Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

y Australia in July 1949, came into force in 1951. Certainly any removals after that timewith the intention of destroying Indigenous groups culturally would be in breach ofinternational law. It is clear, however, that even earlier removals were in breach ofinternational law.On 11 December 1946 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolutiondeclaring genocide already a crime under international law. This resolution is mentionedin the Preamble to the Genocide Convention, making it clear that when the Conventionwas adopted in 1948 the crime of genocide was well-established in international law. AsLippmann states (1994 pages 10-11) the resolution ‘clearly recognises that theprohibition on genocide is a component of customary international law which is bindingon all states’.The existence of genocide as a crime pre-dated the 1946 resolution. AlthoughLemkin’s 1933 call for genocide to be declared a crime was rejected by the internationalcommunity, it is generally conceded that it had emerged as such before or during theSecond World War (Hugo Princz v Federal Republic of Germany 1944, Lemkin 1944 page 150).The policy of forcible removal of children from Indigenous Australians to othergroups for the purpose of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture andpeople could properly be labelled ‘genocidal’ in breach of binding international law fromat least 11 December 1946 (confirmed by Justice Brennan in Polyukovich 1991 page587). The practice continued for almost another quarter of a century.ConclusionOfficial policy and legislation for Indigenous families and children was contrary toaccepted legal principle imported into Australia as British common law and, from late1946, constituted a crime against humanity. It offended accepted standards of the timeand was the subject of dissent and resistance. The implementation of the legislation wasmarked by breaches of fundamental obligations on the part of officials and others to thedetriment of vulnerable and dependent children whose parents were powerless to knowtheir whereabouts and protect them from exploitation and abuse.In the hard copy version of this report there is a reproduction of the following item:Group on an outing from Sister Kate’s Children’s Home, Perth, 1949Courtesy Mary Terszak.I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from itsaboriginal mother, no matter how frantic her momentary grief might be at thetime. They soon forget their offspring.James Isdell, WA travelling protector, 1909.The issues are growing up not knowing any family history, growing up at schooland being asked to bring photos of your family, and you can’t do it and the teachersays, ‘Why can’t you do it?’, and you’re forced to stand up and say that you don’thave any family and people turn around and look at you in disbelief, that youcouldn’t have a family.