I heard today while waiting for the cross to Parliament one of the stolen generation interviewed, or maybe she was not one.
It reminded me, maybe told me while we debate the issues constantly it ends the same.
People I respect say I am right wing and uncaring , some I do not say I am racist.
But isn't it true this country has not yet learned to look after our children.
Let us remember as many white kids get raped and bashed as Aboriginal.
The most common link seems to be based on economic grounds not race.
Well here is what i heard ABC radio on being asked why she was there this Lady said I am from the stolen generation I came to hear them say sorry.
She went on to say she was taken away because of the fighting and the grog and after her mother tried to kill herself.
She offered the information her brother had raped her and her siblings so at least she got away from that.
But was raped by those who had been meant to look after her.
Do we drop into insulting one another again? or can we ask why this can happen in our country to any one?
Room exists to look closer at this on going failure but if it is not published I will understand.

Belly,
I am not surprised at the story of this woman. The 'Bringing them Home' report and the 'Forgotten Australians' report is full of such stories. Both inquiries were given very similar evidence.

While I think some kids of aboriginal heritage were taken because they were part aboriginal, some were taken because they were genuinely in danger from family members or others who considered them outcasts. No figures or percentages seem to be available one way or the other. Some of these kids ended up im childrens homes that took in both anglo kids and aboriginal kids. Both reports mention some of the same homes.

The anglo kids in the homes were there because they had committed criminal acts or were orphaned or neglected or in danger. Again there does not seem to be figures or percentages indicating one or the other.

I am convinced our society let these kids down terribly because we did not ensure they had proper care and safety. Their evidence is really horrific in most cases. Physical and sexual abuse was a common theme. This occured in the homes and in foster care and adoption. But some said they were treated well in a few homes and by their foster or adoptive parents.

This is what we really need to feel sorry about. Their treament after removal from the family home.

Yes Banjo I agree but let us not turn it into an Aboriginal thread.
I assure you believe me in every detail that family could have been white has been and is white just as often.
They come from big family's, poor family's, family's who over use grog or drugs.
They often come from family's that are not well educated.
Yes before the avalanche I know other parts of the community are involved.
Step fathers brothers and visitors to the extended family's are often the offenders.
I am aware some offenders are ex victims, but can not bring my self to be as concerned for them as the present generation victims.
Just look for your self and read the almost weekly reports of failure to protect children, we see the tip of a large ice berg here.
Family's unite to hide these events wives and mothers protect sons and husbands, but it comes into the light in time.
As always, no way around it , politically correct people are the problem not the answer.
Judges magistrates setting offenders nearly free, can you even think without pain of that then 7 year old in the NT?
Welfare groups who sit on their hands and talk while crimes so horrific continue?
Can we get it out into the light of day some offenders , no not color every race are so badly educated they can not understand how great the crime is?
This country must have one child welfare set of rules one federal government department for all children and it must come now.

Belly,
Sure. Now we have done the history bit, because you mentioned that womans experiences, let us get on to discuss the present situation of child wefare.

Only the other day I heard a woman say that child sexual abuse is on the increase generally. This woman was somethinmg to do with a sexual abuse support group, and if she is correct it is very disturbing.

I also feel for DOCS staff as it seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If you get up 'The Australian' website and go to features there is an item called 'Alone and in limbo'. It is well worth a read about DOCS.

Belly “say I am racist.”

Oh a few do that to me too.

The issue of childcare is one of the basic measures of humanity.

Because of their vulnerability (children, of any background or ethnicity), I recognize that there is a greater oversight of child care by the community beyond the immediate responsibility of the natural carers (the parents).

This responsibility applied to all children, equally.

I will always acknowledge the greater benefits to be derived from a child being brought up by his or her natural parents. Lenin experimented with an alternative and so too the Israeli kibbutz system and in the end recognized the failure of alternatives compared to the natural family circle.

However, when children are at risk we expect action. Better a child alive and with some imperfect future in an orphanage than a child left to die in the “care” of their natural parent(s).

“The most common link seems to be based on economic grounds not race.”

I disagree, economic grounds might be another sympton of the cause but is not the cause.

Ultimately child neglect and abuse comes down to two issues, neither of them economic

1 personal attitude and respect for the rights of others, children included.

These people are more likely commit crimes of property to others and crimes of abuse on their children because “others” have no value (narcissism).

2 inherited experience.
Someone abused is more likely to be an abuser. We see it in pedophiles and in violent bashers.

Neither of those reasons are economically based. Children can be loved and cherished as well in a “poor” family as a “wealthy” one.

Re “Their treatment after removal from the family home.”

I think the treatment children in state homes and orphanages is a separate issue to any failings at the hands of family.

The duty of care has more profoundly failed because the “standards” of a state institution should be beyond reproach and above that expected from (possibly) struggling and inexperienced parents.

Beware the Col Rouges of this world who tell us that a complex phenomenon like institutionalisation of children come down to "two issues, neither of them economic".

And beware the Banjos of this world who claim to 'know' that "the anglo kids in the homes were there because they had committed criminal acts or were orphaned or neglected or in danger. Again there does not seem to be figures or percentages indicating one or the other."

We don't need to speculate too freely about this topic. The big reports (Bringing Them Home, Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians) as well as the reports of various state enquiries (Forde in Queensland, Ombudsman in Tasmania and the forthcoming Mullighan report in SA) provide plenty of well-documented data - if only OLO posters would read them.

There's also historical material gathered meticulously at various points in time. For example, Len Tierney in ‘ Children who need Help: a study of child welfare policy and administration in Victoria’ (1963) lists the reasons why children (both wards of the state and those admitted by their families) were admitted to institutions in Victoria. Many of these children are still alive and telling their stories today - if only people would listen.

In Tierney's research, the main reasons why wards of the state were admitted to care in 1961 were:
• Neglect 54%
• Parental separation 16%
• Disorderly behaviour of the child 14%
• Affliction of the parent 8%.

For children admitted by their families, the main reasons were:
• Parental separation 36%
• Affliction of the parents 27%
• Neglect 19%
• Child born out of wedlock 11%

In an era when child care, welfare services and government financial support were crude, poverty played an enormous part in children and families getting on to the institutional treadmill. This is heavily documented.

Banjo is spot on when he says: "...our society let these kids down terribly because we did not ensure they had proper care and safety."

Frank Gol,
Thanks for providing that information, I was not aware of it and got the impression from the two mentioned reports that some of the kids in the homes were there for criminal acts.

My experience with kids suggests that some of the kids in the homes were not 'angels' but that in no way excuses the conditions and treatment they had to endure, with no one to turn to.

We must ensure that this does not happen now or in the future.

I sometimes find it hard to say just what I think ,but on this issue? never.
I was a welfare kid, in the first 20 years post ww2 most from poor family's lived a life of fear the welfare is in town.
Such people forget children grow up, remember them and their actions.
They took 3 family's all white away in my small street.
They should not be proud of what they said how they acted yes those kids will still remember too.
This country always failed its children ,we do today.
I know three family's who had child sexual assaults, every one was generational, it had been done to them too.
All came from poor family's too many people living together in something like a tribe not a family.
None actually worked none had much education all used grog or drugs too much.
DOCs that waster of air knew them all never ever acted not ever.
4th incident was the little girl I have talked about before 12 years old the only daughter in 7 kids.
She was a rose a great kid she sat beside her dad as he got drunk eyes never leaving him she loved her drunken dad.
After he got very drunk he shouted at her to go away, quote I am not interested in you! I only want mt sons to carry on my name end quote.
5 members of my family cried with me 12 months later he raped that girl while he was drunk, DOCs never acted until then.
Last time I saw that young girl she was 17 drunk and pregnant.
Her eyes are blank now , we must forget the idea DOCs cares they do not.

FrankGol “Beware the Col Rouges of this world who tell us that a complex phenomenon like institutionalisation of children come down to "two issues, neither of them economic".

I note you find opportunity to criticize my post and then present a range of reasons through your reference to Teirney which confirm my observations. Strange!

None of the issues listed in the report you present are fundamentally “economic”. Although “economic circumstance” might actually “aggravate” factors Teirney presents, it is not the principle issue in any

Neglect
Parental separation
Child Disorderly behaviour
Affliction of then parent
Child born out of wedlock.

I would note of the issues listed I could categorize them as follows

Per parental attitude
Neglect
Parental separation
Parental affliction
Absence of wedlock

Per inherited behaviour
Neglect
Child Disorderly behaviour

Now that I have clarified and classified your muddled thinking, I will await your apology (although I will not hold my breath) for your cynical and pseudo-intellectualization of the simple issues.

In short, the pseudo-professionals who draw government salaries by overseeing and writing reams of bunkum about the complexities of child welfare are the sort of folk who pull the wool over then eyes of the gullible (like dear Frank), yet whilst employed as the solution they in fact, merely enhance the sad state of incompetence in public welfare delivery.

Banjo “My experience with kids suggests that some of the kids in the homes were not 'angels' but that in no way excuses the conditions and treatment they had to endure, with no one to turn to.”

Exactly, I agree some children are handfuls but to the “conditions and treatment they had to endure”:

As I said previously “The duty of care has more profoundly failed because the “standards” of a state institution should be beyond reproach and above that expected from (possibly) struggling and inexperienced parents.”

Belly, I feel for you and those you mention in your childhood experiences.
My parents were not well off but my siblings and I were all loved and that is what I passed on the my children, the ongoing experience of unconditional love.

Col the events of child sexual assault did not come from my childhood but all took place in my adult life.
My huge family went without but not without love and standards to live by.
I truly think it is not that hard to start to fix this problem.
No difference should exist in the way we treat children of any color or creed.
It should be law that children have medical check ups often , at such times all aspects of their health and well being should be looked at.
Courts should look into the wellbeing of children after a conviction for drugs or grog is handed down.
We need a brand new department to replace every state and federal one involved in todays failures new people too.

Belly, please excuse my misinterpretation to timing. To the rest I would wholly agree.

“new people too”

At the risk of over-simplifying this too much for FrankGol to comprehend, this is the problem.

Government works on a system of bureaucratic progress (if that is not an oxymoron).

The problems focus not around the laws, checks and balances or any complexity of process or procedure, form filling, WOFTAM meeting schedule or other detriteous of system but around the attitude of people who are supposed to manage and deliver the service.

It may seem cynical of me but the quality of service relies upon a political system driven by the interests of appointed career bureaucrats massaging newly elected politician to their will ensuring the status quo, matters like seniority of appointment and all the old “practices” being maintained under new names and labels.

Back in 1853 The Northcote Trevelyan Report observed

“Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired.”

I doubt it is any better today.

As I said, it might be cynical of me but I fear a lot of folk, professionally engaged in the delivery of government funded services, are far more cynical.

However, that is no excuse not to rally against what needs to be done. it merely qualifies one of the challenges.

Dear Dr Col Rouge

Thank you for clarifying my muddled thinking. What would we all do without you and your erudition? You beat those pseudo-intellectuals hands down.

I'd never have had the wit to classify the causes of institutionalised children into parental attitude and inherited behaviour. Thanks to you, I'll have a whole new dinner-table repertoire.

Just one or two further clarifications if I may, Dr Rouge:

Why do you have 'neglect' down in both categories? If I repeat that in conversations my friends might accuse me of having a bob each way - or being confused. So is there a definitive ruling on 'neglect'?

Also Dr, I might have a bit of a problem explaining 'neglect' as an inherited problem. One of my friends told me recently that because she was neglected as a child, she was all the more determined never to neglect her own children. Does that mean she has broken the laws of heredity, Dr Rouge? Would that be a common aberration? Would you prescribe something to make her normal and neglectful just like her parents?

Why is 'parental affliction' down under 'parental attitude', Dr? I've heard of psychosomatic conditions, but under your scheme all afflictions are explained away as 'attitude'. Can you refer me to an article in The Lancet that will confirm all afflictions as psychosomatic please?

Are you available as a guest speaker to the next meeting of the care leavers group, CLAN? I'm sure you would make a big hit. There seem to be plenty of muddled thinkers there who believe that their family's' poverty was the root cause of their placement in institutions - poor fools, probably led astray by their poor parent's attitude.

I worry too that they might have inherited their parents' reluctance to accept the advice of authorities like you Dr Rouge. So if you speak at the CLAN meeting could you please wear your protective gear. Things could get a bit rough.

Let me confirm Cols view of one government department the one I worked in for 22 years.
Fig trees nine of them grown by that department, planted at the entrance to a town named after the Aboriginal word for fig.
Costs? well truly the budget said $7.000 each.
Within a year a young Lady informed me she wanted them cut down!
Traffic hazard she said, second week in her job too much power not enough information I answered it would be done but never did it.
Same place the senior union delegate for one sixth of the state ,me, asked that a constantly drunk on duty worker, not a boss be sacked.
6 years of counseling no results.
Remember I asked to have him removed before he killed himself, answer? we dare not! the union would kill us! I was his union delegate it was a formal union request.
So maybe we must take child welfare out of such hands results are all that matters surely?

Belly “Let me confirm Cols view of one government department the one I worked in for 22 years.”

What you wrote offends me as much as I am sure it is obscene to you; for its complete lack of "meaningful outcomes" (excuse my use of weasel words)

You must have had a permanent bruise on your forehead from banging it against a brick wall.

As I said

“However, that is no excuse not to rally against what needs to be done. it merely qualifies one of the challenges.”

And Yes Belly, I agree

“So maybe we must take child welfare out of such hands results are all that matters surely”

FrankGol “You beat those pseudo-intellectuals hands down.”

Belly has illustrated, far more explicitly than I could the problem

I am happy to accept your feint acclaim, despite the nature in which the line was thrown away.

The problems are as hard or easy as we seek to make them.

Unfortunately, too many “intellectuals” with monstrous egos, matching ambition but lack of real character, seek the security of government income and make the simple sound difficult to feather their own nests, whilst embellishing their careers at the expense of the service they are supposed to dispense (in this context the welfare of the children who they are supposed to be helping).

The tragedy is that Belly’s example is by no means unique or exceptional

Oh you asked me about my double reference to “neglect” simple. Matters like neglect can be the result of both parental deficiencies (absence of nurturing) and inherited deficiencies (a genetic fate of nature). Matters like parental separation can only be a parental deficiency (nurture).

You can complicate it all you want and intellectualise as much as you see fit but 9 times out of 10, you will find problems are attributable to one of those two root causes and the reason which you claim in

“a complex phenomenon like institutionalisation of children come down to "two issues, neither of them economic".

Is simply answered, any causation which presumes “economic circumstance” as significant, is analytically erroneous.

Frank Gol and Huffnpuff,
contact me on 'Forgotten Australians' thread, re reply from Senator Murray.

Sorry Belley to intrude on your thread.

The answer long term to Child Welfare is some control over who is having kids.
Our Welfare system has for years rewarded people for having children despite their ability to provide safe and loving homes.

The latest crazy move saw the Government give four thousand or so dollars for any women to have a child.

So many young girls as young as fourteen had children under the scheme.
Its wrong and totally irresponsible. Had the money of been paid towards higher education with it earning a percentage for that child that would have been different indeed.

We can’t blame the young girls for this only a very silly Government who used this new law to buy votes.

I am not sure if the Rudd Government has intentions to change this act however its one small thing they should do as soon as possible.

Children are the reasonability of parents and the Government responsibility is to control who are capable of providing safe home for kids and who are considered unfit to have children under their present living circumstances.

Perhaps Docs would be better working on checks before people have kids than trying to clean the mes up after.

Let’s face it to drive a car you must have a lience but anybody can go out and have one totweleve kids and very ften to different fathers and that’s considered legal...

We even encourage them to have more by giving more welfare payments.

The whole system is wrong IMOP

When I first looked at your post pale I though how offensive, yet you are not far from right.
Sorry if I offend some sounds like big brother telling us who can have kids.
But[ we can not go too far into cases before the courts] its getting to be a daily thing, dead children.
Dead damaged kids of parents who are unfit to have them.
I do not know the answers but as I took on the job of bringing up kids of a sibling , grown and gone now, I think some want the money not the children.
Some parents are not fit to even be in contact with their children.
No worries Banjo its public property.
Col Rouge yes we should take it out of such hands now.

PALE whilst I would agree with your sentiment, that parents who do not want or choose not to care for their children properly should not have them, I fear we are not going to resolve that until after

Every drunk driver hands in his car keys before he sits in the car

Every young girl does not make herself victim to some footballer or rockstar’s celebrity

Consenting adults do not get wrapped up in the each other and moment, foregoing the customary precautions.

Etc etc

In the context of the topic, the only thing I could think of which would be worse than the situation which requires government intervention to prevent child abuse or neglect,

Is the sort of society where, to become a parent, individuals are required to get some form of government licence and failure to be licenced would involve say compulsory abortion, sterilization, adoption or other aggressive authoritarian intervention.

I do believe natural parents are the best start any child can receive in life. Government intervention is there for when that does not work.

One of the problems with a liberal society is, it is a liberal society and produces some problems which would not occur under say a despotic dictatorship.

However, the sort of problems which attend a despotic dictatorship are far worse than the neglect and abuse of some children.

The problems of a despotic dictatorship include the neglect and abuse of all children and most of the adults.

As Belly referred to ad I agree with, “sounds like big brother telling us who can have kids.”

We are coming at this from the wrong angle to say some must not breed is near to Nazi as you can get.
However some children should at least for a time be removed from parents.
Some intervention , some re training and maybe higher expectations from those parents should not be seen as wrong.
The bottom line is a child's life his/her whole life can be ruined by the childhood years.
Hard stuff to think of but surely we must ask are civil liberty's more important than the child's?
If our child welfare in all its colors and names could drop the political correct rubbish, if it could re invent its self and see its clients more often we would not need this debate.