The Stolen Generation is a term used to describe the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (usually of mixed descent) who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions, under various state acts of parliament, denying the rights of parents and making them wards of the State. This occurred between approximately 1869 and (officially) 1969 and the policy typically involved the removal of children into internment camps, orphanages and other institutions. The Stolen Generation has received significant public attention in Australia following the publication in 1997 of Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.

Emergence of the child removal policy

The policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents emerged from an opinion based on Eugenics theory in late 19th and early 20th century Australia, that the 'full-blood' tribal Aborigine would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to inevitable extinction. This notion supposed that Northern Europeans were superior in civilisation and that Aborigines were inferior. According to this view, the increasing numbers of mixed-descent children in Australia were widely seen to be a threat to racial purity.

The earliest introduction of child removal to legislation is recorded in the Aboriginal Protection Act 1869. The Act gave the colony of Victoria a wide range of powers over Aboriginal and 'half-caste' persons including the ‘right’ to forcibly remove children from their families - especially girls who were considered 'at risk'.

By the first half of the 20th century, similar policies and legislation had been adopted by other states and territories, and resulted in widespread removal of children from their parents. The stated aim was to culturally assimilate mixed-descent people into contemporary Australian society. In all states and territories legislation was passed in the early years of the 20th century which gave Aboriginal protectors guardianship rights over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21. Policemen or other agents of the state (such as Aboriginal Protection Officers - APOs), were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent, from their mothers or families or communities into institutions. In these Australian states and territories, half-caste institutions (both government and missionary) were established in the early decades of the 20th century for the reception of these separated children.

Some of the various pieces of legislation were an observed need to provide protection for neglected, abused or abandoned mixed-descent children. Mixed-descent children were not wanted or welcome in some Aboriginal groups and communities – some were abandoned at early ages with no-one to provide for them thus giving the State a need for action to provide for and protect such children.

The policy in practice

According to the Bringing Them Home Report, at least 100,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept). It states that between 1 in 3 and 1 in 10 Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970 - in certain regions and in certain periods the figure was even greater than this.

The report examined the distinctions between "forcible removal", "removal under threat or duress", "official deception", "uninformed voluntary release", and "voluntary release". It noted that some removals were certainly voluntary and some Aboriginal parents also voluntarily released their children in the hope that at least in this way they would be able to retain contact with them and some knowledge of their whereabouts. The report acknowledged that in several cases the state took responsibility for children that were genuinely orphaned or in a state of neglect.

Conversely, evidence indicated that in a large number of cases children were brutally and forcibly removed from their parent(s), possibly even from the hospital shortly after their birth. APOs often made the judgement on removal. In some cases, families were required to sign legal documents to relinquish care to the state, but in Western Australia, the Aborigines Act 1905 removed the legal guardianship of Aboriginal parents and made their children all legal wards of the state, so no parental permission was required.

The report also identified instances of official misrepresentation and deception, such as when caring and able parents were incorrectly described by APOs as not being able to properly provide for their children, or when parents were told by government officials that their children had died when they hadn’t.

The report discovered that removed children were, in most cases, placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organisations, although a significant number, particularly females, were "fostered" out. Children taken to such places were frequently punished if caught speaking local indigenous languages, and the intention was specifically to prevent them being socialised in Aboriginal cultures, and raise the boys as agricultural labourers and the girls as domestic servants.

A common aspect of the removals was the failure by these institutions to keep records of the actual parentage of the child, or such details as the date or place of birth.

Further the report found that the incidence of sexual abuse were disturbingly high. Overall 17% of females and 8% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care.

Social impact on members of the Stolen Generation

The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education. Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs. The only notable advantage "removed" Aboriginals possessed was a higher average income, which the report noted was most likely due to the increased urbanisation of removed individuals, and hence greater access to welfare payments than for Aboriginals living in tribal communities.

By around the age of 18 the children were released from government control and where it was available were sometimes allowed to view their government file.

The Bringing Them Home report condemned the policy of disconnecting children from their "cultural heritage".

Historical debates over the Stolen Generation

Despite the lengthy and detailed findings set out in the Bringing Them Home report, the nature and extent of the removals documented in the report have been debated and disputed within Australia, with some commentators questioning the findings and asserting that the Stolen Generation has been exaggerated. Not only has the number of children removed from their parents been questioned (some say that the ten percent estimate, which they say does not constitute a 'generation'), but also the intent and effects of the government policy. Some say that the Stolen Generation was nothing less than a case of attempted genocide, as it was believed that doing this would cause Aborigines to die out.

Public awareness and recognition

Widespread awareness of the Stolen Generation, and the practices which created it, only began to enter the public arena in the late 1980s through the efforts of Aboriginal activists, artists and musicians. The extensive public interest in the Mabo case had the side effect of throwing the media spotlight on all issues related to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, and most notably the Stolen Generation.

This inquiry commenced in May 1995 and during the ensuing 17 months, the Inquiry visited every state and Territory in Australia, heard testimony from 535 Aboriginal Australians, and received submissions of evidence from over 600 more. In April 1997 the official Bringing Them Home Report was released.

The report proved to be a considerable embarrassment for the government, as it recommended that the Australian Government formally apologise to the affected families, a proposal actively rejected on the grounds that a formal admission of wrongdoing would lead to massive compensation litigation. Prime Minister John Howard was quoted as saying "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies." As a result Commissioner Dodson resigned from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, saying in a newspaper column that "I despair for my country and regret the ignorance of political leaders who do not appreciate what is required to achieve reconciliation for us as a nation."

As a result of the report, formal apologies were tabled and passed in the state parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, and also in the parliament of the Northern Territory. On 26 May 1998 the first "National Sorry Day" was held, and reconciliation events were held nationally, and attended by over a million people. As public pressure continued to increase, Howard drafted a motion of "deep and sincere regret over the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents" which was passed by the federal parliament in August 1999. Howard went on to say that the Stolen Generation represented "...the most blemished chapter in the history of this country."

In July 2000, the issue of the Stolen Generation came before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva who heavily criticised the Howard government for its manner of attempting to resolve the issues related to the Stolen Generation. Australia was also the target of a formal censure by the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Global media attention turned again to the Stolen Generation issue during the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics. A large "Aboriginal tent city" was established on the grounds of Sydney University to bring attention to Aboriginal issues in general. The Aboriginal athlete Cathy Freeman disclosed in that her own grandmother was a victim of forced removal. The internationally successful rock group Midnight Oil obtained worldwide media interest when they performed at the Olympic closing ceremony wearing black sweatsuits with the word "SORRY" emblazoned across them.

On December 11, 2007, the newly elected federal government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that an official apology would be made to Indigenous Australians by the federal government. The wording of the apology would be decided in consultation with Indigenous leaders.

Legal status and compensation

The legal circumstances regarding the Stolen Generation remain unclear. Although some compensation claims are pending, it is not possible for a court to rule on behalf of plaintiffs simply because they were removed, as at the time, such removals were entirely legal under Australian law. Likewise, even though the actions may have contravened International Law, ruling on such a basis is outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts. At least two compensation claims have passed through the Australian courts and failed. The presiding judge noted in his summary judgement that he was not ruling that there would never be valid cases for compensation with regard to the Stolen Generation, only that in these specific two cases he could not find evidence of illegal conduct by the officials involved.

Bruce Trevorrow

On 1 August 2007, in a decision in the Supreme Court of South Australia by Justice Thomas Gray, Bruce Trevorrow, a member of the Stolen Generation was awarded $525,000 compensation after a 10 year battle with the Government of South Australia in the courts. The SA Government has said they will pay Mr Trevorrow the compensation which has been awarded, but has not yet indicated if it will appeal the decision's findings of law and fact.