SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES COMMITTEE

 

 

 

"INQUIRY INTO THE STOLEN GENERATION"

 

Submission by The Hon Peter Howson
(with the assistance of Des Moore)

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1971 and 1972

 

May 2000

 

INTRODUCTION

 

I make this submission as one who has had a long and close involvement with  Aboriginal affairs, which has continued since my retirement from active participation in political life. After nearly 40 years of study of and involvement with Aboriginal issues I believe that I have some qualifications to comment on them.

 

My concern with Aboriginal policy officially began in 1962 when, with Kim Beazley Senior, I wrote the report to Parliament that recommended that Aborigines should be given the right to vote in Federal elections - a report that received unanimous endorsement by the Parliament. Then, when in 1971 I was appointed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I had lengthy discussions with many community leaders which led me to conclude that the basic question that faced us then, and still faces those who are either responsible for, or who seek to influence, government Aboriginal policy, is as follows:

 

 “How do we assist, humanely and effectively, people who have reached various and different stages in the incredibly difficult transition from a precarious nomadic hunter-gathering existence, to a sedentary life in the modern world; a world in which their ancient culture, and the religion which is intrinsic to their former hunter-gatherer economy, are completely at variance with the demands of modern life?”

 

I have never pretended to have all the answers to that question but my period as Minister left me with an intense and deep interest in what policies might be followed in the interests of both Aborigines themselves and relations between them and other Australians. I have also never sought to deny that our forefathers effectively occupied this continent by virtue of their physical superiority and that Aborigines suffered many acts of violence and killings as a result (as indeed did our forefathers).

 

Of course, one could seek to defend the actions of our forefathers on the basis that they were simply following the practices of "colonisation" that had been pursued since time immemorial (and which Aborigines themselves may at some time also have pursued). One could also point to the many acts of benevolence on both sides. However, my fundamental concern has always been that an excessive focus on the past not only encourages an psychology of victimhood with serious adverse effects for many Aborigines and our relations with them; it also diverts attention away from the many serious ongoing problems facing Aborigines and those in government and other institutions who are doing their best to help.

 

That concern has been heightened by observing developments in recent years in several countries that have been aptly described by philospher Professor Kenneth Minogue as "an adventure in moral idealism". It is important, I believe, to appreciate that much of this adventure has been based on a misinterpretation of the merits and demerits of primitive societies and cultures relative to our own. I have therefore included below some observations on this aspect that I hope may help the Committee in its deliberations.

 

The adventure in moral idealism has led to the development of demands for apologies for past injustices to indigenous peoples and of proposals to make amends to the current generation. A moment's thought should indicate the intensely  controversial and basically irresolvable nature of processes that attempt to determine the content of past injustices, let alone who in the current generation is suffering from them or what action should be taken consistent with maintaining a unified community.

 

Australia is fortunate that, for the most part, it has so far avoided such processes.  However, the calls that have developed in Australia for a Government apology to the so-called “stolen generation”, based on the 1997 report, Bringing Them Home, by Sir Ronald Wilson, threaten to take us down that path, a path that would be based on a false interpretation of the period from 1940 to about 1970. That would be a tragedy for Australia and for our Aboriginal population.

 

 My submission is that, since that report was published, evidence that ought to have been considered by Sir Ronald, but was not, has been brought to light; evidence that makes necessary a fundamental re-assessment of Sir Ronald’s conclusions. This evidence indicates that his conclusions were based on fundamental misconceptions about the situation that faced Governments, the churches, the part Aborigine children and their mothers, and about the circumstances of the separation of those children from their mothers.

 

I refer in particular to:

 

(1)       The decision in the test case Williams v New South Wales in which Judge Abadee found against Williams on all causes of action. After the submission of very extensive evidence, the Judge found that the claimant was not stolen and he described the “whole of the evidence” as being against the plaintiff’s claim. Yet Williams was quoted in Sir Ronald’s report as a typical “stolen child”.

 

(2)                The 8000 pages of evidence from witnesses in the Northern Territory test-case of Cubillo and Gunner v The Commonwealth, all sworn and subject to proper cross-examination. I have studied this evidence very carefully and, while judgment is still pending, I believe that it clearly supports the view that no Aboriginal child was forcibly or wrongfully removed in the Northern Territory during the period covered by the trial, ie the post WWII period. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that official Commonwealth policy was not based on any racial motivation.

 

(3)       Senator Herron’s submission to the Senate Inquiry into the “Stolen Generation”. The media has generated a furore about the 10% figure quoted in the Minister’s Report.  This figure was obtained from the 1994 ABS household survey in which respondents were asked first, if they were aboriginal or part-aboriginal, and if the answer was yes, they were then asked if they regarded themselves as “stolen”. No checks were made (or could have been made) as to the veracity of these responses. The figure of 10% (or indeed any figure) obtained from this survey is accordingly of little value. The Minister used it as evidence of an upper bound to the possible extent of the number of Aboriginals who believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were forcibly removed from their parents. For this, he was excoriated by the media, which accused him of “insensitivity” - and much worse. The Minister was merely trying to point the Senate Committee in the direction of the truth.

 

As I have pointed out in various articles published in the media, Sir Ronald did not check the veracity of stories told to him by Aborigines; he did not call evidence from government patrol officers involved in administering Aboriginal welfare; nor did he call on those missionaries and other church workers who were active in church hostels. These officers and missionaries, (some of whom are still alive), have been incriminated by Sir Ronald’s report without having any opportunity to defend their conduct. Moreover, while Sir Ronald claimed that the removal of children was racially motivated, I believe that a strong case can be mounted that the effect (and intent) of the Commonwealth action was to protect the children against discrimination arising from their part-Aboriginality

 

Evidence adduced by the Commonwealth in the Gunner-Cubillo case - evidence which was not challenged by the appellants’ Counsel - showed that the majority of children were placed in hostels by their parents and that those placed in hostels by the Government were almost all put there after obtaining parental consent (in only one or two cases it was not possible to ascertain whether consent had been obtained). It emerged during the case that some children who believed that they were “stolen” were unaware they had been placed in hostels by their parents.

 

On reading the Commonwealth submission to the Committee, I was particularly struck by one quotation from the book written by Patrol Officer Colin Macleod on his experiences in the Northern Territory in the 1950s. I feel that it is worth repeating that quote here, viz:

 

Many children were assessed …and were judged to be better off staying where they were. Many, also, were not… Never, however, were children taken from families with a mother and father. They were always from very young and unprotected single mothers, often between 10 and 13, with no family member to properly care for them. On the occasions that I recommended the removal of children from their families, it appeared that the alternatives were pretty shocking.

 

Against this sort of background, I find it difficult to see how anyone of good conscience, and with a concern for the truth, could portray the removal of the children of unprotected single mothers aged between 10 and 13 as other than an act of mercy. To describe it as a racist act would not only be bizarre and misguided: it would be totally contrary to the evidence adduced in Cubillo and Gunner on the motivation of official Commonwealth policy. Yet that is the implication of the report by Sir Ronald Wilson, and it is on this false basis that demands for an official apology are mounted.

 

The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence that has emerged in recent months, one that seems to me to be inescapable, is that virtually all of the removals of part-Aboriginal children were morally and legally justified. My hope would be to find agreement amongst those concerned for the truth, and for the honour of former generations of administrators and missionaries, on this conclusion and, as a consequence, on the need to dismiss calls for a “stolen generation” apology. For reconciliation to succeed, it must be based on truth on both sides.

 

Of course, even though virtually all who were separated certainly benefited by comparison with the situation they would otherwise have been in, life in institutions had adverse effects on some. In such circumstances, Christian compassion and sympathy should be extended. I note that the Government has acknowledged this and has taken action to provide, among other things, assistance with family reunion, counselling, parenting and emotional support. It has also publicly stated that it deeply regrets the harm caused by past policies and practices that separated indigenous families.

 

I note also that, according to a report in the Canberra Times of 19 May (Indigenous Children More Abused: Report), a study by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare has revealed that child abuse requiring legal interventions are up to nine times higher among indigenous populations than among other Australian children. The report quotes the author as follows:

 

"Indigenous children were over-represented among children in child protection substantiations, on care and protection orders, and in out-of-home care"

 

It thus appears that many indigenous children are today being removed from their parents under legal orders - and for similar reasons to those that applied in the past. It seems surprising that more attention has not been given to this fact in the context of the stolen generation question.  The only essential difference between today's and those past forced removals the subject of Sir Ronald's report relate to his totally false accusations that the past removals were based on racist motives.

 

BRINGING THEM HOME -  THE CONTEXT

 

Sir Ronald Wilson's report "Bringing them home" is a high water mark on the
journey in Aboriginal Policy and Affairs which began when Sir Paul Hasluck
left the Cabinet and became Governor-General. This journey took a contrary road to that which Sir Paul had undertaken, although it was some time before those who were in charge of the new direction, notably Dr H G Coombs, were prepared to come out openly and disparage the policies which Sir Paul had articulated and pursued over along period in office.

 

After thirty years of travelling down this road, it has at last become clear to all but the most committed protagonists of "separatism" (a label which is an accurate summary of the Coombsian doctrines which captured official and political thinking on Aboriginal policy from the early seventies on), that separatism has not only failed Australia's aborigines; as discussed below, it has also created a serious problem for Australia's reputation abroad.

 

 

 

The Northern Territory Situation

 

What happened in the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia in the post-war period? Where did Sir Ronald go wrong?

 

The situation facing the authorities in the NT and other parts of remote Australia after the War was a significant increase in the number of part-aboriginal babies. The problem was described by Reg Marsh, formerly Deputy Administrator in the NT in these words:

 

"It was the child of the casual, irresponsible non-Aboriginal who presented the traditional community with a problem. If the Aboriginal mother defied the group and kept her child there was, for the Aboriginal tribe, the unthinkable, a person in a traditional society without a link to both moieties and so outside the law. Women strong enough to withstand community disapproval, with maternal instincts strong enough to keep, nurture and raise such a child, happened but rarely. In too many cases the out-born child had no standing traditionally and was rejected and ill-used by the group.

 

This problem became most apparent to the church missions working in traditional living areas, to such an extent that they felt it was scandalous. They compared experience in their respective contact areas and decided they should collectively apprise the government of the situation and offer to care for these rejected children if separate establishments were provided for them by the government. That was the genesis of Croker Island, Snake Bay, Retta Dixon, St Mary's. The motivation  was humane, not doctrinal (whether on grounds of sectarian or genetic doctrine)."[i]

 

There was, therefore, a very real human problem to be faced and this was the solution which church leaders, public servants and ministers of the Crown developed. The irony is that many of these children have now become well-educated leaders in the Aboriginal industry, and it has been said are now seeking a subtle revenge for the way in which traditional Aborigines treated them and their mothers. The story of Peter Gunner is a tragedy of this kind.

 

But the sense of loss that is claimed to be felt is a loss for a Garden of Eden existence that exists only in fantasy. Aboriginal society was then not much less violent and barbarous than it had been prior to European settlement. What is now a matter of grave concern is that all the evidence suggests that, under the separatist policies pursued over the past thirty years, violence towards women has increased to very serious proportions in recent years, and that sexual abuse of children has become ubiquitous.

 

Genocide and Australia's Reputation.

 

On page 266 of the Wilson Report we read "The Australian practice of indigenous child removal involved both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law. Yet it continued to be practised as official policy long after being
clearly prohibited by treaties to which Australia had voluntarily subscribed."

 

There are many foolish statements in the Wilson Report; there are many
errors of fact. This statement is both false and highly damaging to
Australia's international reputation. Yet it is central to the whole concept of an apology. Members of the Committee should be fully aware of the consequences if they accept the Wilson thesis.

 

Sir Ronald's failure to hear the evidence which those who were involved in the carriage of policy back in the fifties and sixties and who are still alive, and who sought to bring their testimony to his attention, is manifest here. The most offensive thing about these words is the calumny aimed at a large number of honourable and highly motivated Australians involved in Aboriginal policy from the
1940s until the 1970s. This policy, identified by the word "assimilation",
was supported by both sides of politics and by State and Federal
Governments. The man who more than anyone else articulated and refined the
policy, and oversaw its development, was Sir Paul Hasluck. By his choice of
words Sir Ronald Wilson has effectively identified Sir Paul with Eichmann,
Borman and the other Nazis who, under Hitler, planned and executed the mass
deportation of the Jews of central and eastern Europe to the extermination
camps of East Germany and Poland.

 

The rhetoric of genocide that has been promoted by Sir Ronald and others has
been also been spreading overseas. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, is not the only foreign leader who has used Australia's alleged treatment of
its Aborigines as a political weapon against Australia.

 

Even before the Wilson report, the then President of France, Francois Mitterand,
claimed on French television on 16 December 1984 "There is no longer any indigenous population in Australia because it has been killed". President Mitterand's statement undoubtedly reflected a widely held perception amongst the French elite and there can be no doubt that he used Australian sources as authority for his nonsensical claim.

 

Since 1984 the rhetoric of self-denigration and self-calumny concerning
Aboriginal policy has increased greatly. Why such rhetoric should have
domestic political appeal, crossing both sides of politics, and given
extraordinary resonance by the broadsheet press, is something that
requires careful consideration.  We have become accustomed to criticisms by Dr
Mahathir, but given the imprisonment and bashing of his former Deputy Prime
Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, such criticism cuts little ice either here or
abroad.

 

A more serious development emerged in a recent article in Germany's "die Frankfurter Allgemeine", which repeated Wilsonian accusations of genocide against Australia. This article was written in the context of the forthcoming Sydney Olympics, and it presages a large number of similar articles, written by sports commentators. Indeed, an Age journalist claimed on 26 May  "already Aboriginal organisations are receiving voluminous requests from foreign journalists wanting to do stories on the Stolen Generation" (Pay No Heed to the Man Who Won't Say Sorry by Martin Flanagan). Few, if any, of these journalists have the slightest knowledge of, or real interest in, the condition of Aboriginal life in Australia but they are reflecting the poisonous perception about Australia's treatment of Aborigines that Sir Ronald's report has promoted. Such articles will be read by millions of people.

 

Australia's reputation was again sullied in an article that appeared in the US magazine "Sports Illustrated" of 1 May, which repeated the domestic self-denigration that has been the characteristic and essential element of the Coombsian paradigm, faithfully amplified by Sir Ronald Wilson. This article would have been read by many millions of American readers, who will have neither the reason nor the motivation to do any research which might give them a more accurate understanding of the situation.

 

More important in some respects is the suggestion in an article that appeared in The Spectator on 15 April that Australia is being targeted by the human rights industry "as the next international white pariah, the South Africa of the new century" (The World's Next Pariah by Michael Duffy). It takes little imagination to foresee that UN Committees, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, will seize every opportunity to exploit suggestions of genocide by a former judge of Australia's own High Court.

 

Sir Paul Hasluck is now dead, but one useful and important thing this Senate
Committee could do is to demand of Sir Ronald Wilson an apology for his
egregious calumny against one of Australia's most distinguished ministers. Another would be to dispel the myths that are developing overseas about Australia's treatment of Aborigines and the stolen generation myth in particular. Australia now faces an international problem, caused by the attempts to provide intellectual support for the Coombsian policies of separatism, which is based on a view of Australian civilisation almost identical to the view of European civilisation which Montaigne prescribed in 1580, and which I turn to below. It is a view driven by a distaste, almost hatred, for Australian civilisation. If the Committee has Australia's interests at heart it should address this growing problem.

 

The Misinterpretation of Cultures

 

Why so many Australian judges, intellectuals, journalists and church leaders have
persisted in promoting a false and literally fantastic history of the
encounter between the Europeans settlers and our indigenous peoples is an
important cultural issue to pursue, and the Committee could perform a useful
service by inquiring into it. A useful starting point for such an inquiry is
the well-documented European cultural and political tradition of the
rhetoric of self-calumny, which goes back to the 16th Century.

 

Since the discovery of the Americas in 1492 by Christopher Colombus a
European fantasy about primitive peoples has evolved, a fantasy usually
described as "Rousseauvian" from Rousseau's prize winning essay "Discourse
on the Origin of Inequality" of 1755. The Institute of Economic Affairs has
recently published a monograph by Robert Whelan which gives us an excellent
history of the recurring power of this fantasy. [ii]

 

Whelan tells us that it was not Rousseau, in fact, who pioneered this
fantasy, but Montaigne, who, in 1580, wrote about the American Indians,
discovered in1492 by Colombus, in these words,

 

"Those people have no trade of any kind, no acquaintance with writing, no knowledge of numbers, no terms for governor or political superior, no practice of subordination or of riches or poverty, no contracts, no inheritance, no divided estates, no occupation but leisure, no clothing, no agriculture, no metals, no use of wine or corn. Among them you hear no words for treachery, lying, cheating, avarice, envy, backbiting or forgiveness. . . They spend the whole day dancing; the younger men go off hunting with bow and arrow. Meanwhile some of the women-folk are occupied in warming up their drink: that is their main task... since without toil or travail they still enjoy that bounteous Nature who furnishes them abundantly with all they need. . .

 

They are still in that blessed state of desiring nothing beyond what is ordained by their natural necessities: for them anything further is merely superfluous."[iii]

Montaigne admitted in his essay[iv] that the American Indians were cannibals.
But he contrasted it with the "treachery, disloyalty, tyranny and cruelty
which are every day vices in us."

 

With the stolen generation debate what is at stake is the fantasy of the idyllic,
prelapsarian nature of the warm, generous, and loving society, living
harmoniously with nature, from which these children were brutally kidnapped.
It is a recurring theme in the testimony given in the case Cubillo & Gunner
v the Commonwealth, for which judgment is expected soon.

 

A current example of this myth is found in an intellectually important letter to "The Australian" (17.5.00) by Dr John M Reid, a cognitive neuro-scientist, who concluded  thus:

 

 "We should also remember that before our ancestors annexed their country, the Aboriginal peoples were happy, healthy and wise enough to maintain Australia in a sustainable, homoeostatic floral and faunal state. While we have been forcing many Aborigines into a state of civilised degradation, at the same time, we have been destroying a large area of native Australia."

 

This paragraph is an excellent contemporary example of Rousseauvian fantasy.[v]
There can be no doubt that Dr Reid expresses sentiments that are widely
shared amongst Australian cultural and intellectual elites. However, it takes very little research to reach the conclusion that prior to1788 Australia's aborigines were living mostly on the brink of extinction.

 

 

The casualty rate from inter tribal warfare was compared by Geoffrey Blainey to that of the Battle of the Somme:

 

"The casualties might not, at first sight, seem large; but the death of two men in a battle involving forty meant that casualties were approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme. An aboriginal fight could absorb a large proportion of the adults within a radius of fifty miles-indeed could involve a far higher proportion of able-bodied adults than any war of the twentieth century could possibly involve."[vi]

 

An account of inter- tribal vengeance which describes in graphic terms the pattern of religious taboo, warfare and wholesale massacre in Central Australia, is given in Theodore Strehlow's "Journey to Horseshoe Bend" one of the great classics of Australian history which is now, tragically, out of print.

 

So that the Rousseauvian myth can persist, it is necessary to uphold the fantasy that the Europeans forced the Aborigines "into a state of civilised degradation". The uncensored historical record tells a different story. When Christian missions were established, as at Hermannsburg and Roper River, and the Aborigines discovered that these places provided sanctuary from brutality and sudden death, as well as an assured supply of food, many aborigines abandoned their lives as hunter-gatherers and came to the missions to enjoy the inestimable benefits of civilisation.

 

Strehlow records that at Hermannsburg, many Aborigines came as refugees from the threats of pay back killing, or to escape the ferocious punishments visited upon those who broke (usually inadvertently) religious taboos. Girls of marriageable age were frequent refugees. At Hermannsburg these refugees found safety, law and order, and a regime in which age-old inter-clan vendettas no longer held any sway. What was true at Hermannsburg was also true of other missions, and of many of the pastoral leases described so poignantly by Mrs Aneas Gunn in "We of the Never Never".

 

In his recently published history of the Church Missionary Society in North
Australia, John Harris quotes Gerry Blitner, who was brought from Borroloola
to the Roper River Mission as a baby in 1919, and was interviewed in 1988.

"Sometimes when I think about these things, and about all the children in other places who were taken, I realise we weren't taken away. Most of our mob came to the mission, came for freedom, for safety, for food and medicine. We came to live."[vii]

 

The gravamen of the charge of genocide levelled at the 19th Century settlers, and at State and Commonwealth Governments since the 1930s, is that by regarding Aboriginal culture as incompatible with civilised life, and by seeking to facilitate the transition from a life of hunter-gathering life to a life within main-stream Australia, those involved were collaborators in the crime of "cultural genocide".

 

Behind this accusation is the unspoken assumption that the life of a hunter-gatherer was as Montaigne and Rousseau had imagined it to be; that no one who enjoyed such a life would ever voluntarily abandon it; and that the only explanation for almost universal abandonment, by Aborigines, of such an arcadian existence was that somehow the missionaries and pastoralists forced the Aborigines into a state of "civilised degradation".

 

Although there is a lavishly funded rent-seeking Aboriginal industry that seeks to disguise the reality of hunter-gathering life in Australia, it is still not too difficult to find contemporary accounts of Aboriginal life from the 1788 on. And the life they describe was summarised brilliantly by Thomas Hobbes in 1651 .

 

"where every man is enemy to every man … wherein men live without other security than what their own strength  . . shall furnish them. In such condition, there is no place for Industry;… no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."[viii]

 

It is no wonder that those who suffered most in this condition of life, particularly the women, seized the opportunity to escape from it when, miraculously, missionaries and pastoralists turned up and offered sanctuary. If the women had most to gain from the new life on offer, the men were not far behind.

 

The charge of cultural genocide reflects the continued Rousseauvian fantasy that prevails among many in Australia's intellectual elite. But it is totally unrealistic to think of keeping Australia's aborigines living the life of hunter-gatherers when they prefer the benefits (and who wouldn't) which civilisation affords.

 

The Failure of Separatist Policies and The Present Crisis in Aboriginal Communities

 

Indeed, we know that traditional Aboriginal practices and lifestyles are becoming less and less relevant. Thus, fewer than 3 per cent of indigenous families live in improvised dwellings and one in three now own their own homes; about one third are completing secondary school and 45,000 are undertaking vocational education and training; the proportion of indigenous adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-indigenous spouses has increased to 64 per cent (from 46 per cent in 1986), and the majority of Aborigines are now of mixed descent. Further, over 70 per cent live in urban communities and profess Christianity.

 

None of this means that these Aborigines have cut all links with their traditional cultures, any more than those migrants from non-Anglo-Saxon countries have cut links with their's. But it does mean that they are moving away from the traditional communities and more actively participating in the wider community.

 

For the remaining minority, we also now know that the separatist policies of the past thirty years have been disastrous. The report by John Reeves QC on Northern Territory land rights concluded that these policies have resulted in "hopelessness, despair, and anti-social behaviour ….and contempt and hostility." Other reports have also revealed the horrific violence in traditional Aboriginal communities, including an earlier report by Prof Colin Tatz that came to similar conclusions and included evidence from 77 communities throughout Australia. Attempts to dismiss this as the normal response of underprivileged communities, or as due to "colonisation ", do not stand up to examination. A growing number of studies attribute violence in Aboriginal communities to separatist policies of cultural recognition, land rights and self-determination.

 

Also important is the Robertson Report, commissioned in Dec1998 by Judy Spence MLA, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Women's Policy, and which became available, to the diligent seeker, early in December1999. A Task Force was established to undertake a study into
violence in Aboriginal and TSI communities in Queensland, and was chaired by
Professor Boni Robertson of Griffith University. The Robertson report is nearly 400 pages in length but its essence is encapsulated in the following quotes:

 

"The degree of violence and destruction in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities cannot be adequately described. The Task Force found evidence of all forms of physical, psychological, cultural and structural violence being perpetrated, and while many may consider the violence to be a characteristic of indigenous cultures there are other factors that must be considered (page xi).

 

Appalling acts of physical brutality and sexual violence are being perpetrated within some families and across communities to a degree previously unknown in indigenous life. Sadly, many of the victims are women and children, young and older people now living in a constant state of desperation and despair (page xii)

 

A majority of the informants believe that the rise of violence in Aboriginal communities can be attributed to the so-called "Aboriginal industry" in which both Indigenous and non-Indigenous agencies have failed in many ways to deliver critical services. Informants were aware of the misuse of services with the culprits being both non-indigenous and indigenous people . . . The sly grog trade and violence were expressed by many throughout the consultations to be inseparable issues, worsened by the failure of responsible bodies to carry out their duties". (page xiv).

 

I commend the Robertson Report to the Committee. It sets out a tragedy which should move even the most cold-hearted reader. It does not, however, offer any practical solutions, and the reason, I believe, for this failure, is because the authors are influenced by the Coombsian paradigm which has caused so much harm, to so many people, particularly Aboriginal people, since it gained official support in the1970s.

CONCLUSION

 

If Australia is to remedy the appalling situation we currently face both in regard to the dire straits that many Aborigines are in, and in regard to what needs to be done about that, we must first acknowledge that the policies that have been in place since the 1970s have failed - totally. Those who promoted the policies need to admit their wrong-headedness and apologise for their refusal to look at the facts which were clear to anyone with an eye to see them. It is here that an apology is in order.

Only when we "have cleared our minds of cant" will we be able to move
forward and find solutions to the tragedy of barbarism and violence from
which, up till now, we have averted our gaze.

 

The Australian government should now seek to combat the Rousseauvian fantasy about the culture of Australia's aborigines which is so influential not only in European and US journalism but in our own. It should at the same time also actively respond to the  Wilson Report.

 

Action needs to be taken before the Olympics by the issue of a pamphlet refuting the myths both of that report and of primitive cultures. It could also be helpful to commission films based on accounts of Aboriginal life such as "Journey to Horse Shoe Bend", or the tour of England by the Aboriginal cricket team of 1867-68.

 

Such a response would doubtless give rise to a most ferocious counter attack from the well-entrenched beneficiaries of separatism. But such a debate is needed if we are to bring to public attention those records and contemporary
accounts which the Aboriginal industry would prefer to remain hidden from
view and to cleanse the mistakes of the Wilson report and the policies of the past thirty years.

 

I believe it is time to recognise that the practical result of these policies, however well-meaning, is that many Aborigines are now trapped in cultural prisons, where they have become mendicants, almost entirely dependent on social service pensions for their survival. The focus must be on how to rescue those concerned from these prisons, not on an apology for alleged past sins of white Australians.

 

End Notes