Sir Ronald Wilson's report was astonishingly deficient

The Howard governments denial of any generation of "stolen" Aboriginal children has produced highly emotive reactions from those who have accepted without question the report by Sir Roland Wilson, Bringing Them Home. That report concluded that between one-tenth and one third of half-caste children were forcibly removed from their mothers during 1910 to 1970 and it recommended compensation on the basis that the removals were unjustified and  after-care was poor.

But since this report was handed down in 1997, questioning of its basis has been mounting. This has emerged partly from increasing evidence suggesting that the policy of encouraging the separate development of Aborigines has been a failure.

Sir Ronald objected to the policy of removing half-castes from their mothers on the ground that it was racially motivated, being designed (as he saw it) mainly to assimilate half-castes so as to remove them from a perceived "dead" Aboriginal culture. A contrast is sometimes made here between policies before and after 1970, when Nugget Coombs replaced Paul Hasluck as the guiding influence on Aboriginal policy. Since 1970 Aboriginal cultures have indeed been promoted, and separate Aboriginal development  encouraged through the granting of extensive land rights.

While there have been some positive spin-offs, this encouragement of separate cultural and economic development has made adaptation to modern society difficult for many Aboriginals, particularly those living in traditional communities. This has, in turn, contributed to the high rates of unemployment, crime, alcoholism and violence among Aboriginals, and to dependency on welfare. By contrast, the benign Hasluck policy of encouraging the removal of half-caste children can now be seen to have allowed many to participate in and benefit from modern society.

Moreover, evidence submitted in compensation test cases against the Commonwealth indicates that, at least for 1937-70 in the Northern Territory, there can be no serious suggestion that the aim the policy was anything other than the welfare of half-caste children. The principal reason for the policy, rarely mentioned by supporters of Sir Ronald's report, was that many half-caste children were culturally rejected by traditional Aboriginal communities.  By encouraging their removal, the Commonwealth could be said to have been pursuing a policy of protection against discrimination. 

So much for the underlying basis of Sir Ronald's work. But what about the factual basis, including the 535 personal and 1000 written accounts given to him alleging forcible removal and/or poor after-care?

The evidence does not support either proposition. The judge in a New South Wales  compensation test case found that the claimant was not "stolen" and concluded that "At all points, the whole of the evidence seems to be against the plaintiff's claim." Judgement in the cases against the Commonwealth is pending but, on the evidence, a similar conclusion seems warranted.

The conflict between Sir Ronald's report and evidence in these latter cases arises because he did not check the veracity of stories told to him. Nor, astonishingly, did he call evidence from officers involved in administering Aboriginal welfare.

 His supporters (such as Robert Mann on this page on Monday) have offered the excuses that evidence could only be obtained "voluntarily" and that his "shoe string budget" precluded research needed to check Aborigines' stories. However, offers by administrative officers to provide evidence were not taken up by Sir Ronald and, no matter what resources were available, it is surely a travesty of justice to accept stories without checking them.

Sir Ronald effectively convicted administrative and welfare officers of serious crimes without even giving them the right to defend their conduct. Yet the evidence in the Commonwealth test cases shows that they are people of whom Australia can be proud. In difficult circumstances, they upheld the highest standards in carrying out their work.

Other evidence led during the cases also provides a totally different perspective. For example, evidence that was unchallenged by the claimants shows that, during 1946-62 in the territory, half-caste children numbered between 500 and 1000. Only 129 such children were placed in hostels by the Government and  all except three were placed with the mother's consent. Such consent was obtained from discussions that typically extended over 18 months to 2 years.

By contrast, about 450 children were placed in hostels by parents at their own expense, reflecting the general enthusiasm shown by Aboriginal parents to obtain western education for their children. Some have been unaware that their parents sent them to hostels.  However, one prominent person calling for an apology, Charles Perkins, was aware that his mother put him in a hostel and he later praised the system "as it had excellent results".

This and other evidence undermine the credibility of Sir Ronald's report.  We must start again and promulgate the truth.

Peter Howson was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1971 and 1972