Bringing Them Home

Bringing Them Home

Bringing Them Home is the 1997 report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, commonly known as the Stolen Generations. The report compiled testimony from more than 500 survivors, analysed policies from colonial times through the 1970s, and issued recommendations aimed at reparations, legal reform, and commemorative measures. It became a pivotal document in debates involving the Australian Parliament, the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and Indigenous organisations such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

Background and purpose

The inquiry was established following sustained campaigns by organisations including the Aboriginal Legal Service and the National Aboriginal Conference, and political pressure from figures like Mick Dodson and Pat Eatock. The commission, chaired by Sir Ronald Wilson and assisted by Mick Dodson as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, gathered evidence from survivors, agencies such as Welfare Department (New South Wales) and State Child Welfare Departments, and institutions including missions run by Church Missionary Society and the Salvation Army. The mandate reflected international attention from bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the International Labour Organization, and intersected with laws like the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) and state statutes across Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia.

Findings and recommendations

The report found that systemic practices of removal constituted a policy of racial discrimination and cultural genocide for some purposes, linking actions to doctrines advanced during the eras of Sir George Grey and John Howard's predecessors, and referencing legal contexts including the Native Title Act 1993 and precedents such as Mabo v Queensland (No 2). It documented harms including loss of identity, family separation, and intergenerational trauma, with testimonies mentioning institutions like Moore River Native Settlement and Mapoon Mission. Major recommendations included national apologies, monetary compensation, legal redress through court proceedings or tribunals, truth-telling mechanisms, memorialisation via sites such as Koonibba Mission and education reforms in curricula involving Australian National University and state education departments. It urged amendments to statutes including proposals akin to reparative frameworks seen in responses to the Canadian Indian residential school system and reconciliation processes associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa).

Government response and implementation

The federal executive and successive cabinets debated the report within the Parliament of Australia, prompting motions in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 1997, the Howard government declined to issue a formal federal apology, prompting responses from state premiers including Jeff Kennett (Victoria), Garry McDonald (note: actor, not premier—exclude), and Carmen Lawrence (Western Australia) to vary in tone and scope. Later, the Rudd government offered a national apology in 2008 under Kevin Rudd, an act referenced in parliamentary debates and civic events at Old Parliament House and Parliament House, Canberra. Implementation varied: some states established reparations schemes inspired by the report, others adopted welfare and health initiatives through agencies such as Aboriginal Affairs NSW and the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency. Legal outcomes were mixed, with litigation invoking principles from cases like Kruger v Commonwealth and administrative reviews via tribunals modeled on precedents from Administrative Appeals Tribunal practice.

Impact and legacy

The report reshaped public discourse, influencing curricula at institutions such as University of Melbourne and Monash University and informing cultural works by artists including Archie Roach, whose song "Took the Children Away" predated and resonated with the inquiry. It spurred commemorations at sites like Brisbane's memorials and influenced policy frameworks for Indigenous health delivered by bodies such as the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. Internationally, it fed into comparative studies with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and dialogues at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, while shaping scholarship at centres like the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and journals including the Australian Journal of Human Rights.

Criticism and controversies

Critics from political figures, legal academics associated with University of Sydney and commentators in outlets such as The Australian contested elements of evidence, methodology, and the report’s characterization of intent, debating definitions drawn from instruments like the Genocide Convention. The report faced legal challenges over claims of liability and compensation, and some historians from institutions like ANU argued about interpretations of archival records involving administrators such as A. O. Neville. Debates persisted over the role of churches including the Uniting Church in Australia and the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, with controversies over access to records, obligations for restitution, and the pace of state and ecclesiastical responses. Political disputes continued into subsequent electoral cycles, affecting reconciliation agendas promoted by leaders such as Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

Category:Reports Category:Indigenous Australian history