training Homes (StolenGenerations), from bringing them to the attention of the child protection system (BTHrecommendation 42 social justice).
9. Coota Girls Corporation All One Statement 2015
The need for a coherent policy base
The National Inquiry noted States and Territories had yet to develop a coherent package of responsesto heal the effects of the forcible removal policies and drew attention to the need to have a coherentpolicy base for services provision. This would ensure funding bodies and those who deliver servicesare clear about what they are doing and the goals they are trying to achieve.
The 54 recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report were developed as a package ofcomplementary measures to be implemented as a whole to address the harms caused by forcibleremoval.
It is now 43 years after the Aborigines Protection Act was repealed, and nearly two decades sincesurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home first gave evidence to the National Inquiry.
Survivors are now frail and elderly, and there is an age-‐related urgency to achieving full and effectivereparations. On top of experiencing the harm of forcible removal on their health and wellbeing, manyare facing a new set of stressors associated with ageing and the disabilities that accompany this.
In 2010 the Australian Government Department of Health & Ageing, Office of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Health funded a two-‐day workshop to bring survivors of Cootamundra Girls Home (whorefer to themselves as ‘Coota Girls’) together to consider how a Bringing Them Home counsellorposition might be able to support them.
This was the first time survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home had been consulted by any form ofgovernment about their needs since they were discharged from the Board’s control, aged 18yrs. Inresponse, survivors drafted the All One Statement By Coota Girls About Our Support Needs (2010).
The All One Statement was updated in 2015 and represents the components of what survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home see as a package of collective reparations for the human rights violationsthey experienced under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969.
When the All One Statement was mapped against the BTH recommendations, it was noted there was ahigh level of concordance between the two.
While the All One Statement reflects the ‘natural’ views of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home,the high level of concordance with the BTH recommendations, and the UN Basic Principles andGuidelines may be due to:
i) Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home have experienced gross violations of their humanrights and the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines are grounded in survivors' subjectiveperceptions. As a result, they make intuitive ‘sense’ to survivors, including survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home
ii) Many survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gave evidence to the National Inquiryiii) The Bringing Them Home recommendations synthesised the views of survivors of forcible
removal and the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines.
While the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines has adopted a ‘legalistic’ approach, when thereparations/human rights framework is applied, it appears to represent the natural expression of ahealing journey for a traumatized population, such as survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home (forexample, see Appendix IV Viewing the Coota Girls healing journey through the lens of the UN Basic
118 Bromfield, L., & Holzer, P. (2008). A national approach for child protection: Project Report. Melbourne: Australian Instituteof Family Studies.
Page 40
Principles and Guidelines For Reparations).
For the reasons outlined above, the Coota Girls Corporation supports the continued implementationof the BTH recommendations to meet the needs of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, anddiscourages the adoption or implementation of new models or methods developed outside of thehuman rights / reparations framework.
Collective reparations for human rights violations under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
The All One Statement 2015 represents a program of collective reparations for survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home 1912-‐1969.
The Coota Girls Corporation proposes a package of collective reparations be provided to survivors ofthe Cootamundra Girls Home by funding the delivery of the All One Statement By Coota Girls AboutOur Support Needs 2015. It includes a Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Place (funding for landor premises and first 3 years of operation).
Components of rehabilitation to be measures of collective rehabilitation
Components of rehabilitation (Principle 21) for survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home need to beunderstood and provided as measures of collective rehabilitation suitable for institutional ‘families’.
Stolen Generations groups who grew up together in dormitories or ‘Homes’, have consistentlyexpressed a need for collective measures of rehabilitation and the need for measures described ashealth, housing, ageing, funding for funerals and other family support services. These are notrepresented effectively in the BTH recommendations.
The idea of collective measures of rehabilitation makes sense, since rather than traumatizedindividuals, survivors form a specific ‘trauma population’ since all were uniformly exposed to the sameset of childhood adversities that contributed to gross violations of their human rights. While some mayhave experienced individual abuses (eg crimes such as sexual assault) in the Home and on workplacements, the source of the collective harm/abuse was the systematic racial discrimination that allsurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home experienced under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969,that led to their removal, that underpinned abuses within the Home itself, and while on workplacements. When in the Home, abuses were directed collectively to all ‘inmates’, rather than toparticular individuals. Rehabilitation / healing from gross violations of their human rights thereforeneeds to be facilitated at a collective, rather than an individual level.
The need for collective measures of rehabilitation for institutional ‘families’ has been accepted andsupported by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry Into The ResponsesTo The Bringing Them Home Report in 2000, the evaluation of the Bringing Them Home Counsellingand Indigenous Mental Health program in 2007, and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal andConstitutional Affairs Stolen Generation Compensation Bill in 2008. The following collectivehealing/rehabilitation strategies could be implemented with survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Homeand descendants: healing gatherings; yarning circles; men’s and women’s groups; community widehealing circles; traditional ceremonies and traditional healing; and residential programs and retreats.
Measures to meet survivors’ needs for practical support described as health, housing, ageing, fundingfor funerals and other family support services, need to be provided urgently to survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home, to address their unmitigated suffering and entrenched socio-‐economicdisadvantage, in the absence of any components of rehabilitation (Principle 21) or compensation(Principle 20) being provided to date.
UN Basic Principle 13 states, that in addition to individual access to justice, procedures be developedto allow groups of victims to present claims for reparation and to receive reparation, as appropriate.
Mapping the All One Statement 2015 against the Bringing Them Home recommendations and theUN Basic Principles and Guidelines For Reparations for human rights violations
Page 41
To provide reparations it is necessary to identify the various classes of victims to receive measures ofreparation.119
When recommendation 4 is applied to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, collective measuresof reparations would aim to benefit the following classes of victims:
1. Individuals who were forcibly removed and placed in the Cootamundra Girls Home between1912 and 1969.Note: There are approximately 60-‐100 known survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home, now
aged between 45yrs and 86yrs. Many are frail and elderly and several are disabled. Theestablishment of a Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Place is key to achievingreparations, given the advanced age of survivors.
2. Family members who suffered as a result of removal.Note: The age range of survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home means very few members of
immediate family (parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings) who suffered whenchildren were removed are still living.
3. Communities children were removed from.Note: Many reserves and stations that children were removed from 1909-‐1969 were relocated,
dismantled and sold under the Act, while children were in the Training Homes. It may bemore useful to consider the impact of removal on language groups. For example, it isnot known whether certain language groups had higher numbers of children removed tothe Cootamundra Girls Home (eg Bundjalung, Gamilaraay, Gumbaynggirr, Paarkintji /Barkindji Wiradjuri). A Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Place would allow liaisonwith representatives of these language groups to progress healing with members of theStolen Generations – to develop links and restore names to genealogies.
The Bringing Them Home report found communities should receive reparations in theform of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees against repetition, but notcompensation.120
4. Descendants who have been deprived of community ties, culture and language, and linkswith and entitlements to traditional land as a result of our removal.Note: It is estimated more than 1,000 girls from all over NSW were placed in the Cootamundra
Girls Home during its 57yrs of operation. The establishment of a Coota Girl HealingCentre and Keeping Place is key to achieving reparations for descendants.
As discussed, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission drew upon evidence providedduring the National Inquiry and applied the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines to develop a set ofrecommendations to deliver full and effective reparations for those who had been forcibly removed.BTH recommendations 3 to 20 represented four of the five types of reparations to be provided tothose who directly experienced forcible removal (ie members of the Stolen Generations): restitution,compensation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition (Principles 19, 20, 22 and 23). Thecomponent of rehabilitation (Principle 21) was not included in BTH recommendations 3 to 20.
The 54 recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report were developed as a package ofcomplementary measures to be implemented as a whole to address the harms caused by forcibleremoval. Any of the BTH recommendations that have not been implemented are still relevant tosurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home. Where a BTH recommendation aligned with the All OneStatement, it was added to the table below and included in the package of reparations.121 In all, 19BTH recommendations aligned with the needs expressed by survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Homein the All One Statement 2015.
Coota Girls Healing Centre
119 Magarrell, L. (2007) Reparations in Theory and Practice. International Center for Transitional justice.120 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing Them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. HREOC, Sydney. P.256121 Ridgeway, A (2001) Reparations for the Stolen Generations -‐ Government responds. Speech delivered by Senator AdenRidgeway. Moving Forward -‐ achieving reparations for the stolen generations conference.
Page 42
The Coota Girls Corporation seeks funding for a Coota Girls Healing Centre (land and buildings) to beconstructed in a coastal location in NSW with the capacity to host Healing Gatherings and to deliverthe components of reparation outlined in the All One Statement 2015.
When discussing rehabilitation services, the Bringing Them Home report suggested rehabilitationservices be provided along the lines of specialised multi-‐disciplinary rehabilitation care currentlyprovided to torture survivors. Rehabilitation was to be based on research that identified the range andextent of harms caused by forcible removal (BTH recommendation 32) with services being deliveredwithin an Indigenous wellbeing model (BTH recommendations 33a, 33b, 33c), through HealingCentres, where a broad range of clinical and non-‐clinical services could be provided to address issuessuch as cultural restitution, trauma, substance abuse, parenting support and traditional healing (seeBTH chapter 18, Mental Health Services).
A Coota Girls Healing Centre will allow components of rehabilitation (Principle 21) to be delivered toindividual survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home according to need, and measures of collectiverehabilitation (Healing Gatherings) suitable for survivors and descendants, such as: healing gatherings;yarning circles; men’s and women’s groups; community wide healing circles; traditional ceremoniesand traditional healing; and residential programs and retreats.
Measures to address entrenched disadvantage such as health, housing, ageing, funding for funeralsand other family support services requested by institutional groups, including survivors ofCootamundra Girls Home, 2000, 2007 and 2008, could also be delivered / coordinated through aCoota Girls Healing Centre.
Coota Girls Keeping Place
The Coota Girls Corporation proposes a Coota Girls Keeping Place be located within the Coota GirlsHealing Centre to store and display items of significance to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Homeand descendants. This includes photos, films, videos, DVD’s, books and other publications about girls’lives in the Cootamundra Girls Home, the impact of removal on parents siblings, families andcommunities, and information about historical items such as the Cootamundra Girls Home, theNamatjira painting donated by the artist to Coota Girls, the well where children waited for theirparents to come, and the bells that regulated their days.
Funding the All One Statement 2015 to provide a package of collective reparations for survivors ofthe Cootamundra Girls Home.
All measures included in the package of collective reparations for survivors of the Cootamundra GirlsHome align with the BTH recommendations and reflect the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines forReparations.
BTH Recommendations included in the package of collective reparations for survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home include: 1 Recording of testimonies; 3 Components of reparations; 4Claimants; 6 Commemoration; 7a and 7b Commemoration; 8a and 8b Guarantees against repetitionschool education; 9a and 9b Guarantees against repetition professional training; 11 Restitutionassistance to return to country; 12a and 12b Restitution language, culture and history centres; 13Restitution Indigenous identification; 29 Indigenous repositories; 30 Establishment of family tracingand reunion services; 32 Research; 34a and 34b Health professional training; 41 Land holdings; 42Social Justice; 43a, 43b, 43c Self-‐determination re wellbeing of Indigenous children and young people;46-‐53 National standards for Indigenous children adoption, child welfare and juvenile justice.
Four types of reparations are provided to survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home by funding the AllOne Statement. These are Principle 19 Restitution, Principle 21 Rehabilitation, Principle 22Satisfaction, and Principle 23 Guarantees of non-‐repetition. Principle 20 Compensation is notincluded, since this component of reparation is being addressed in a separate process.
In the table below all components or measures of reparations included in the All One Statement 2015have been mapped against the relevant UN Basic Principles and Guidelines and BTHrecommendations.
The full text of the BTH recommendations are provided in Appendix I.
The full text of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines are provided in Appendix II.
Page 43
Table: Mapping the All One Statement against the BTH recommendations and the UN Basic Principlesand Guidelines: delivering ‘full and effective’ reparations for survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home.
BTHRecommendation
UN Basic Principles &Guidelines
Measure Coota Girls CorpAll-‐One Statement
2015Claimants
1 22. Satisfactiong) Commemoration andtributes
Recording of testimonies Coota GirlsFamilies
DescendantsCommunities
3 18. Components ofreparations
Components of reparations Included
4 8. Claimants ClaimantsCoota Girls, families (siblings),descendantsCommunities – no compensation
Included
BTH Recommendations: Acknowledgment and apology
5a and 5bApology
22. Satisfactione) Public apology
Acknowledgment and apology -‐Parliaments and police forces
Achieved
6Commemoration
22. Satisfactione) Public apology
Acknowledgment and apology -‐Churches and others
Not applicable
BTH Recommendations: Guarantees against repetition
7a and 7bCommemoration
22. Satisfactionb) Verification of factsg) Commemoration &tributes
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
National Sorry Day
Coota Girls Healing Centre & KeepingPlace established to commemorateCoota Girls
Coota Girls representatives formallyincluded in NSW Government SorryDay activities
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
8a and 8bGuarantees against
repetition
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
School educationDeveloped and delivered by CootaGirls Healing Centre
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
9a and 9bGuarantees against
repetition
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Professional trainingDeveloped and delivered by CootaGirls Healing Centre
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
10Guarantees against
repetition
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Genocide Convention in domestic law Not addressed
BTH Recommendations: Measures of rehabilitationNote: These are measures of restitution, not rehabilitation.
Principle 14. Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.
11Restitution
19. Restitution Assistance to return to country
Require Coota Girls measure to assistand accompany each other on familyreunions
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
Page 44
Delivered through Coota Girls HealingCentre
12a and 12bRestitution
19. Restitution Language, culture and history centres
Require Coota Girls measure torestore places in communitygenealogies
Coota Girls Keeping Place to functionas an Indigenous repository for femaleNSW Childrens Training Homeconstituted under the Act
Locate historical items of significanceto Coota Girls
Hosted by Coota Girls Healing Centre& Keeping Place
Link with OCHRE Language andCulture Nests – descendants to beprioritized for participation in Nests
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
13Restitution
19. Restitution Indigenous identificationProvided by Coota Girls Corp
Coota GirlsDescendants
BTH Recommendations: Monetary compensation (not included)
14Compensation 20. Compensation Heads of damage
15Compensation 20. Compensation National Compensation Fund
16a and 16bCompensation 20. Compensation National Compensation Fund Board
17Compensation 20. Compensation Procedural principles
18Compensation 20. Compensation Minimum lump sum
19Compensation 20. Compensation Proof of particular harm
20Compensation 20. Compensation Civil claims
Process underwayfor both Children’sTraining Homesconstituted under
the Act
Unmet needs for rehabilitation – to be provided as measures of collective rehabilitation
14. Rehabilitation Delivered through Coota Girls HealingCentre
Coota GirlsDescendants
14. Rehabilitation Support with health issuesDelivered through Coota Girls HealingCentre
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation Support with aged care & disabilityissuesDelivered through Coota Girls HealingCentre
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation40. Social justice
Support with home ownershipProcess managed through Coota GirlsHealing Centre
Coota Girls
Measures ofrehabilitation notincluded in BTH
recommendations3-‐20
Need individual andcollective
rehabilitationmeasures
UN Basic Principle14: RehabilitationRehabilitation
14. Rehabilitation Support with funeralsDelivered through Coota Girls Healing
Coota Girls
Page 45
14. RehabilitationCentre
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation Aged care facilityDeveloped through Coota GirlsHealing Centre
Coota GirlsKinchela Men
14. Rehabilitation Maintain communication betweenCoota GirlsDelivered through Coota Girls HealingCentre
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation Host healing gatherings twice a yearHeld at Coota Girls Healing Centre &Keeping Place
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation Establish a Coota Girls SupportnetworkHosted by Coota Girls Healing Centre
Coota Girls
14. Rehabilitation Host Healing Gatherings for oursiblings, families and descendantsHosted by Coota Girls Healing Centre
Coota GirlsFamilies
Descendants
should includemedical and
psychological careas well as legal and
social services
14. Rehabilitation Provide a Carer’s Support NetworkHosted by Coota Girls Healing Centre
Carers
Additional BTH Recommendations relevant to Coota Girls, descendants and communities
29Indigenousrepositories
19. Restitution 29a Transfer of historical and culturalinformation relating to Coota Girls
29b Coota Girls Keeping Place toserve as repository of information forCoota Girls Home
Contribute to healing of communities(missing elders, grandparents,aunties, uncles in family trees)
Provide access to copies oflegislations, annual reports of Boards,photographs, Dawn magazines, indexof names mentioned.
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
30Establishment offamily tracing andreunion services
19. Restitution 30a. Centres funded to offer familytracing and reunion assistance andreferral
Coota Girls specific service to assistand accompany each other anddescendants on family reunions(even if grave-‐side reunions)
Hosted by Coota Girls Healing Centre& Keeping Place
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
32Research
22. Satisfactionb) Verification of thefacts
Research range and extent ofemotional and wellbeing effects offorcible removal policies.
Identify childhood traumas/abusesexperienced by Coota Girls known toharm health and wellbeing
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
Page 46
Estimate number of children removedand placed in Coota Girls Home
Estimate number of descendants ofCoota Girls
Estimate proportion of Coota Girlsand descendants within the NSWStolen Generations population andbroader NSW Aboriginal population
Develop evidence base for educationand other resources
To be led by Coota Girls HealingCentre
33Indigenous
wellbeing model
19. Restitution Coota Girls do not support theadoption of models developed outsidethe reparations framework advocatedby the Bringing Them Home report
Coota GirlsDescendants
34a and 34bHealth professional
training
22. Satisfactionb) Verification of thefacts.23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
In-‐service for health service providersand undergraduate healthpractitionersDeveloped and delivered by CootaGirls Healing Centre
Coota GirlsDescendants
36Parenting skills
19. Restitution Apology to childrenCollectively reconcile with children –healing gathering of two generations
Coota Girls specific parenting resourceto be developed & delivered throughCoota Girls Healing Centre fordescendants to prevent trans-‐generational transmission
Coota GirlsDescendants
19. Restitution
22. Satisfactionb) Verification of thefacts.c) Search for identitiesof removed children
Develop an official register of CootaGirls
Identify communities and languagegroups with high numbers of childrentaken to Coota Girls Home – developlinks and restore names togenealogies
Coota Girls Healing Centre & KeepingPlace
Coota GirlsDescendantsCommunities
41Land holdings
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Control over what happens atCootamundra Girls Home and howstories of Coota Girls are told
Specific measure required for CootaGirls Home in Cootamundra
Coota GirlsDescendants
42Social Justice
14. Rehabilitation
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition
OCHRE Opportunity Hubs
Coota Girls descendants to beprioritized for participation inOpportunity Hubs to overcomeentrenched disadvantage
Descendants
43a, 43b, 43cSelf-‐determination
23: Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Coota Girls Corp to be a stakeholderto ensure guarantee of non-‐repetition
DescendantsCommunities
Page 47
re wellbeing ofIndigenous childrenand young people
in descendants and to contribute tohealing of descendants
46-‐53National standardsfor Indigenouschildren adoption,child welfare andjuvenile justice
23: Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Coota Girls Corp to be a stakeholderto ensure guarantee of non-‐repetitionin descendants
DescendantsCommunities
The main method of forcible removal of Aboriginal children in NSW was removal and placement in thetwo Children’s Training Homes constituted under the Act.
Funding the All One Statement will thus allow the New South Wales Government to meet:
i) the needs of a large proportion of the Stolen Generations in NSW;ii) international obligations to provide reparations for gross violations of human rights; andiii) national obligations in relation to implementing the BTH recommendations.
BTH Recommendations included in the package of collective reparations for survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home include: 1 Recording of testimonies; 3 Components of reparations; 4Claimants; 7a and 7b Commemoration; 8a and 8b school education; 9a and 9b professional training;11 assistance to return to country; 12a and 12b language, culture and history centres; 13 Indigenousidentification; 29a and 29b Indigenous repositories; 30 Establishment of family tracing and reunionservices; 32 Research; 33 Indigenous wellbeing model; 34a and 34b Health professional training; 41Land holdings; 42 Social Justice; 43a, 43b, 43c Self-‐determination re wellbeing of Indigenous childrenand young people; 46-‐53 National standards for Indigenous children adoption, child welfare andjuvenile justice.
Collective reparations and the establishment of a Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Placewould, in turn, allow survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home to make an on-‐going contribution toNSW Government strategies in the area of Aboriginal Affairs, and to the Healing objective of theOCHRE Plan.
Articulation of the All One Statement 2015 with the NSW Government OCHRE Plan
The NSW Government's Ministerial Taskforce on Aboriginal Affairs had a focus to improve educationand employment opportunities for Aboriginal people and to improve service delivery andaccountability. This led to the creation of Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility andEmpowerment, OCHRE plan, released in 2013.
The Coota Girls Corporation contributed to and participated in the OCHRE Healing Forum held on 23July 2014, to advance the dialogue in NSW about trauma and healing and to develop an appropriaterole for government in supporting healing.
A Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Place would allow:
• Schools to visit to learn about the Children’s Training Homes constituted under the AboriginesAct 1909-‐1969
• Development and delivery of education resources about the Children’s Training Homes forschools and health professionals.
The Stolen Generations are among the most disadvantaged groups within the broader Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander populations. Descendants are key to changing the entrenched disadvantageexperienced by survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home (BTH recommendation 42: social justice) andprevention of repetition (Principle 23). Descendants need to be prioritized for participation instrategies being implemented under the OCHRE plan, such as:
• Language and Culture Nests in schools to create learning pathways for Aboriginal students,teachers and community members.
• Opportunity Hubs to link education with employment opportunities to connect Aboriginal
Page 48
students to real and sustainable jobs.
The establishment of a Coota Girls Healing Centre and Keeping Place would allow survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home to make an on-‐going contribution to the Healing objective of the NSWGovernment OCHRE Plan, and to the healing and repatriation of descendants located throughout NewSouth Wales.
Page 49
APPENDIX IBringing Them Home Report Recommendations
Note: While all Bringing Them Home recommendations are relevant to forcible removal, the textprovided in red below are BTH recommendations 3 to 20, which synthesise the evidence given duringthe National Inquiry and reflect the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines and represent ‘full and effectivereparations’ for members of the Stolen Generations (Principles 19, 20, 22, 23). The components ofrehabilitation (Principle 21) BTH recommendations 30, 32, 33 and 35 have also been highlighted.
Recording testimonies
1. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure the adequate funding of appropriateIndigenous agencies to record, preserve and administer access to the testimonies of Indigenouspeople affected by the forcible removal policies who wish to provide their histories in audio, audio-‐visual or written form.
Procedure for implementation
2a. That the Council of Australian Governments establish a working party to develop a process for theimplementation of the Inquiry's recommendations and to receive and respond to annual audit reportson the progress of implementation.
2b. That the Commonwealth fund the establishment of a National Inquiry audit unit in the HumanRights and Equal Opportunity Commission to monitor the implementation of the Inquiry'srecommendations and report annually to the Council of Australian Governments on the progress ofimplementation of the recommendations.
2c. That ATSIC fund the following peak Indigenous organisations to research, prepare and provide anannual submission to the National Inquiry audit unit evaluating the progress of implementation of theInquiry's recommendations: Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC),Stolen Generations National Secretariat, National Aboriginal Community Controlled HealthOrganisation (NACCHO) and National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat (NAILSS).
2d. That Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments undertake to provide fully detailed andcomplete information to the National Inquiry audit unit annually on request concerning progress onimplementation of the Inquiry's recommendations.
Components of reparations
3. That, for the purposes of responding to the effects of forcible removals, `compensation' be widelydefined to mean `reparation'; that reparation be made in recognition of the history of gross violationsof human rights; and that the van Boven principles guide the reparation measures. Reparation shouldconsist of,
1. Acknowledgment and apology
2. Guarantees against repetition
3. Measures of restitution
4. Measures of rehabilitation
5. Monetary compensation.
Claimants
4. That reparation be made to all who suffered because of forcible removal policies including,
1. Individuals who were forcibly removed as children
2. Family members who suffered as a result of their removal
3. Communities which, as a result of the forcible removal of children, suffered cultural andcommunity disintegration, and
Page 50
4. Descendants of those forcibly removed who, as a result, have been deprived ofcommunity ties, culture and language, and links with and entitlements to their traditionalland.
Acknowledgment and apology -‐ Parliaments and police forces
5a. That all Australian Parliaments
1. Officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies andpractices of forcible removal,
2. Negotiate with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission a form ofwords for official apologies to Indigenous individuals, families and communities andextend those apologies with wide and culturally appropriate publicity, and
3. Make appropriate reparation as detailed in following recommendations.
5b. That State and Territory police forces, having played a prominent role in the implementation ofthe laws and policies of forcible removal, acknowledge that role and, in consultation with theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, make such formal apologies and participate in suchcommemorations as are determined.
Acknowledgment and apology -‐ Churches and others
6. That churches and other non-‐government agencies which played a role in the administration of thelaws and policies under which Indigenous children were forcibly removed acknowledge that role andin consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission make such formal apologiesand participate in such commemorations as may be determined.
Commemoration
7a. That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in consultation with the Council forAboriginal Reconciliation, arrange for a national `Sorry Day' to be celebrated each year tocommemorate the history of forcible removals and its effects.
7b. That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in consultation with the Council forAboriginal Reconciliation, seek proposals for further commemorating the individuals, families andcommunities affected by forcible removal at the local and regional levels. That proposals beimplemented when a widespread consensus within the Indigenous community has been reached.
School education
8a. That State and Territory Governments ensure that primary and secondary school curricula includesubstantial compulsory modules on the history and continuing effects of forcible removal.
8b. That the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies be funded by theCommonwealth to develop these modules.
Professional training
9a. That all professionals who work with Indigenous children, families and communities receive in-‐service training about the history and effects of forcible removal.
9b. That all under-‐graduates and trainees in relevant professions receive, as part of their corecurriculum, education about the history and effects of forcible removal.
Genocide Convention
10. That the Commonwealth legislate to implement the Genocide Convention with full domesticeffect.
Assistance to return to country
11. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure that appropriate Indigenous organisations areadequately funded to employ family reunion workers to travel with clients to their country, to provideIndigenous community education on the history and effects of forcible removal and to developcommunity genealogies to establish membership of people affected by forcible removal.
Page 51
Language, culture and history centres
12a. That the Commonwealth expand the funding of Indigenous language, culture and history centresto ensure national coverage at regional level.
12b. That where the Indigenous community so determines, the regional language, culture and historycentre be funded to record and maintain local Indigenous languages and to teach those languages,especially to people whose forcible removal deprived them of opportunities to learn and maintaintheir language and to their descendants.
Indigenous identification
13. That Indigenous organisations, such as Link-‐Ups and Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agencies,which assist those forcibly removed by undertaking family history research be recognised asIndigenous communities for the purposes of certifying descent from the Indigenous peoples ofAustralia and acceptance as Indigenous by the Indigenous community.
Heads of damage
14. That monetary compensation be provided to people affected by forcible removal under thefollowing heads.
1. Racial discrimination.2. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty.3. Pain and suffering.4. Abuse, including physical, sexual and emotional abuse.5. Disruption of family life.6. Loss of cultural rights and fulfilment.7. Loss of native title rights.8. Labour exploitation.9. Economic loss.10. Loss of opportunities.
National Compensation Fund
15. That the Council of Australian Governments establish a joint National Compensation Fund.
National Compensation Fund Board
16a. That the Council of Australian Governments establish a Board to administer the NationalCompensation Fund.
16b. That the Board be constituted by both Indigenous and non-‐Indigenous people appointed inconsultation with Indigenous organisations in each State and Territory having particularresponsibilities to people forcibly removed in childhood and their families. That the majority ofmembers be Indigenous people and that the Board be chaired by an Indigenous person.
Procedural principles
17. That the following procedural principles be applied in the operations of the monetarycompensation mechanism.
1. Widest possible publicity.2. Free legal advice and representation for claimants.3. No limitation period.4. Independent decision-‐making which should include the participation of Indigenousdecision-‐makers.5. Minimum formality.6. Not bound by the rules of evidence.7. Cultural appropriateness (including language).
Minimum lump sum
18. That an Indigenous person who was removed from his or her family during childhood bycompulsion, duress or undue influence be entitled to a minimum lump sum payment from the
Page 52
National Compensation Fund in recognition of the fact of removal. That it be a defence to a claim forthe responsible government to establish that the removal was in the best interests of the child.
Proof of particular harm
19. That upon proof on the balance of probabilities any person suffering particular harm and/or lossresulting from forcible removal be entitled to monetary compensation from the NationalCompensation Fund assessed by reference to the general civil standards.
Civil claims
20. That the proposed statutory monetary compensation mechanism not displace claimants' commonlaw rights to seek damages through the courts. A claimant successful in one forum should not beentitled to proceed in the other.
Destruction of records prohibited
21. That no records relating to Indigenous individuals, families or communities or to any children,Indigenous or otherwise, removed from their families for any reason, whether held by government ornon-‐government agencies, be destroyed.
Record preservation
22a. That all government record agencies be funded as a matter of urgency by the relevantgovernment to preserve and index records relating to Indigenous individuals, families and/orcommunities and records relating to all children, Indigenous or otherwise, removed from theirfamilies for any reason.
22b. That indexes and other finding aids be developed and managed in a way that protects theprivacy of individuals and, in particular, prevents the compilation of dossiers.
Joint records taskforces
23. That the Commonwealth and each State and Territory Government establish and fund a RecordsTaskforce constituted by representatives from government and church and other non-‐governmentrecord agencies and Indigenous user services to,
1. develop common access guidelines to Indigenous personal, family and communityrecords as appropriate to the jurisdiction and in accordance with established privacyprinciples,2. advise the government whether any church or other non-‐government record-‐holding agency should be assisted to preserve and index its records and administeraccess,3. advise government on memoranda of understanding for dealing with inter-‐Stateenquiries and for the inter-‐State transfer of files and other information,4. advise government and churches generally on policy relating to access to and uses ofIndigenous personal, family and community information, and5. advise government on the need to introduce or amend legislation to put thesepolicies and practices into place.
Inter-‐State enquiries
24. That each government, as advised by its Records Taskforce, enter into memoranda ofunderstanding with other governments for dealing with inter-‐State enquiries and for the inter-‐Statetransfer of records and other information.
Minimum access standards
25. That all common access guidelines incorporate the following standards.
1. The right of every person, upon proof of identity only, to view all informationrelating to himself or herself and to receive a full copy of the same.2. No application fee, copying fee or other charge of any kind to be imposed.3. A maximum application processing period to be agreed by the Records Taskforce and anyfailure to comply to be amenable to review and appeal.
Page 53
4. A person denied the right of access or having any other grievance concerning his or herinformation to be entitled to seek a review and, if still dissatisfied, to appeal the decision orother matter free of charge.5. The right of every person to receive advice, both orally and in writing, at the time ofapplication about Indigenous support and assistance services available in his or her State orTerritory of residence.6. The form of advice provided to applicants to be drafted in consultation with localIndigenous family tracing and reunion services and to contain information about thenature and form of the information to be disclosed and the possibility of distress.7. The right of every person to receive all personal identifying information abouthimself or herself including information which is necessary to establish the identity of familymembers (for example, parent's identifying details such as name, community of origin, dateof birth).8. The right of every person who is the subject of a record, subject to the exceptionabove, to determine to whom and to what extent that information is divulged to athird person.
FoI in the NT
26. That the Northern Territory Government introduce Freedom of Information legislation on theCommonwealth model.
Indigenous Family Information Service
27. That the Commonwealth and each State and Territory Government, in consultation with relevantIndigenous services and its Records Taskforce, establish an Indigenous Family Information Service tooperate as a `first stop shop' for people seeking information about and referral to records held by thegovernment and by churches. That these Services be staffed by Indigenous people. That to supportthese Services each government and church record agency nominate a designated contact officer.
Training
28. That the Commonwealth and each State and Territory Government institute traineeships andscholarships for the training of Indigenous archivists, genealogists, historical researchers andcounsellors.
Indigenous repositories
29a. That, on the request of an Indigenous community, the relevant Records Taskforce sponsornegotiations between government, church and/or other non-‐government agencies and the relevantIndigenous language, culture and history centre for the transfer of historical and cultural informationrelating to that community and its members.
29b. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure that Indigenous language, culture and historycentres have the capacity to serve as repositories of personal information that the individualsconcerned have chosen to place in their care and which is protected in accordance with establishedprivacy principles.
Establishment of family tracing and reunion services
30a. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure that Indigenous community-‐based familytracing and reunion services are funded in all regional centres with a significant Indigenous populationand that existing Indigenous community-‐based services, for example health services, in smallercentres are funded to offer family tracing and reunion assistance and referral.
30b. That the regional services be adequately funded to perform the following functions.
1. Family history research.2. Family tracing.3. Support and counselling for clients viewing their personal records.4. Support and counselling for clients, family members and community members in thereunion process including travel with clients.
Page 54
5. Establishment and management of a referral network of professional counsellors,psychologists, psychiatrists and others as needed by clients.6. Advocacy on behalf of individual clients as required and on behalf of clients as aclass, for example with record agencies.7. Outreach and publicity.8. Research into the history and effects of forcible removal.9. Indigenous and non-‐Indigenous community education about the history and effects offorcible removal.10. Engaging the service of Indigenous experts for provision of genealogical information,traditional healing and escorting and sponsoring those returning to their country of origin.11. Participation in training of Indigenous people as researchers, archivists, genealogists andcounsellors.12. Participation in national networks and conferences.13. Effective participation on Record Taskforces.14. Support of test cases and other efforts to obtain compensation.
Return of those removed overseas
31a. That the Commonwealth create a special visa class under the Migration Act 1951 (Cth) to enableIndigenous people forcibly removed from their families and from Australia and their descendants toreturn to Australia and take up permanent residence.
31b: That the Commonwealth amend the Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) to provide for the acquisition ofcitizenship by any person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.
31c: That the Commonwealth take measures to ensure the prompt implementation of theInternational Transfer of Prisoners Bill 1996.
Research
32. That the Commonwealth Government work with the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderHealth Council in consultation with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled HealthOrganisation (NACCHO) to devise a program of research and consultations to identify the range andextent of emotional and well-‐being effects of the forcible removal policies.
Indigenous well-‐being model
33a. That all services and programs provided for survivors of forcible removal emphasise localIndigenous healing and well-‐being perspectives.
33b. That government funding for Indigenous preventive and primary mental health (well-‐being)services be directed exclusively to Indigenous community-‐based services including Aboriginal andIslander health services, child care agencies and substance abuse services.
33c. That all government-‐run mental health services work towards delivering specialist services inpartnership with Indigenous community-‐based services and employ Indigenous mental healthworkers and community members respected for their healing skills.
Health professional training
34a. That government health services, in consultation with Indigenous health services and familytracing and reunion services, develop in-‐service training for all employees in the history and effects offorcible removal.
34b. That all health and related training institutions, in consultation with Indigenous health servicesand family tracing and reunion services, develop under-‐graduate training for all students in thehistory and effects of forcible removal.
Mental health worker training
35. That all State and Territory Governments institute Indigenous mental health worker trainingthrough Indigenous-‐run programs to ensure cultural and social appropriateness.
Parenting skills
Page 55
36. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure the provision of adequate funding to relevantIndigenous organisations in each region to establish parenting and family well-‐being programs.
Prisoner services
37. That the Council of Australian Governments ensure the provision of adequate funding toIndigenous health and medical services and family well-‐being programs to establish preventivemental health programs in all prisons and detention centres and to advise prison health services. ThatState and Territory corrections departments facilitate the delivery of these programs and advice in allprisons and detention centres.
Private collections
38a. That every church and other non-‐government agency which played a role in the placement andcare of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their families, at the request of an Indigenouslanguage, culture and history centre, transfer historical and cultural information it holds relating tothe community or communities represented by the centre.
38b. That churches and other non-‐government agencies which played a role in the placement andcare of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their families identify all records relating toIndigenous families and children and arrange for their preservation, indexing and access in securestorage facilities preferably, in consultation with relevant Indigenous communities and organisations,in the National Library, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies or anappropriate State Library.
38c. That every church and non-‐government record agency which played a role in the placement andcare of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their families provide detailed information aboutits records to the relevant Indigenous Family Information Service or Services.
Application of minimum standards and common guidelines
39. That church and other non-‐government record agencies implement the national minimum accessstandards (Recommendation 25) and apply the relevant State, Territory or Commonwealth commonaccess guidelines (Recommendation 23).
Counselling services
40a. That churches and other non-‐government welfare agencies that provide counselling and supportservices to those affected by forcible removal review those services, in consultation with Indigenouscommunities and organisations, to ensure they are culturally appropriate.
40b. That churches and other non-‐government agencies which played a role in the placement andcare of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their families provide all possible support toIndigenous organisations delivering counselling and support services to those affected by forcibleremoval.
Land holdings
41. That churches and other non-‐government agencies review their land holdings to identify landacquired or granted for the purpose of accommodating Indigenous children forcibly removed fromtheir families and, in consultation with Indigenous people and their land councils, return that land.
Social justice
42. That to address the social and economic disadvantages that underlie the contemporary removalof Indigenous children and young people the Council of Australian Governments,
1. in partnership with ATSIC, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Office of theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Indigenouscommunity organisations dealing with Indigenous family and children's issues, develop andimplement a social justice package for Indigenous families and children, and
2. pursue the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission intoAboriginal Deaths in Custody which address underlying issues of social disadvantage.
Self-‐determination
Page 56
43a. That the Council of Australian Governments negotiate with the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, theSecretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care and the National Aboriginal and IslanderLegal Services Secretariat national legislation establishing a framework for negotiations at communityand regional levels for the implementation of self-‐determination in relation to the well-‐being ofIndigenous children and young people (national framework legislation).
43b. That the national framework legislation adopt the following principles.
1. That the Act binds the Commonwealth and every State and Territory Government.
2. That within the parameters of the Act Indigenous communities are free to formulate andnegotiate an agreement on measures best suited to their individual needs concerningchildren, young people and families.
3. That negotiated agreements will be open to revision by negotiation.
4. That every Indigenous community is entitled to adequate funding and other resources toenable it to support and provide for families and children and to ensure that the removal ofchildren is the option of last resort.
5. That the human rights of Indigenous children will be ensured.
43c. That the national framework legislation authorise negotiations with Indigenous communities thatso desire on any or all of the following matters,
1. the transfer of legal jurisdiction in relation to children's welfare, care and protection,adoption and/or juvenile justice to an Indigenous community, region orrepresentative organisation,
2. the transfer of police, judicial and/or departmental functions to an Indigenouscommunity, region or representative organisation,
3. the relationship between the community, region or representative organisation and thepolice, court system and/or administration of the State or Territory on matters relating tochildren, young people and families including, where desired by the Indigenous community,region or representative organisation, policy and program development and the sharing ofjurisdiction, and/or
4. the funding and other resourcing of programs and strategies developed or agreed to bythe community, region or representative organisation in relation to children, young peopleand families.
National standards for Indigenous children
44. That the Council of Australian Governments negotiate with the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, theSecretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care and the National Aboriginal and IslanderLegal Services Secretariat national legislation binding on all levels of government and on Indigenouscommunities, regions or representative organisations which take legal jurisdiction for Indigenouschildren establishing minimum standards of treatment for all Indigenous children (national standardslegislation).
National standards for Indigenous children under State, Territory or shared jurisdiction
45a. That the national standards legislation include the standards recommended below forIndigenous children under State or Territory jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction.
45b. That the negotiations for national standards legislation develop a framework for theaccreditation of Indigenous organisations for the purpose of performing functions prescribed by thestandards.
46. Standard 1: Best interests of the child -‐ factors47. Standard 2: When best interests are paramount48. Standard 3: When other factors apply
Page 57
49. Standard 4: Involvement of accredited Indigenous organisations50. Standard 5: Judicial decision making51. Standard 6: Indigenous Child Placement Principle52. Standard 7: Adoption a last resort
53. Standard 8: Juvenile justice
53a. That the national standards legislation incorporate the following rules to be followed in everymatter involving an Indigenous child or young person.
53b. That the national standards legislation provide that evidence obtained in breach of any of thefollowing rules is to be inadmissible against the child or young person except at the instance of thechild or young person himself or herself.
Rule 1. WarningsRule 2. Summons, attendance noticeRule 3. NotificationRule 4. ConsultationRule 5. InterrogationRule 6. CautionRule 7. Withdrawal of consentRule 8. RecordingRule 9. BailRule 10. Bail reviewRule 11. Bail hostelsRule 12. Detention in police cellsRule 13. Non-‐custodial sentencesRule 14. Sentencing factorsRule 15. Custodial sentences
Family law
54. That the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be amended by,
1. Including in section 60B(2) a new paragraph (ba) `children of Indigenous originshave a right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their ownculture, profess and practice their own religion, and use their own language', and
2. Replacing in section 68F(2)(f) the phrase `any need' with the phrase `the need ofevery Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child'.
Page 58
APPENDIX IIvan Boven Principles or UN Basic Principles and Guidelines
The van Boven Principles are now referred to as the ‘van Boven/Bassioun Principles’ or the UnitedNations Basic Principles and Guidelines.
Note: Principle 18 of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines states ‘full and effective reparation arelaid out in principles 19 to 23’, which include the following forms: restitution, compensation,rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition.
Principles 19 to 23 have been highlighted in red text below.
The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of GrossViolations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International HumanitarianLaw were adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 16 December 2005 as Res. 60/147.
The General Assembly adopts the following Basic Principles and Guidelines:
I. Obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law andinternational humanitarian law
1. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law andinternational humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law emanates from:(a) Treaties to which a State is a party;(b) Customary international law;(c) The domestic law of each State.
2. If they have not already done so, States shall, as required under international law, ensure that theirdomestic law is consistent with their international legal obligations by:(a) Incorporating norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law intotheir domestic law, or otherwise implementing them in their domestic legal system;(b) Adopting appropriate and effective legislative and administrative procedures and otherappropriate measures that provide fair, effective and prompt access to justice;(c) Making available adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparation, asdefined below;(d) Ensuring that their domestic law provides at least the same level of protection for victims as thatrequired by their international obligations.
II. Scope of the obligation
3. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law andinternational humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law, includes, inter alia,the duty to:(a) Take appropriate legislative and administrative and other appropriate measures to preventviolations;(b) Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate,take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law;(c) Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equaland effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearerof responsibility for the violation; and(d) Provide effective remedies to victims, including reparation, as described below.
III. Gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law that constitute crimes under international law
4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and,if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible forthe violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States
Page 59
should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist internationaljudicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.
5. To that end, where so provided in an applicable treaty or under other international law obligations,States shall incorporate or otherwise implement within their domestic law appropriate provisions foruniversal jurisdiction. Moreover, where it is so provided for in an applicable treaty or otherinternational legal obligations, States should facilitate extradition or surrender offenders to otherStates and to appropriate international judicial bodies and provide judicial assistance and other formsof cooperation in the pursuit of international justice, including assistance to, and protection of,victims and witnesses, consistent with international human rights legal standards and subject tointernational legal requirements such as those relating to the prohibition of torture and other formsof cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
IV. Statutes of limitations
6. Where so provided for in an applicable treaty or contained in other international legal obligations,statutes of limitations shall not apply to gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law which constitute crimes under international law.
7. Domestic statutes of limitations for other types of violations that do not constitute crimes underinternational law, including those time limitations applicable to civil claims and other procedures,should not be unduly restrictive.
V. Victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations ofinternational humanitarian law
8. For purposes of the present document, victims are persons who individually or collectively sufferedharm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantialimpairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations ofinternational human rights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Whereappropriate, and in accordance with domestic law, the term “victim” also includes the immediatefamily or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assistvictims in distress or to prevent victimization.
9. A person shall be considered a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator of the violation isidentified, apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship betweenthe perpetrator and the victim.
VI. Treatment of victims
10. Victims should be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity and human rights, andappropriate measures should be taken to ensure their safety, physical and psychological well-‐beingand privacy, as well as those of their families. The State should ensure that its domestic laws, to theextent possible, provide that a victim who has suffered violence or trauma should benefit from specialconsideration and care to avoid his or her re-‐traumatization in the course of legal and administrativeprocedures designed to provide justice and reparation.
VII. Victims’ right to remedies
11. Remedies for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations ofinternational humanitarian law include the victim’s right to the following as provided for underinternational law:(a) Equal and effective access to justice;(b) Adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered;(c) Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms.
VIII. Access to justice
Page 60
12. A victim of a gross violation of international human rights law or of a serious violation ofinternational humanitarian law shall have equal access to an effective judicial remedy as provided forunder international law. Other remedies available to the victim include access to administrative andother bodies, as well as mechanisms, modalities and proceedings conducted in accordance withdomestic law. Obligations arising under international law to secure the right to access justice and fairand impartial proceedings shall be reflected in domestic laws. To that end, States should:
(a) Disseminate, through public and private mechanisms, information about all available remedies forgross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarianlaw;(b) Take measures to minimize the inconvenience to victims and their representatives, protect againstunlawful interference with their privacy as appropriate and ensure their safety from intimidation andretaliation, as well as that of their families and witnesses, before, during and after judicial,administrative, or other proceedings that affect the interests of victims;(c) Provide proper assistance to victims seeking access to justice;(d) Make available all appropriate legal, diplomatic and consular means to ensure that victims canexercise their rights to remedy for gross violations of international human rights law or seriousviolations of international humanitarian law.
13. In addition to individual access to justice, States should endeavour to develop procedures to allowgroups of victims to present claims for reparation and to receive reparation, as appropriate.
14. An adequate, effective and prompt remedy for gross violations of international human rights lawor serious violations of international humanitarian law should include all available and appropriateinternational processes in which a person may have legal standing and should be without prejudice toany other domestic remedies.
IX. Reparation for harm suffered
15. Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing grossviolations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered. Inaccordance with its domestic laws and international legal obligations, a State shall provide reparationto victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the State and constitute gross violations ofinternational human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. In cases wherea person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable for reparation to a victim, such party shouldprovide reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the State has already provided reparationto the victim.
16. States should endeavour to establish national programmes for reparation and other assistance tovictims in the event that the parties liable for the harm suffered are unable or unwilling to meet theirobligations.
17. States shall, with respect to claims by victims, enforce domestic judgements for reparation againstindividuals or entities liable for the harm suffered and endeavour to enforce valid foreign legaljudgements for reparation in accordance with domestic law and international legal obligations. Tothat end, States should provide under their domestic laws effective mechanisms for the enforcementof reparation judgements.
18. In accordance with domestic law and international law, and taking account of individualcircumstances, victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations ofinternational humanitarian law should, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violationand the circumstances of each case, be provided with full and effective reparation, as laid out inprinciples 19 to 23, which include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,satisfaction and guarantees of non-‐repetition.
Page 61
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the grossviolations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian lawoccurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights,identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s place of residence, restoration of employment andreturn of property.
20. Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate andproportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, resulting from grossviolations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law,such as:(a) Physical or mental harm;(b) Lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits;(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;(d) Moral damage;(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services, and psychological andsocial services.
21. Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.
22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable, any or all of the following:(a) Effective measures aimed at the cessation of continuing violations;(b) Verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that suchdisclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim’srelatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence offurther violations;(c) The search for the whereabouts of the disappeared, for the identities of the children abducted,and for the bodies of those killed, and assistance in the recovery, identification and reburial of thebodies in accordance with the expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or the cultural practices ofthe families and communities;(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights ofthe victim and of persons closely connected with the victim;(e) Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility;(f) Judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations;(g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims;(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights lawand international humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels.
23. Guarantees of non-‐repetition should include, where applicable, any or all of the followingmeasures, which will also contribute to prevention:(a) Ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces;(b) Ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of due process,fairness and impartiality;(c) Strengthening the independence of the judiciary;(d) Protecting persons in the legal, medical and health-‐care professions, the media and other relatedprofessions, and human rights defenders;(e) Providing, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian laweducation to all sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials as well as military andsecurity forces;(f) Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and ethical norms, in particular internationalstandards, by public servants, including law enforcement, correctional, media, medical, psychological,social service and military personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;(g) Promoting mechanisms for preventing and monitoring social conflicts and their resolution;(h) Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international humanrights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
X. Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms
Page 62
24. States should develop means of informing the general public and, in particular, victims of grossviolations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian lawof the rights and remedies addressed by these Basic Principles and Guidelines and of all availablelegal, medical, psychological, social, administrative and all other services to which victims may have aright of access. Moreover, victims and their representatives should be entitled to seek and obtaininformation on the causes leading to their victimization and on the causes and conditions pertainingto the gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law and to learn the truth in regard to these violations.
XI. Non-‐discrimination
25. The application and interpretation of these Basic Principles and Guidelines must be consistentwith international human rights law and international humanitarian law and be without anydiscrimination of any kind or on any ground, without exception.
XII. Non-‐derogation
26. Nothing in these Basic Principles and Guidelines shall be construed as restricting or derogatingfrom any rights or obligations arising under domestic and international law. In particular, it isunderstood that the present Basic Principles and Guidelines are without prejudice to the right to aremedy and reparation for victims of all violations of international human rights law and internationalhumanitarian law. It is further understood that these Basic Principles and Guidelines are withoutprejudice to special rules of international law.
XIII. Rights of others
27. Nothing in this document is to be construed as derogating from internationally or nationallyprotected rights of others, in particular the right of an accused person to benefit from applicablestandards of due process.
Page 63
APPENDIX IIIRelevant legislations
Domestic laws: systematic racial discrimination and forcible removal
Aboriginal child welfare under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
• The Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969
The Aborigines Protection Act was amended in 1915, 1918, 1936, 1940, 1943 and 1963 and repealedby the Aborigines Act 1969.
• Aborigines Protection Act 1909• Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 (No.2)• Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1918 (No. 7)• Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1936 (No. 32)• Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1940 (No. 12)• Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1943 (No. 13)• Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1963 (No. 7)• Attachment of Wages Limitation Act 1957 s.10• Aborigines Act 1969
Provisions of the Act that applied to Aboriginal children varied from the Child Welfare legislations thatapplied to non-‐Aboriginal children during the same period.
Child Welfare legislations in NSW 1909-‐1969
The ‘standards of the time’ against which child-‐related provisions of the Aborigines Protection Act canbe judged, are legislations that governed the ‘care, maintenance, education and control’, and the‘indenture, boarding-‐out and adoption’ of non-‐Aboriginal children during the same period.
These include:
• State Children Relief Act 1901-‐1923• Apprentices Act 1901-‐1969• Neglected Children and Juvenile Offenders Act 1905-‐1923• Child Welfare Act 1923-‐1939• Child Welfare Act 1939-‐1987.
The National Inquiry also found that Aboriginal Protectors and Aboriginal Protection Boards had failedin their guardianship (fiduciary) duties towards Aboriginal wards or children. Failing to providecontemporary standards of care to Aboriginal children; failing to protect the children from harm; andby failing to involve Aboriginal parents in decision-‐making about their children.
International Human Rights Conventions and Humanitarian Law
International Human Rights Conventions ratified by Australia
International Human Rights Conventions ratified by Australia and in force between 1909-‐1969
• United Nations Charter (1945)• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948),• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965).
International Humanitarian Laws and Conventions Synthesised into the United Nations BasicPrinciples and Guidelines
International Conventions Synthesised into the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines
• article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)• article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976)• article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1965)• article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1987)
Page 64
• article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)
International Humanitarian Laws Synthesised into the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines
• article 3 of the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land(Convention IV) (1907)
• article 91 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions 1949 and relating to theProtection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977)
• articles 68 and 75 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002)
Page 65
APPENDIX IVViewing The Healing Journey of Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home Through The
Lens of The UN Basic Principles and GuidelinesPrinciple 22. Measures of satisfaction
Year Initiated by Coota Girls, siblings, families and communities NSW Governmentcontribution/response
1977 Coota Girl Margaret Tucker wrote of her experiences in herautobiography ‘If Anyone Cared’
Nil
Coota Girl Oomera Edwards and historian Peter Read founded thefirst Aboriginal family tracing and reunion service, Link-‐Up to assistthose who had been forcibly removed to find and re-‐unite with theirfamilies.
1980
Many Coota Girls became members and clients of Link-‐Up andstarted to trace and reunite with families.
Nil
1981 Coota Girl Oomera Edwards produced the documentary It’s A LongRoad Back about her experience in the Home. Included an interviewwith Matron Hiscocks
Publication of The Stolen Generations: The Removal of AboriginalChildren in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 by historian Peter Read.
Nil
1983 Coota Girl Margaret Tucker featured in documentary Lousy LittleSixpence. Used historical footage and interviews with MatronHiscocks.
Nil
1989 Coota Girl Oomera Edwards and Peter Read edit The Lost children:thirteen Australians taken from their Aboriginal families tell of thestruggle to find their natural parents.
Nil
1991 Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody – 43 of 99deaths investigated were those who had been separated from theirfamilies as children.
The Royal Commission reported ‘a regime that took youngAboriginal children, sought to cut them off suddenly from allcontact with their families and communities, instill in them arepugnance of all things Aboriginal and prepare them harshly forlife as the lowest level of worker in a prejudiced white community,is still a living legacy amongst many Aboriginals today.’122
Link Up services funded by ATSIC.
Nil
1995 National Inquiry Into Separation of Aboriginal Children From TheirFamilies.
Coota Girl Lola Edwards was a member of the Indigenous AdvisoryCouncil to the National Inquiry, and traveled throughout NSW tolocate and prepare those who had been forcibly removed to giveevidence. This included 22 community forums.
Funds to supportcommunity forums
1996 Many survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gave movingtestimonies to the National Inquiry.
Nil
122 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991), National Report, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, ACT: Canberra. N20.
Page 66
2015 Coota Girls Corp began to develop an evidence base re forcibleremoval of Aboriginal children in NSW:
Systematic racial discrimination as source of gross violations ofhuman rights of survivors of the two Children’s Training Homesconstituted under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969.
Survivors of the Cootamundra Girl’s Home possess internationallyrecognised rights to receive full and effective reparations for grossviolations of human rights under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909-‐1969. These rights are articulated in the Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims ofGross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the UnitedNations General Assembly in 2005.
Principle 22. Measures of satisfaction(e) Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility.
Year Activity
NSW Parliament provided an apology to the Stolen Generations in NSW
1997Coota Girl Nancy de Vries addressed the parliament and Lola Edwards and Jean Carterwere present in parliament to hear the apology from the NSW Government.
1998 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs published Securing The Truth. NSW GovernmentSubmission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Inquiry into theSeparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. DAASydney.
1998 Commissioner of Police apologized to the Stolen Generations in NSW
Principle 22. Measures of satisfaction(g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims
Year Activity NSW Governmentcontribution / response
1998 NSW Governmentannounced $45,000 for amemorial to StolenGenerations at BotanicGardens.
2002 Coota Girls recorded their stories as part of the Bringing Them Homeoral history project by the National Library of Australia.
The stories appeared in an associated publication Many Voices:Reflections on experiences of Indigenous child separation, edited byDoreen Mellor and Anna Haebich.
Nil
2006 Survivors established two memorials at the Cootamundra GirlsHome: a replica of the well they often sat on, inscribed with ‘Sittingon our wishing well, waiting for family to take us home’; and a groupphotograph set in a large polished stone that represented a mothercoming up the driveway to take her child or children home. UnveiledOct 20.Link Up NSW obtained a grant from BTH Innovative Grants Program.
An exhibition ofphotographs held byState Records and theNational Archives -‐ InLiving Memory -‐ washosted at the Home.
Page 67
2010 Exhibition of formerAborigines WelfareBoard records andphotographs toured NewSouth Wales.
2011 Auspice agency for BTH Counsellor position to support survivors ofthe Cootamundra Girls Home sought funds to develop a DVD torecord personal stories of Coota Girls for the 100 yearCommemoration of the Cootamundra Girls Home in 2012.
2012 100 year Commemoration event Cootamundra Girls Home.DVD: ‘All One, the Girls’Book: Home Girls by Peter Kabaila.
50 survivors traveled from around Australia to attend. Over 400people attended event.
Minister for AboriginalAffairs Victor Dominelloaddressed the event
2014 Survivors of theCootamundra Girls Homecontributed to the NSWGovernment OCHREHealing Forum held 23July 2014
Principle 19: Measures of restitution
Year Activity NSW Governmentcontribution/response
1997 Special Preservation Project topreserve files of AboriginalWelfare Board$103,000 over 2yrs
1998 The NSW Government Response (undated). Report ofthe National Inquiry Into the Separation of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Children From Their Families.
Published a Guide to NSWArchives Relating to Aboriginalpeople
Published a resource kitConnecting Kin to assist withfamily tracing
2004 Between 1900 and 1969, sums of moneys were placedin trust accounts controlled by the Boards in thenames of individual Aboriginal people. Identifiedcategories of claimants included child apprentices,endowees, pensioners and beneficiaries of lump sumpayments. Number of trust account holders estimatedat less than 3,500.
Aboriginal Trust RepaymentScheme returned wages andentitlements not paid tochildren who wereapprenticed.
2010 $50,000 to Link-‐Up NSW for aresource on family histories ofCoota Girls to use whenresearching Stolen Gen familyhistories.
Principle 20: Monetary compensation
Page 68
Year Activity NSW Governmentcontribution/response
1997 When formulating its ‘programmatic response’ to theBringing Them Home report, the CommonwealthGovernment stated ‘States were responsible forpractices within their borders at the time, and remainresponsible for any current effects their past practiceshave had.’123
Nil
2000 Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gaveevidence about their unmet needs for collectiverehabilitation and compensation to the Senate Legaland Constitutional References Committee Inquiry IntoThe Responses To The Bringing Them Home Report.
The Commonwealth Government asserted that ‘Stateswere responsible for practices within their borders atthe time, and remain responsible for any currenteffects their past practices have had.’124
Nil
2002 A survivor of the Cootamundra Girls Home made asuccessful claim for victims compensation for sexualassaults and violence while working as a domesticservant aged 14yrs.
Nil
2008 Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gaveevidence about their unmet needs for collectiverehabilitation and/or compensation to the SenateStanding Committee on Legal and ConstitutionalAffairs Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.
The Commonwealth Government suggested it was‘more realistic and appropriate for the States to bedirectly liable to compensate the children whom theyremoved’.125
Nil
2010 The United Nations Special Rapporteur for IndigenousPeoples, James Anaya, noted the CommonwealthGovernment’s intention not to provide monetarycompensation, where claims could be directed tostate governments, in the 2010 report of his visit toAustralia.126
Nil
2014 The NSW Stolen Generations Council NSW/ACTinitiated a ‘group action’ for Stolen Generations inNSW with Carroll and O’Dea lawyers.
Principle 21: Measures of rehabilitation, including collective rehabilitation
Date Activity NSW Government
123 Herron, J (1997) 'Bringing them home': Commonwealth initiatives. Statement tabled in Parliament out of session on 16December 1997.124 Herron, J. (2000) Federal Government Submission: Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into theStolen Generation, Canberra.125 Ruddock, P. (2008) Reparations for the stolen generations -‐ Government responds. Speech delivered by the Honorable PhilipRuddock, MP. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Moving Forward -‐ achieving reparations for the stolengenerations conference.126 Anaya, J. (2010) Special Rapporteur, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms of Indigenous People. United Nations: Geneva.
Page 69
contribution/response
1994 Collective rehabilitationLink-‐Up NSW hosted a reunion for survivors of theCootamundra Girls Home at Cootamundra. Manysurvivors revisited the Cootamundra Girls Home.
Nil
1997-‐1998 $50,000 to NSW Link Up toprovide follow up support forthose involved in NationalInquiry process
1997 onwards Collective rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home started‘getting together as part of the healing process’.These gatherings ‘provided opportunities forworking through personal and community grief.’127
Nil
1998 $50,000 to AMS Redfern todevelop a training program ontrauma, grief & loss.
50,000 to AMS Armidale &University New England todevelop a training program fortrauma, grief and loss
1999 $60,000 to NSW Link Up for aconference on trauma, griefand loss in Aboriginalcommunities
1999 Rehabilitation for Stolen GenerationsCoota Girl Aunty Lorraine Peeters developed theMarumali Journey of Healing to increase the qualityof support available to the Stolen Generations.Presented at NSW conference in 1999, which calledfor it to be made available nationally.
The workshop was piloted with Link Up case-‐workersthe following year. More than 200 workshops havesince been delivered nationally to train 2,290 Link-‐upcase workers, Link Up Counsellors, Bringing ThemHome Counsellors and a range of other practitioners.
Nil
2000 Unmet need for collective rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gaveevidence to the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee Inquiry Into The ResponsesTo The Bringing Them Home Report re unmet needfor collective rehabilitation and measures for health,housing, education and funerals.
Nil
2004 Collective rehabilitationCoota Girls Gathering held at Cootamundra. Includedvisits to the Home: ‘Reclaiming Our Childhood.’
Nil
127 McNaughton, L (2000) Interview transcript April 3 2000. The World Today. Anger and sadness across the Aboriginalcommunity. ABC Radio.
Page 70
Link Up NSW obtained grant from OATSIH InnovativeGrants Program.
2007 Unmet need for collective rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home providedfeedback to the evaluation of the Bringing ThemHome Counselling and Indigenous Mental Healthprogram re unmet needs for collective rehabilitationfor institutional groups.
Nil
2008 Unmet need for collective rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home gaveevidence re unmet need for collective rehabilitationand measures for health, housing, education andfunerals to the Senate Standing Committee on Legaland Constitutional Affairs Stolen GenerationCompensation Bill.
Nil
2009 Collective rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home formedthe Stolen Generations Council of NSW & ACT.Auspiced by the Aboriginal Child, Family andCommunity Care State Secretariat (AbSEC).Funded by a small grant from FaHCSIA.
Nil
2010 Unmet need for rehabilitationDepartment of Health and Ageing, Office ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, funded agathering of survivors of Cootamundra Girls Home toconsider the establishment of a Bringing Them HomeCounsellor position to meet their needs. Thirty-‐twosurvivors attended the meeting and developed the‘All One Statement’ about their support needs.
An innovative model was proposed to supportcollective rehabilitation and practical support forhealth, funerals etc which required additional funds.
Nil
2011 RehabilitationBringing Them Home (BTH) counsellor position tosupoort survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Homeestablished within an auspice organization.
While the innovative model proposed by survivorswas initially supported by OATSIH, the usual fundingallocation for one BTH Counsellor position wasprovided, without the additional resources required.
Nil
2012 Collective rehabilitationCoota Girls Gathering Tweed HeadsHealing Foundation grant.
Nil
2013 Unmet need for rehabilitationSurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home unable toobtain support from BTH Counsellor positionestablished to support them.
Collective rehabilitationThe Healing Foundation provided a grant to supportsurvivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home to meet inNovember. The Coota Girls Corporation was formedat this meeting to achieve the goals set out in the AllOne Statement.
Nil
Page 71
2014 RehabilitationThe Coota Girls Corporation received a grant fromHealing Foundation to develop education resourcesabout the needs of survivors of the CootamundraGirls Home for a range of service providers.
Nil
2015 Coota Girls Corporation received 3yr funding underIndigenous Advancement Strategy, Prime Ministerand Cabinet, from July.
The Healing Foundation supported a meetingbetween the Boards of the Coota Girls Corporationand the Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Home Corporationto develop a joint approach to reparations forsurvivors of the NSW Children’s Training Homes inAugust.
Collective rehabilitationCoota Girls Gathering Sydney AugustGrant from Healing Foundation.
Nil
Principle 23: Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Year Activity NSW Government contribution
1973 Department of Child Welfare firstbegan to record whether a child wasof Aboriginal or Torres StraitIslander descent, or not.128
1975 First community-‐based, Aboriginal controlled, Aboriginalstaffed childcare agency established in Sydney – theAboriginal Children’s Services.Following the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deathsin Custody, funding for Aboriginal Child Care agenciesbecame available through ATSIC.
Aboriginal Children’s Services and Link-‐Up NSW became adriving force behind the development of the AboriginalChild Placement Principle.
Nil
1987 NSW Community Welfare Act 1987included in its objects thepromotion of the welfare ofAboriginal people would include therecognition of Aboriginal culture,identity, community structures andstandards, the rights of Aboriginesto raise and protect their ownchildren, and to be involved indecision making processes thataffect them and their children.129
1995 ‘Learning From The Past’ reportwhich examined present impacts ofpast welfare interventions onAboriginal families’ lives. Provided
128 Ibid.129 Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
Page 72
from an Aboriginal perspective.
1998 Aboriginal Child PlacementPrinciple introduced in the NSWChildren (Care and Protection) Act.
Components of reparations provided by NSW Government to Aboriginal children removedunder the Act 1909-‐1969 (Stolen Generations)
Principle 19: Restitution
1997 Special Preservation Project to preserve files of Aboriginal Welfare Board $103,000 over 2yrsPublished Guide to NSW Archives Relating to Aboriginal people.
Published resource kit Connecting Kin to assist with family tracing.
2004 Aboriginal Trust Repayment Scheme returned wages to children who were apprenticed.
2010 Link-‐Up NSW $50,000 for resource on family histories of survivors of Cootamundra Girls Homefor use when researching Stolen Generation family histories.
Principle 20: Compensation
2014 A mediation process is underway in relation to compensation for those who were removed andplaced in NSW Children’s Training Homes.
Principle 21: Rehabilitation
1997 Link Up NSW $50,000 for follow-‐up support for those involved in National Inquiry process.
1998 AMS Redfern $50,000 to develop a training program on trauma, grief & loss.
AMS Armidale $50,000 to develop a training program for trauma, grief and loss.
1999 Link Up NSW $60,000 for a conference on trauma, grief and loss in Aboriginal communities.
Principle 22: Satisfaction
a) Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility
1995 Funds to support community forums National Inquiry Into Separation of Aboriginal ChildrenFrom Their Families.
1997 Apology by NSW parliament .
1998 Apology by NSW police force.
1998 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs published Securing The Truth. NSW GovernmentSubmission to HREOC Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderChildren from their Families.
2006 NSW Department Aboriginal Affairs published 2nd Edition Stolen Generations: Removal ofAboriginal Children in NSW 1883 to 1969 by Peter Read.
g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims
2003 Stolen Generations memorial at Botanic Gardens. $45,000. Opened 2 October 2007.
2006 In Living Memory exhibition of photographs held by State Records and National Archives,hosted at Cootamundra Girls Home.
2012 Victor Dominello, Minister For Aboriginal Affairs, addressed the 100yr Commemoration eventat Cootamundra.
2014 Survivors of the Cootamundra Girls Home contributed to the NSW Government OCHRE HealingForum held 23 July.
Principle 23: Guarantees of non-‐repetition
Page 73
1987 NSW Community Welfare Act 1987 included in its objects the promotion of the welfare ofAboriginal people would include the recognition of Aboriginal culture, identity, communitystructures and standards, the rights of Aborigines to raise and protect their own children, andto be involved in decision making processes that affect them and their children.
1995 ‘Learning From The Past’ report which examined present impacts of past welfare interventionson Aboriginal families’ lives. Provided from an Aboriginal perspective.
1998 Aboriginal Child Placement Principle introduced in the NSW Children (Care and Protection) Actfor protection and care for children at risk of neglect or abuse. Child Placement Principle -‐principles of self-‐determination, participation and placement for working with IndigenousAustralians and their communities.
