Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

which is inseparable from the routine and constraint of a pauper school. Their intelligence isstimulated by fresh objects and interests of their new life; the natural affections are called intohealthy play; the sentiment of individual responsibility is quickened, and thus the foundations arelaid of sound mental education and moral character (page 44 quoting the VictorianCommissioners inquiring into penal and prison discipline).The home, the family, are the best nursery for all children, and a poor home is almost alwaysbetter than a good almshouse (page 48 quoting Daniel Kemp, Governor of the Edinburgh Union,February 1869).With this amount of evidence in its favour, we would most earnestly recommend the adoption ofthe system in this Country, as the best way of escape from the dangers to which children areexposed by being massed in large institutions (page 51).Institutions as the primary absorption and assimilation tool for Indigenous children,however, persisted for another 90 years in most States and the Northern Territory. Theywere omitted from developing considerations of humanity and sound practice in childwelfare.… the placement component of the removal policy was out of step with what was drivingplacement policy for non-Indigenous children, which to me is an extraordinary thing. I find ithard to explain … I think the various Aboriginal authorities were closely linked to the welfareauthorities … So they should have been informed by that same material. And one is certainlydrawn towards the conclusion that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were at that timebeing treated in a different way for reasons which I’m not entirely familiar with. We should haveknown at the time the effect that this was going to have on these people, particularly in terms ofthe personal psychology but also, I think, in terms of their capacity to be effective and caringparents. There was literature at the time which was driving policy in a more constructive waywith other people (Professor Brent Waters evidence 532).Infants’ anxiety on separation from their mothers was scientifically observed at leastas far back as Freud in 1905 and various theories emerged to explain the reasons (Bowlby1961 pages 252-3). Psychologists Dorothy Burlingham and Anna Freud madeobservations of babies and young children in English children’s homes during the SecondWorld War. They found babies between one and three years reacted particularly violentlyto separation. The child’s ‘longing for his mother becomes intolerable and throws himinto states of despair’ (quoted by Bowlby 1961 page 261). Older children, those agedbetween three and five, also experienced distress, but these children believed theseparation was punishment and therefore felt guilt. Yet Freud and other influential figuresconsidered a baby or a child only had needs relating to physical survival. Burlingham andFreud therefore interpreted their observations as indicating a need for a more progressiveprocess of separation from the mother instead of a need to keep mother and child togetherif possible. They failed to perceive the emotional needs of children or the significance ofaffectional attachments in the development of the human personality. The academicpsychiatrist John Bowlby brought these issues to the fore in 1951 and subsequently.Again it took some time for Indigenous children to benefit from this new