Is sorry enough?

[StewL]

Hello All
I read the apology news on our ABC news online. When I was doing my social work, I read a book about the sad past practises of the past. I have seen Living Liverpool and read Empty Cradles, there was another book that slips my mind at the present. A good number of those children were not the result of abuse or neglect in their homes, often the mother or father had put them into a home for supposedly a very short time due to illness or such (one was supposed to be for the weekend!!). Yes and I am sad to say my profession was in on this too at the time. I work as a child protection officer here in the west, and believe me our past practices are forefront in our minds when it comes to what we do now. This does not mean we let things slip though, but it informs our practice.
Will the apology solve anything? Most likely for a good number of people it will, at last there is official recognition of the great injustice and degradation that occurred to a number of these stolen children.
It is a very emotional subject, so I will leave it there.

[Currie]

A politician saying sorry is a bit like a politician making a promise. They’re usually totally motivated by the desire to be popular and to get re-elected. It’s rather meaningless for the head of a political party who just happens to be Prime Minister at the moment to be apologising for the actions of previous governments of various political persuasions going back 150 years or whatever.

If there is a need for an apology because of the actions or inaction of past British governments, past Australian Colonial, State, and Federal governments and of other governments in the British Commonwealth or former Empire perhaps it should come from the Head of State of all those places on behalf of herself, her father, her grandfather and so on and get the whole thing over and done with.

In 1955 there was a fact-finding mission into child migration to Australia. I have a copy of their report and could post it on the forum if anyone is interested.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HGU ... kATGua3uDw

Alan

[searcher 52]

No sorry is never enough, but as one contributor said "you can't unscramble eggs"

On the other hand you have to start somewhere. There was a very good piece on Radio Scotland's breakfast programme this morning (Monday 16 Nov). I think you can access it via the web on the BBC listen again facility - it's about 2 hours 9 minutes into the programme. The contribution by my namesake Andrew Murray the Australian Senator I found very moving and illuminating at the same time.

Pay attention to what he says about the cost society reaps when it doesn't look after its children!

[Ann In the UK]

If there is a need for an apology because of the actions or inaction of past British governments, past Australian Colonial, State, and Federal governments and of other governments in the British Commonwealth or former Empire perhaps it should come from the Head of State of all those places on behalf of herself, her father, her grandfather and so on and get the whole thing over and done with.

Couldn't agree more Alan. However, there probably isn't enough time left in the universe for her to start embarking on that one.

Would love to see the report if the powers that be have no objection.

There was a very good piece on Radio Scotland's breakfast programme this morning (Monday 16 Nov). I think you can access it via the web on the BBC listen again facility - it's about 2 hours 9 minutes into the programme. The contribution by my namesake Andrew Murray the Australian Senator I found very moving and illuminating at the same time.

Pay attention to what he says about the cost society reaps when it doesn't look after its children!

Seems the subject was all over the airwaves this morning. I was listening to it on Jeremy Vine in the car - very moving. As for the cost to society for not looking after its children - if this story is anything to go by, we're in deep do-do aren't we.

Regards, Ann

[Ann In the UK]

I was just watching a news report about it on tv with my son. Afterward, he turned to me and said:

"Mum, how do we know they won't do it again".

Good question.

[wini]

My first neighbour in Australia was a lady who was sent to Fairbridge Farm School in Pinjarra, W.A when she was 10.
She told me her Mother gave her a watch and said goodbye, she never heard from her Mother again until she was about 18, she wouldn't
contact her Mother as she felt betrayed.
Her experiences at Fairbridge weren't bad as far as orphanages go but the children all had to leave when they were 15.
Many of the girls went into nursing where they were provided with accommodation as well as a wage.
The boys usually got apprenticeships but they had to find their own "digs."

She was by this time happily married with 3 children of whom she was a little over protective and I have met her several times over the years .
The last time was when she was heading over to Aberdeen where her youngest daughter was getting married.
Although she wasn't mistreated there is nothing that can replace a family home.

wini

[Ann In the UK]

Sounds to me like she was one of the (relatively) lucky ones. Others were not so fortunate. Abuse seems to have been rife. And the misinformation (i.e. lies) told to the parent's and children alike seems to have been commonplace.

Whilst it's understandable, perhaps, that some of those involved wanted to and thought they were sending these kids off to a better life, it's totally unforgivable for them to have forcibly separated a mother from her child(ren) and even worse, a child from its mother. No apology could ever make up for that.

Ann

[Currie]

I hope this doesn’t sink the boat but here’s my transcription of the report referred to earlier.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE
Child Migration to Australia
Report of a Fact-Finding Mission
Presented by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty August 1956

PREFACE
In view of the expiry of the Empire Settlement Acts in 1957, under which payments are made to certain voluntary societies concerned with child migration to Australia, Her Majesty's Government appointed a Fact-Finding Mission to visit Australia, whose terms of reference were:—
"To collect information as to the arrangements for the reception and upbringing in Australia of migrant children by the various voluntary societies concerned with the migration of children unaccompanied by their parents."
2. The Mission comprised Mr. John Ross, C.B., lately Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Chairman), Mr. W. J. Garnett, C.M.G., O.B.E., one-time Deputy United Kingdom High Commissioner in Australia, and Miss G. M. Wansbrough-Jones, M.A., Children's Officer, Essex County Council. Mr. R. H. Johnson, Commonwealth Relations Office, was the Secretary.
3. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has referred the Report to the Oversea Migration Board, and Her Majesty's Government will take the Board's views into account in their consideration of the matter.

To: The Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations.

Introduction
1. We were appointed in January, 1956, by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations as a fact-finding mission to visit Australia "to collect information as to the arrangements for the reception and upbringing in Australia of migrant children by the various voluntary societies concerned with the migration of children unaccompanied by their parents ".

2. Government-assisted migration of unaccompanied children from the United Kingdom to Australia started about 1921, when a "farm school" was established at Pinjarra, in Western Australia, by the late Kingsley Fairbridge. Dr. Barnardo's Homes, which had for many years arranged the migration of children in their care from the United Kingdom to Canada, established in 1929 a farm school near Picton, New South Wales, and a children's home in Sydney. About the same time, the Roman Catholic teaching Order of Christian Brothers adapted their residential establishments in Western Australia to receive boys from Roman Catholic institutions in the United Kingdom. In 1937, a second Fairbridge farm school was established at Molong in New South Wales, while a farm school run on similar lines was opened in Victoria by the trustees of the Lady Northcote Emigration Fund, These organisations all received grants from the United Kingdom Government, and one a grant from the Commonwealth Government, towards their capital costs. Up to 1939, these were the only establishments in Australia for the reception of unaccompanied children from the United Kingdom.

3. Assisted migration, suspended in 1940, was resumed in 1947 when, encouraged by Australia's vigorous migration policy, several voluntary societies, most of whom were already providing residential care for Australian children, interested themselves in the reception of unaccompanied children from the United Kingdom. This expansion involved capital expenditure on the erection of new buildings, or the adaptation of old ones; substantial grants towards this expenditure were given by the Commonwealth and State Governments. Although no such grants were made by the United Kingdom Government, their approval was required before a new establishment could be brought into use for the reception of unaccompanied children. Assistance towards the cost of the children's passages to Australia is given both by the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom Governments. Capitation payments towards the cost of maintaining United Kingdom children (under the age of sixteen years) in an approved establishment, or in a foster home, are made by the United Kingdom Government (10s. 0d. sterling weekly), the Commonwealth Government (A.10s. 0d. weekly, child endowment), and the State Governments (amounts varying from A.4s. 8d. to A.30s. 9d. weekly). The expenditure of the United Kingdom Government on the maintenance of children in Australia runs now to just over £40,000 a year.

4. Under the Commonwealth Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act, 1946, the Commonwealth Minister of Immigration receives into his guardian-ship every child migrant who arrives in Australia unaccompanied by a parent or relative. The Minister has delegated his powers and functions to an officer of the appropriate department in each State, usually the Director of the Child Welfare Department. In addition to having the usual powers of a guardian, the officer so designated is responsible for seeing that the arrangements made for a child's accommodation and for his placing in employment, and subsequent welfare up to age twenty-one, are satisfactory.

General.
5. After a preliminary talk at Canberra on 8th February, 1956, with officers of the Commonwealth Department of Immigration, we spent between five and six weeks visiting all six States. We had meetings in each State with officers of the Commonwealth and State Immigration Departments and of the State Departments of Child Welfare, and then, in company with them, met representatives of the voluntary societies concerned with the care of migrant children. These meetings gave opportunity for exchange of views about general child care policy and practice in each State and in the United Kingdom, and enabled us to hear from the representatives of the voluntary societies their views on various aspects of their work.

6. We visited in each State representative residential establishments (selected in consultation with the Commonwealth and State authorities) approved for the reception of unaccompanied children from the United Kingdom. All the places so approved are shown in the appendix to this report; those visited are marked by an asterisk. We have not thought it necessary in this report to refer to establishments by name, as was necessitated by the different form of the report by Mr. John Moss on " Child Migration to Australia ", published by H.M: Stationery Office in 1953.

7. We were received everywhere with kindness and consideration, and were given every facility during our visits to acquaint ourselves with the arrangements for the care of the children. We had the advantage at several places of meeting members of the management committees. We were indebted particularly to the Commonwealth Immigration Department and their local officers, and also to the officers of the State Immigration and Child Welfare Departments, for the arrangements that they made for our visits, and for all the information and friendly help that they gave us.

8. At the meetings referred to in paragraph 5 discussion turned naturally to consideration of developments in recent years in child care methods in the United Kingdom and in Australia. We found that, though the extent to which boarding-out was practised varied widely in the different States, the officers of the State Child Welfare Departments subscribed to the view that this was the most desirable form of care when it could .be arranged suitably; they agreed that, when children could not be brought up in their own homes, the aim should be to arrange for them to be brought up in circumstances approaching as nearly as possible those enjoyed by a child living in his own home with good parents.

9. Some representatives of voluntary societies also expressed themselves as being in favour of boarding-out in suitable circumstances, though it was not claimed that serious thought had been given so far by the societies concerned to developing the practice of boarding-out migrant (or other) children in their care.

10. The 26 establishments (of which 17 took both migrant and Australian children) shown in the appendix as having been visited varied in size from 10 to 340 places. Eight of the establishments were housed in grouped cottage homes, 11 in large buildings or groups of buildings, and 7 in houses larger than cottages or in groups of such houses. In 11 of the establishments, all the children went out to local State schools, while in 13 primary education for all the children was provided on the promises. Sixteen of the establishments were in, or near, an urban area, and 10 were in the country.

11. We met in the course of our visits people who believed, erroneously in our view, that large numbers of children (orphans and children from broken homes were mentioned) were available for emigration to Australia from the United Kingdom, if the will were there; and who referred to the fact that they were not receiving as many migrant children as they could accommodate. The following table shows the number of unaccompanied children who went from the United Kingdom to Australia between 1947 and 1955.
The figures are for the year to 30th June:—
1947 - 415; 1948 – 96; 1949 – 198; 1950 – 368; 1951 – 183; 1952 – 262; 1953 – 366; 1954 – 208; 1955 – 224; Total: 2,320.
At 31st December, 1955, the number of places provided in residential establishments for migrant children from the United Kingdom was 2,117, and the number occupied 1,427; there were thus about 700 vacant places.

12. The establishments that we saw provided for the most part care that, in our view, was institutional in character to a greater or less degree. It was suggested to us more than once that the migrant children should reasonably be regarded as being in much the same position as those resident in a boarding school. We think that the point is not a valid one; those suggesting it overlook the fact that the migrant children, unlike most children attending boarding schools, have no home for the time being other than that provided by the organisation caring for them.

13. Information received from the voluntary societies, the establishments visited, and the State Child Welfare Departments, indicated that most of the children did well in after life. While this is most satisfactory, we did not think if necessary or desirable to examine this aspect in relation to particular establishments, because of the many variable factors, including the physical and mental standards of the children received, and the length of their stay in the establishment. Moreover, we did not regard the measure of success in after life as having a direct bearing on our consideration of arrangements for the reception and upbringing of migrant children.

14. We were charged to collect information as to the arrangements for the reception and upbringing in Australia of migrant children. As the report is concerned with children from the United Kingdom, we have thought it right to take account of child care methods as developed there since 1948, when the Children Act passed into law, namely, boarding-out whenever possible, and, failing that, residence in small children's homes in preference to large ones. We did this with the more confidence in that we found that a considerable body of opinion in Australia subscribed to these methods in relation to Australian children. We think that it will be agreed generally that the desirability of enabling children deprived of normal home life to be brought up in circumstances approaching as nearly as possible those of a child living in his own home applies with particular force to migrant children, who, in addition to the basic need of children for the understanding and affection that lead to security, have experienced disturbance arising from their transfer to new and unfamiliar surroundings.

15. While the approach explained in the two preceding paragraphs necessarily precludes consideration of how migrant children fare in after life, we should like to say, first, that in our journeying round Australia we saw for ourselves the abundant evidence of development and of opportunity and, secondly, that we share the view, expressed often to us, that Australia wants migrants of British stock.

Selection of Children in the United Kingdom
16. According to figures supplied to us by the voluntary societies in the United Kingdom, 193 unaccompanied children were sent to Australia by the societies during the year 1955. Prior to emigration, 90 of those children were in the care of a voluntary organisation or of a local authority, while 103 were living with their families. Most of the children in the first group were recruited by Dr. Barnardo's Homes and the Catholic Child Welfare Council; and those in the second group by the Fairbridge Society, the Northcote Trustees, and the Church of England Council for Commonwealth and Empire Settlement.

17. The persons in charge of several of the establishments that we visited complained about many instances of unsatisfactory selection of children by voluntary societies in the United Kingdom, and of failure to furnish information about behaviour difficulties and backwardness, and in some cases physical defects. The complaints related in the main to children sent out from children's homes soon after emigration was resumed in 1947, but were not confined to that period. We judged that those complaints were well-founded.

18. We ascertained that information received from the United Kingdom about the family situation and background of the children was often inadequate. Most of the persons in charge realised the need for this information. We consider it to be of the greatest importance that full information should be available, in the first instance to those in the United Kingdom considering children for emigration, and, secondly, to the persons in charge of establishments in Australia, who should be able to see from the records the reasons that led to a child's emigration.

19. We heard often in the course of our discussions the widely held view that many children whom life had treated badly would benefit by transfer to a new country where they could be given a fresh start, away from old scenes and unhappy associations. Few with whom we spoke seemed to realise that it was precisely such children, already rejected and insecure, who might often be ill-equipped to cope with the added strain of migration.

20. We heard of isolated cases in which brothers and sisters emigrated together were sent to different establishments, which might be far apart. We think that brothers and sisters should not ordinarily be accepted for emigration unless they can be placed in the same establishment, or in establishments situated sufficiently close together for arrangements to be made for the members of the family to meet regularly.

21. Nearly all those in charge of the establishments visited thought that, with few exceptions, the children on arrival settled down quickly and well. This did not accord with what we should have expected of children coming to a new country; indeed, it seemed to us from talks with children that some of those who had parents in the United Kingdom (and there were many such children) were disturbed by reason of separation from their parents. Some did not understand the reasons for the separation, and others had parents who failed to write or wrote unwisely. We heard criticisms of parents who misled their children by giving them to believe that they (the parents) intended to join them in Australia; and also of parents who sent their children letters containing irresponsible references to the possibility of the children's returning to the United Kingdom. Of the older children with whom we spoke, most of those who had been in Australia for some years seemed to us to be settled.

22. Whatever the considerations that should lead in a particular case to a child's being emigrated to Australia, it is axiomatic that full consideration should be given by those concerned with selection to the relevant background information, as indicated in paragraph 18. We think, on the basis of what we saw and heard in the course of our visits, that the existing requirement on local authorities in the United Kingdom to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State (for the Home Department) before emigrating any child in their care should be applied equally to the voluntary societies for the emigration of children, a society being deemed to have in its care for the purposes of the requirement any child (from whatever source recruited) whom the society proposed to emigrate. We have in mind that the Secretary of State should direct his consideration to the child's situation in the United Kingdom, relying for the rest on the approval for the time being of the establishment in Australia to which the child would go, if his circumstances were found to warrant emigration. For the purposes of this paragraph, we mean by a child a person who has not reached school-leaving age.

23. We were interested to learn that one voluntary society was promoting the emigration of children whose parents were known to be intending to follow them to Australia. We gathered that one purpose of sending the children in advance was to leave the parents free on their arrival in Australia to set about establishing a family home. It seemed to us, first, that no child should be emigrated in these circumstances unless it had been confirmed that the parents would be able to follow; and secondly, that a more desirable course, if practicable, would be to enable the family to travel together, arranging for the children to be cared for temporarily in some suitable way on arrival, if circumstances made it impracticable in the particular case to provide temporary accommodation for the family as a whole.

24. Of the 193 children mentioned in paragraph 16 as having been emigrated by the societies during the year 1955, 72 were aged five years but under ten, 97 were aged ten but under fourteen, and 24 were aged fourteen and upwards. Mr. John Moss discussed in his report the age at which children could suitably be emigrated, and suggested that they should normally be aged five but under twelve years. Views in the same sense were expressed to us. We agree that the normal upper age limit should be twelve, but we would prefer a lower age limit of six years. We think accordingly that the only children to be emigrated should be those who have reached the age of six but not that of twelve years, unless, on occasion, there was good reason to accept a family of children in order to keep them together though their age range was wider than that mentioned. Age limitation such as is suggested should not operate to prevent boys over school-leaving age in the United Kingdom from going to Australia under schemes for the emigration of youths.

Standard of Care
25. Paragraph 10 contains an analysis of the types of establishment visited, and paragraph 14 explains our approach in judging standards. We realise that due allowance must be made for the differing characteristics, and not least the climatic differences, of Australia and the United Kingdom. This we have endeavoured to do.

26. The persons in charge of the establishments visited, and other staff whom we saw, impressed us, as was to be expected, as being fully interested in the children, and anxious to promote their welfare, At the same time, we felt that not all of those engaged in the work had sufficient knowledge of child care methods to be able to give migrant children the understanding and care needed to help them to adjust themselves to strange surroundings. There is no specialised scheme of training in Australia for child care work. Mention was made to us of the difficulty of getting suitable staff for posts such as that of cottage-mother in grouped cottage homes. Of those cottage-mothers whom we saw, most seemed to us to be interested and capable.

27. In establishments in which the children were accommodated in large buildings, the care was institutional in character with the attendant disadvantages, for example, segregation in large measure from the life of the community; lack of homely atmosphere and of sufficient privacy, and sometimes of sufficient feminine influence in homes for boys; and difficulty of adjustment to normal life on leaving to go to work. The standard of equipment and furnishing varied widely. In one large home for girls (where there were Australian children as well as migrants) the standard of furnishing and decorations was high, and imagination had been shown in making the dormitories attractive and in providing some pleasant cubicles. In other places there was little or no evidence of any attempt to make the most of institutional premises. At one place it was explained to us that half of the boys using a dormitory containing fifty to sixty beds read for part of each evening in an adjoining room, while the remainder of the boys played games on the floor of the dormitory among the beds; it appeared that a nearby recreation room was not used in the evenings because a member of the staff was not available to supervise the boys there. At another place, which took also Australian boys, the person in charge, in answer to questions about the desirability of employing women on the staff, gave as his opinion that this was not necessary in the upbringing of boys. At two establishments of institutional type, the standard of amenity and comfort fell far below a tolerable level. In many establishments there was no regular system of giving pocket money, on which the children could rely. Money was given to them to spend on particular occasions; but those concerned seemed not to be aware of the value to a child of learning to manage even a small sum of money given regularly.

28. The other main group of establishments visited consisted of grouped cottage homes, which had the manifest advantage of enabling the children to live in something like family groups, each under the charge of a cottage or house-mother. The resemblance to family groups was by no means exact, because, while both boys and girls were received at all the grouped cottage homes, at only three of them did boys and girls live together in the same cottages; at another, the cottages housed four different age groups (boys and girls separately), the children being moved from one cottage to another on reaching certain ages. In one of the homes, where the standard of care was high, all meals were taken by the children in their cottages; at the others, the main meals were taken in a central dining hall. Apart from the convenience of preparing and serving food centrally for a large number, the persons in charge claimed that there was advantage to the children in bringing them together for most meals; and were not persuaded of the benefit to the children of having all meals as a family group in their cottages.

29. We saw three or four establishments of medium size in which there was evidence of progressive ideas, and the standard of care appeared to he good.

Education and Choice of Employment
30. Most of the organisations caring for migrant children were at pains to ensure that those who were able to benefit by higher education were given opportunity to receive it. In general, endeavour was made to enable children to follow their bent in the choice of employment. We heard in one State of an arrangement we thought a sound one—under which officers of the State Child Welfare Department, together with the person in charge of the establishment, considered the case of each child as the time to leave school approached, with a view to helping him in choice of employment. In some instances the choice of employment was apparently influenced by the establishment in which the child happened to be brought up. This appeared to be the case in two establishments, in both of which the boys were educated on the premises; in one, about three-quarters of the boys took up farming work, while in the other the same proportion became trade apprentices.

31. At some of the establishments visited it was the practice for all boys and girls who did not go on for higher education to work for a period as "trainees", the boys being trained in farm work and the girls in domestic work. We gathered at one place that the work done in this way by the boys was essential to the running of the farm. It seemed to us that these arrangements were unsuitable for boys and girls who did not intend to follow farm or domestic work.

Assimilation to Australian Life
32. One of the principal advantages claimed for the emigration of young children is that they can be assimilated readily in their new country. This can be achieved, however, only if the child is brought up in such a way as to enable him to live in contact with the Australian community, and to become familiar with its ways. It is natural in a country which is concerned with primary production on a large scale that there should be a leaning towards bringing up migrant children in rural surroundings, though it seems likely that the fairly isolated situation of a number of the establishments with considerable areas of land was determined not by functional need, but by reason that land at a particular place was received as a gift or could be purchased more cheaply there than elsewhere. Most of the child migrants do not live in close touch with the local community, and the question arises whether everything that is reasonably possible is done in the varying circumstances of the different establishments to promote the assimilation of the children.

33. Australia is a country of great distances, and what would be regarded as isolation in the United Kingdom would not appear so to Australians. While Australians living remote from towns can, and do, undertake considerable journeys to keep themselves in touch with their interests and their friends, it is clear that children living in a children's home are in no position to do the same, and are dependent on arrangements made by the persons in charge of them. The regime of an establishment, even if in a town, can isolate children, but this can be remedied if the will is there. It is 'difficult, however, to overcome the handicap of isolation for children living in a children's home many miles from the nearest town.

34. We visited two establishments taking only migrant children, one a large building where the boys were educated on the premises, and the other a grouped cottage home in which the children received their primary education in a State school, the other pupils being children of the staff of the establishment. Each of these establishments was situated some fifty miles from a substantial centre of population, which suggested to us that special attention should be paid to measures for assimilation. At the first of these places we were told that about sixty per cent of the children spent holidays in private homes. At the second the children apparently spent about one week a year on the average in holiday foster homes. It seemed to us that the arrangements generally at both places considering their circumstances were inadequate, and that in each case the children were bound to remain to a large extent a community apart, and were not growing up as Australians.

35. We visited other establishments in, or reasonably near, towns where the children were educated on the premises and at which, in our view, the regime did not give the children sufficient chance to come into contact with Australian life. For example, they were seldom allowed to go out unaccompanied by an adult, and lacked sufficient opportunity to join in the out-of-school activities of other children in the neighbourhood. At other places, where the children went to outside schools, the situation was much more satisfactory. We gathered that the practice of arranging for children to go to foster homes during school holidays was widespread, and that most establishments were anxious to extend it. This was a valuable means of helping to overcome the disadvantages to children of institutional life, and was made possible by the kindly interest and generosity of the many people who provided holiday foster homes for migrant children. It was of particular value to a child when he could go for successive holidays to the same foster parents and thus establish a close relationship which, we were told, led sometimes to the child's going to live permanently in the foster home. We felt, however, that a great deal remained to be done, and could be done in a diversity of ways, to give children opportunity for proper assimilation.

Conclusion
36. We consider that, as suggested in paragraph 22, child migration societies in the United Kingdom, like local authorities, should be required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for the migration of any child.

37. It is important that the voluntary societies caring for the children in Australia should be supplied with full information about each child, as mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 18.

38. We think that the following general considerations should govern arrangements for the care of migrant children in residential establishments:
(1) the staff employed should be sufficient in number, in all homes for boys should include women, and should be as far as possible persons with knowledge and experience of child care methods;
(2) there should be adequate opportunity for children to be assimilated to Australian life, and to this end: —
(a) children should be encouraged to be self-reliant, and to take part, as far as possible, in the normal life of the community.
(b) the practice of arranging for children to spend the school holidays in private homes should be developed to the full, a child going always to the same foster home wherever possible; and
(c) advantage should be taken of every suitable opportunity to place children permanently with their holiday foster parents.
(3) children should not ordinarily remain in an establishment between leaving school and entering outside employment, except for the purpose of receiving training for the occupation that they intend to enter; and
(4) there should be an adequate standard of comfort and amenity for the children.

39. We consider that the list of establishments approved for the reception of migrant children should be reviewed, with the foregoing considerations in mind.

40. We consider that the aim should be to provide for migrant children by boarding-out with foster parents wherever possible. At the same time, we realise that the development of this policy would have to be gradual, as progress would be dependent on increased numbers of suitably qualified child care workers becoming available, and on the recognition by public opinion of the need for foster homes. We consider also that, as far as it may continue to be necessary in the future to maintain migrant children in residential establishments, the children should live in small children's homes in, or near, urban areas (which homes might serve also as reception homes for migrant children awaiting boarding-out).

41. We desire to place on record our thanks to our Secretary for the help that we have received from him.

Sgd. J. Ross (Chairman).
Sgd. W. J. GARNETT.
Sgd. G. M. WANSBROUGH-JONES.
Sgd. R. H. JOHNSON (Secretary).

CANBERRA.
28th March, 1956.

Sgd. Alan

[Ann In the UK]

Thank you for posting that Alan – but there’s so much to comment on in it, we could be here all day.

But it was this statement which said it all really:

“Payments are made to certain voluntary societies concerned with child migration to Australia”.

Therein lies the glaring flaw in any such arrangement involving the care and protection children. And, one which, in this case, may have been a flaw too many, which undermined what may (possibly) have been a pretty good plan – to give orphans a brand new start in a brand new place by enticing various organisations to help move and resettle them. The old carrot on a stick trick. Unfortunately, from what I’ve read on this subject, it seems for some of those involved the carrot wasn’t the money per se - that was just an added bonus - it was the kids themselves. And the more there was of them, the better.

“We met in the course of our visits people who believed, erroneously in our view, that large numbers of children (orphans and children from broken homes were mentioned) were available for emigration to Australia from the United Kingdom, if the will were there; and who referred to the fact that they were not receiving as many migrant children as they could accommodate”

Sadly, it seems wherever money changes hands, the potential for corruption exists, even in those who may seem to be – or we’d like to think are - the least likely to be corruptible: i.e. those who position themselves as pillars of our society.

And that’s what bothers me most about this whole sorry affair - those so called “pillars”, who all too often prove themselves not to be what we think, or would like to believe, they are. I can’t help but think that, if those involved in this arrangement had been seedy individuals or shady/standalone groups, rather than the legitimate, respected and trusted national or international organisations (such as the Salvation Army, Barnardo’s, the Methodist and Catholic Churches and such like)they were, they’d have been disbanded and those involved imprisoned on charges of child exploitation/trafficking/abuse/neglect or whatever those crimes were called back then. But somehow, being who they were seems to have exempted them from any accountability whatsoever, and their crimes swept under the carpet - or am I the only one who finds it incredible that none of these organisations/individuals have ever been held to account for this atrocity?

I can’t comment on the other groups but, as a recovering Cathaholic, I can tell you how, time and time again, I’ve been astounded at what that organisation, in particular, seems to get away with. The Catholic church alone has an unsavoury (and ongoing) history of perpetrating and covering up various aspects of child abuse, and yet it remains seemingly untarnished and relatively unpunished for it. And this case makes up a mere fraction of the cases which have brought me to that conclusion.

The more I read about this dark era in our successive Government’s childcare/protection policies and, about its questionable partners in implementing them, the more unnerved I become. This wasn’t simply some post-war strategy designed to deal with war-orphans as is all too often implied. Neither was it simply some fading Empire’s attempt at populating it’s colonies with its own – “untarnished”, i.e. white – blood. According to what I’ve read the practice of forcibly migrating children to the other side of the world had already been going on for many years (since the 17th century apparently) before the government of the time started stated “assisting” the process with payments in 1921. To me this sounds like a was a succession of people abusing their powers and exploiting their positions in a highly organised, fully authorized programme of child trafficking which left them and it open to abuse and exploitation and which only stopped when ordinary people started to question such policies and practices in the mid 1960s. That it had continued for so long makes a mockery out of so called childcare and child protection policies in this country, certainly over the last century or so, even those of today. This is particularly evident in light of today’s reports re child trafficking within the UK itself http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8362951.stm which makes one wonder just how little we - and the pillars of today - do to protect our children.

Regards
Ann