Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

To the best of our knowledge, at no time have the Church’s child welfare services andorganisations been given any legislative power or authority to forcibly or physically removeany children from their families. This is so in the case of any Aboriginal or Torres StraitIslander children. We do accept that there were cases where the actions of Church childwelfare services and organisations were instrumental in keeping children separate from theirfamilies and in this respect the Church holds some responsibility in playing a role for thestate to keep these children separate from their families (Joint Statement to the Inquiry onbehalf of the Bishops’ Committee for Social Welfare, the National Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Catholic Council and the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission).The Aboriginal Legal Service of WA advised the Inquiry that 85% of the peopleit interviewed who had been forcibly removed as children had spent at least part oftheir childhood in the care of a mission. Nationally the proportion is probablysomewhat lower.The experiences of children cared for in church homes and missions variedconsiderably.As individuals, there are memories which we can recall with some fondness. The friendshipsthat bonded us as orphanage kids, the weekends at Riddell Beach and other happy occasions.But as individuals also, each of us could pick out at least half a dozen grievances with Nunsas our caretakers – the discipline, the notes made on our records in relation to ourintelligence, the removal of personal possessions, the removal of birth names, the denial ofaccess to family members, the chores, being locked up… (former resident quoted by HolyChild Orphanage, Broome, submission 520 on page 1).At the age of 16, when most of us left the care of the Church, we were young girls; wewere very vulnerable. We didn’t have much skills in terms of preparation for life or lifeexperiences. So consequently most of us had kids, went from one relationship toanother, from one broken marriage to another. Most of us have ended up being drunksand alcoholics at early ages. But there’s been nothing there to help us through, tounshackle that shame and blame. And what the Church has done, it just continuouslyreinforced to us all the negative things about us. And it makes us feel guilty. And it’sdone nothing to remove any of that guilt. And what I’m saying is that the apology isn’tenough. There’s got to be some sort of public statement to say to us, ‘You are not toblame for it. And we were wrong’.Confidential evidence 548, Northern Territory: WA woman removed to a Catholic orphanageat 4 years in the 1950s.I found the Methodist Mission [Croker Island] very helpful and myself, from myexperience, I really can’t condemn the United Church, or Methodist Mission. Becausethey’ve been excellent to us. There were one hundred children and they showed a littlebit of affection to each of us, y’know. They didn’t show any favouritism.Confidential evidence 544, Northern Territory: woman removed to The Bungalow at 5 yearsin the 1930s; after seven years transferred to Croker Island Mission.Contemporary attitudesMany church organisations provided information, submissions and evidence tothe Inquiry. Generally the churches expressed interest in assisting and supporting allAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and doing what they can to remedy thehurt and damage suffered by those affected by forcible removal in particular. Many