Darth, did you even read that judgment or did you just listen to the mob?

Bruce was taken into care because, quite reasonably at the time, authorities thought that he was in danger. Here are the notes from the hospital file:

110 The Children’s Hospital notes record that the plaintiff was admitted on Christmas Day, 1957. The records note that the plaintiff was a "neglected child – without parents". The records also contained an entry of "malnutrition" and a diagnosis of "infective diarrhoea". The following note appears on the history sheet:

Brought up by Mr and Mrs R Evans, Meningie.
Child unwell ... Apparently been in the Tailem Bend Hosp. For abdominal trouble previously. He is one of 3 1/4 cast children. The other two children are neglected. Mother has cleared out and father is boozing. Apparently father is nourishing the children with alcohol (could almoner please investigate).


The compo was paid because the person who took Bruce did so in direct contrary to the governments policies. The case actually proves there was no policy of removal in South Australia

I read the judgement.



This is inconsistent with what the judge said:

422 Evidence placed before the Court demonstrates, that the South Australian Government, during the early to mid 20th century, engaged in the policy and practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families and communities with a view to absorbing the Aboriginal population into the remainder of the community.



The view taken by the authorities was in fact unreasonable and incorrect:

1077 As earlier observed, it appears that Mrs Angas, when new to the Aborigines Department, took "on board" adverse information from an un-referenced source about the plaintiff’s parents and acted on that information without further adequate inquiry. A simple recording in the hospital notes from an unidentified source that the child was neglected without parents did not provide sufficient reason for the removal and fostering of the plaintiff. Mrs Angas was aware from Sergeant Liebing’s August 1957 report that the plaintiff was then living with his parents and that Joseph was in regular employment. At the very least Mrs Angas became aware, as did the APB and the department through the report of Mr Weightman, that the Trevorrow family continued as a family in March 1958. The most rudimentary direct inquiry would have revealed the true facts. On matters of concern being raised there could have been a proper investigation. Mrs Angas’ determination to see that the severing of mother-child attachment was complete was evidenced by her August 1958 letter falsely advising that Thora’s baby was not fit to come home. It is apparent that no inquiry was made about the circumstances of the plaintiff being sent to the Children’s Hospital before the fostering arrangement was effected. No attempt was made to contact the plaintiff’s family at the time to assess the situation and provide support if difficulties were identified. No direct inquiry was made about the Trevorrow family circumstances until well after the fostering had taken place. Later inquires disclosed a factual position that did not justify the steps taken. This is a clear case of a breach of a duty to take care in regard to the removal of a child. Proper inquiry would have disclosed no cause to remove.

Point 422 was stating the evidence placed before the court, in this case presumably by the plaintiff, it was not saying that was what happened.

The view taken was entirely reasonable at the time, unless you think it's fine to have a father boozing, mother missing and a child malnourished. Yes, it was later proved to be incorrect but at the time that's all they knew. That was largely the result of one womans actions (Mrs Angas) and the reason that the breach occurred. That is why compo was paid.

As for proof that there was no policy at the time there are notes all throughout that the departments had no authority to remove children without their parents consent, no matter how bad it was. For proof see points 92, 358, 909, 1215, 1217 - 1219, 1221 and for that matter, the whole damn part entitled "findings."

The evidence includes statements by public servants at the time, who presumably have some idea of what it is they are doing:

"The commitment of the Commonwealth and the States to the policy of assimilation was reaffirmed at the Native Welfare Conference of 1963.

429 In a minute from the secretary of the APB to the Minister of Works dated 9 January 1961, the secretary described the policy of assimilation in the following terms:

In the State of South Australia, the [APB] defines assimilation as "to grow or become similar, or to bring to a likeness".
The Board accepts this definition which implies that to be assimilated the aborigines must be similar to the balance of the community in culture, religious beliefs, standards of living, personal cleanliness, hygiene, etc. Perhaps this policy could best be referred to as "social assimilation".
The Board is also aware of the possibility of biological assimilation, and know that already numbers of aborigines have been absorbed in the community in this manner but the total is insignificant when compared with the rapidly increasing population. There has been a number of marriages of our women to New Australians which may increase the possibility of more rapid assimilation by this means.
It should be noted that aborigines can be and have been assimilated but it does not mean that they are necessarily "accepted" by everyone. I feel that much nonsense is spoken and written about the acceptance of aborigines. Few of us are accepted in all stratas of society, nor would we want to be. What is important for the aborigine is that he and his family are accepted by those with whom they normally associate.
In some States it would appear that the term "assimilation" is accepted to mean aborigines living in groups within a community in a manner somewhat similar to other than aborigines but retaining some of their tribal beliefs and customs. This definition is not acceptable to my Board as this to us is a form of segregation. It is understood that when the policy of assimilation was approved by all Governments in 1951, the policy of assimilation was expected to result in a manner opposite and opposed to segregation.
The secretary then continued to discuss the methods adopted by the APB for advancing the policy of assimilation, which included the following with respect to Aboriginal children:

In this State we are advancing the policy by educating the children and taking care that they bathe and dress in clean clothes each day while attending school where they are taught something of the need of thrift and hygiene and are encouraged to improve their personal appearance. In this manner, the children of primitive or near-primitive aborigines are being prepared towards their ultimate assimilation."



I'm fully aware of why the compensation was paid. The child was taken in breach of the State's duty of care. However if, as you contend the child wasn't taken because it was Aboriginal, and it certainly wasn't returned after the APB were made aware that there was no risk of neglect shortly after, then why wasn't the child returned for nearly a decade?



That there is no law authorising certain actions doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means the policy is illegal:

"In a letter dated 16 October 1958 to his counterpart in the State of Victoria, the Superintendent of Aborigines Welfare, the secretary of the APB responded to a number of inquiries made by the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board regarding the practices and policy for the care and protection of Aboriginal people in South Australia. In relation to Aboriginal children, the secretary of the APB wrote:

...Again in confidence, for some years without legal authority, the Board have taken charge of many aboriginal children, some are placed in Aboriginal Institutions, which by the way I very much dislike, and others are placed with foster parents, all at the cost of the Board. At the present time I think there are approximately 300 children so placed, and the cost of maintaining these children during this financial year will be over [sterling]30,000."

Fishhead, I realise that you and Andrew Bolt will never be convinced, but according to Newspoll, 70% of Australians agreed with the apology. Rudd's approval rating went up the week following the apology. The majority of Australians disagree with you. That doesn't make them right, but I fail to see where Bolt has made up this 2/3s stat from.

As far as the proof goes, I've read large sections of the Bringing Them Home report. I've spoken to Aboriginal people who were affected by these policies. And I've read Windschuttle's dissertations on the subject.

Windschuttle's articles are poor historical books. I'm not a historian, but my mother is and we could both easily see that Windschuttle is either naive about how history works or deliberately misleading. I personally believe he is the latter because he wants to make a name for himself, because he found that being a historian without making controversial comments didn't earn him a lot of limelight or money. There are gaping holes in his articles and they are not worth the time of day.

Windschuttle seems to think that records were kept as meticulously back then for these things as they would be now. That simply is not the case. We live in a very meticulous record keeping age. Things were done differently. Instead we look to the Government policy of the day and the weight of evidence in the Bringing Them Home Report to ascertain what happened. For the majority of Australians and for historians in general, this is how you gain a picture of what happened in the past.

The weight of evidence in the Bringing Them Home report is overwhelming. These stories do not come from one tribe or even one state of Aboriginal people. They are spread across the country across the decades. Bolt seems to have some paranoid delusions that there is a widespread evil Left conspiracy to swindle him of his money.

There are stories in there where the authorities have come, but only taken half of a mother's kids. They took the half castes and left the full bloods (I hate these terms but for the purpose of argument). If the mother was neglectful, then they would take them all. What's more this fits with the Government policy at the time and the widespread community beliefs about Aborigines.

There are many stories there where quite clearly the children were not being neglected, yet were very heavily abused when they were removed to the missions. That alone deserves and apology.

I have spoken to people who were affected by this policy. They had no reason to lie to me. We were just talking in a friendly environment. A lady at work told me of how when she was a kid they would all run for the hills when the authorities came and paint her sister with charcoal because her sister was paler skinned than she was and they knew she would be taken if they didn't do this. Practices like that were widespread and they happened for a reason.

For the majority of Australians, we are convinced. And on February 13 2008, there was no "Sorry party", but a chance to pause and say sorry. And I am proud that that moment came.

 

That's all they knew, because that's all they chose to find out. If you were Aboriginal or half-caste, that was all that was needed. You excuse the inexcusable Fishhead. But this is just one case of many. I think there are many better cases than this one to prove what happened, but I don't deny that Bruve was a victim of this horrific policy.