May 2025 marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the national inquiry into the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.
Conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the inquiry’s final report was called Bringing Them Home. It demonstrated the extent and trauma of First Nations child removal practices across Australia over more than a century.
Our archival research paints a dramatic picture of how the Howard government set out to minimise the impact of the report, despite the genuine outpouring of national grief.
National reckoning
The 1990s in Australia was marked by an unprecedented national focus on the impact of colonisation on Indigenous Australians. This was part of a global trend using truth-seeking models to examine contemporary and historical injustices.
The decade included a number of landmark events:
- the formation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
- the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody
- the High Court Mabo decision
- Paul Keating’s Redfern Speech.
The establishment of a human rights inquiry investigating the Stolen Generations in 1995 promised a reckoning with this largely unknown history.
Government resistance
However, the election of the Howard government in 1996 had an immediate effect on the nation’s trajectory towards “coming to terms” with its past.
After some early resistance, cabinet eventually agreed to make a whole-of-government submission, broadly outlining its Indigenous affairs priority:
to address current disadvantage in health, housing, employment and education.
It stressed compensation for Indigenous child removal was
inappropriate and unacceptable.
The Bringing Them Home report contained stories and a history that shocked many Australians. Nonetheless, then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, John Herron argued in 2000 the inquiry was deeply flawed, and
there was never a ‘generation’ of stolen children.
No apology
The government tried to discredit the final 1997 report, including its core finding the removal of Aboriginal children constituted genocide.
Its formal response rejected the key recommendations of a commonwealth apology and compensation for members of the Stolen Generations.
However, the government was willing to act on three areas that presented “opportunities for a positive response”:
- access to records
- reunion assistance
- mental health strategies.
Several of the report’s recommendations were designed to promote self-determination and establish minimum national standards in Indigenous child welfare, adoption and juvenile justice.
One tactic employed by the Howard government was to push responsibility for implementing the recommendations onto the states and non-government organisations, such as churches, which had been involved in child removal.
Therefore, a national legislative response was not forthcoming, with the government arguing this would represent a
significant intrusion by the Commonwealth in state and territory responsibilities.
Family reunion
Herron had ministerial oversight of the government’s response to the report. The prime minister set the tone, saying it would be done in a “practical and realistic way”.
Herron recommended to cabinet family reunion and counselling services should form the overarching theme of the government’s response. This focus left the broader systemic issues identified in Bringing Them Home unaddressed.
While acknowledging “some of the disadvantages suffered by Indigenous people can be attributed to policies of child removal”, the background paper accompanying Herron’s cabinet submission also outlined some of the government’s early criticisms of the report, describing it as
very emotive, and focused only on one view of the separation process.
Partial response
The government’s response package was initially costed at A$54 million over four years. It included:
- an oral history project to provide some form of acknowledgement
- funding for indexing of archival records
- enhanced family reunion services
- Indigenous mental health workers.
These measures undoubtedly addressed real needs identified in Bringing Them Home. However, they were a partial response to the broad-ranging findings of the report.
Herron argued facilitating family reunion was the “most pressing” issue identified by the inquiry, which had indeed noted that
assisting family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.
But it is an oversimplification to single out this issue as “the most pressing”.
ATSIC was unequivocal in its feedback, saying the response would “severely disappoint Indigenous people”. It accused the government of not giving the report “serious attention”.
Herron insisted the government had “listened to Indigenous people”. However, we were unable to identify any archival evidence of consultation with Indigenous communities in formulating the response package.
Legacy
The Healing Foundation commissioned a recent report on the unfinished business of Bringing Them Home. It identified the lack of a whole-of-government policy response that centred on the needs and rights of Stolen Generations survivors and descendants, as a key failing.
This is unsurprising given the approach by the Howard government was carefully designed to limit the impact of Bringing Them Home.
Despite this, the inquiry achieved a significant legacy. This includes greater public awareness of the Stolen Generations, apologies from all Australian parliaments, and the establishment of compensation schemes, now in place in most Australian states and territories.
This was despite the Howard government’s sustained rejection of such measures 30 years ago when the nation was first seeking to come to terms with the wrongs of the past.
.
Anne Maree Payne received seed funding from the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Sydney, to undertake the archival research on which this article is based.
Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
