Sir Ronald Wilson responds to anthropologist Ron Brunton’s discrediting of the stolen generation’s report “Bringing them Home”.
One cannot help wondering if anthropologist Ron Brunton has spent the best part of a year searching for ways to discredit the influential and moving report of the inquiry I undertook with my colleagues at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission on the “stolen generation”.
Brunton’s attack (Perspective’s Feb 26) on the inquiry methodology is unconscionable.
The inquiry was advertised widely, Its doors were open to all. Witnesses were not selectively chosen or reported. In fact the most voluminous evidence came from state governments and their officials. Recommendations were only made where the evidence was overwhelming.
Brunton claims the inquiry failed to test the credibility of its witnesses. The inquiry did not operate like a court. It had no authority to do so.
Indigenous witnesses, non-government organisations and government officials were closely questioned and, where necessary, at length. The report makes this clear.
There is ample evidence on the public record to establish the motivation behind the forcible removal of the indigenous children and the objections voiced from time to time.
In 1910, for example, Inspector Thomas Clode, a South Australian Sub-protector of Aborigines, objected to a direction to forcibly remove “half-caste” children, writing of “grave consequences” and arguing that the policy would be “a very cruel thing to enforce”.
There also is ample evidence on the conditions the children endured after removal. Former Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck reported of his visits to the Moore River Settlements in Western Australia in the 1930s that it had “no advantage for anyone except isolation. It was a dump.”
A few indigenous witnesses spoke of being raised in loving homes. Their stories were faithfully reported among the overwhelming majority of more painful experiences.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures support the inquiry’s conclusion that, for most, their removal did not enhance their life chances and, in fact, damaged their health and the well-being of their children and grandchildren.
The claim that the inquiry failed to distinguish neglected children from those well card for by parents or other relatives similarly betrays Brunton’s misrepresentation of the careful research in the report.
The inquiry acknowledged that some indigenous children were neglected. It recommended compensation only for those whose removal could not be justified as in their best interests.
Brunton simply mis-states the law on genocide.
The United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948 prohibited a common method of assimilating native peoples - the removal of children into the dominant society. To remove the children with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, the racial group as such - that is, as a distinct racial unit or entity - is genocide.
The view of some officials that total separation from their families and culture was for the children’s own good is acknowledged in the report. But the motivation does not undermine the conclusion that the practice was genocidal.
Is an apology sufficient? No, Dr Brunton, it is not. Nor does the report say so. The inquiry proposed a five-part compensation package comprising acknowledgment and apology, guarantees against repetition, restitution, rehabilitation and monetary compensation.
Brunton claims that the strongest evidence that the “genocide claim is bogus” arises from the report’s failure to recommend prosecutions.
The inquiry was limited by its terms of reference to making recommendations about compensation; it could not recommend prosecution of those guilty of genocidal practices.
In any case, the grounds for such a prosecution do not exist in Australia as the Genocide Convention has not been incorporated into Australian law.
It is for precisely that reason that we recommend its immediate incorporation.