Views from Western Australia

A hundred years ago the removal of Indigenous children was a key component of government policy right across Australia. It had been that way for many years already, and it remained so for the best part of the following century. Equally important, and closely linked to the practice of removal, was Aboriginal education.

Today, I plan to share some thinking with you about the history of child removal policy and its links to the history of education of Aboriginal children and young people.

Some people suggest that the separation of Indigenous children from their families, was not an unwarranted attack upon Indigenous peoples, but a way of saving them.  The manner in which they were to be saved, was through assimilation into mainstream society and this was to largely occur through removal and education.

This idea has a very long history; the 1837 House of Commons Report said that the needs of Indigenous children would best be served in being prepared for Christianity and British society if they were removed from their families.

For most of the last century it was government policy in all Australian States to remove Aboriginal children from their families, ‘and thereby attempt…to "dissociate" them from their culture.’  This was a response to growing concerns that the number of ‘half-castes’ was actually increasing as opposed to ‘dying off’.

The view was that by removing these Aboriginal children from their families they could gradually be absorbed into the non-Aboriginal population. One of the main proponents of this was A. O. Neville, the Chief Protector of Aborigines, in WA from 1915 to 1940. However, there was a more disturbing intention behind the removal of Aboriginal children, other than that of saving them.

It was reported in May 1937 that ‘Mr Neville holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population… Perhaps it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying.’

Neville argued that forcible removal of Aboriginal children was necessary in order for them to be truly absorbed into European society and that the ‘whiter’ the child was the more easily this could be achieved. He claimed that ‘after two or three generations the process of acceptance in the non-Indigenous community would be complete, the older generations would have died out and the settlements could be closed.

If removal from family, land and community was part of the assimilation process, education was at the very heart of it.

Education was considered important from very early colonial days. In the early 1800’s, a Select Committee noted that ‘the education of the young, will of course be amongst the foremost of the cares of the missionaries, and the Protectors should render every assistance in their power in advancing, this all important part of any general scheme of improvement.

The first schools for Aboriginal children appeared early in colonial Australia. Governor Macquarie opened the first school for Aboriginal children in 1814. Twenty-six years later, in the 1840s, such schools existed in most Australian colonies. For example, in Perth the first school for Aboriginal children was established, just eight years after the Swan River Colony was founded.

The schools were run by missionaries with a demonstrated commitment to the ‘civilising’ and "Christianizing" of Aboriginal people. The style of education provided for Indigenous children was delivered in similar ways in all States.

From the middle to late 19th century, governments had established the power to remove both individuals and larger groups of Indigenous peoples as they saw fit. Aboriginal children were separated from their parents for the purposes of education and assimilation.  The legislation varied from State to State, but in most cases the government department responsible for Aboriginal affairs also retained the power of legal guardian over all Aboriginal people. The education of Aboriginal children and young people often occurred in mission settings, but these differed greatly throughout the country.  Some were situated close to towns, others were in the suburbs; while others were in remote areas. Throughout the whole range of these institutions, a narrow framework of education and organisational practice was normal.

The desire to educate Aboriginal people had common bases in all States and Territories. There was the desire to bring the children within the sphere of mainstream society. Adult Aboriginal people were considered beyond civilizing – hence there was this conscious effort to focus on children. Therefore, much of the educational practice, and the very way of life in such institutions, were aimed at developing an Anglo-centric way of life in Aboriginal children. This remained the key objective of Indigenous education in missions and institutions for generations.

The desire to ‘civilize’ and to ‘Christianize’ Indigenous children was clear. Probably the most decisive point in the attempt to re-socialise Aboriginal children, was the practice of renaming children on their arrival at missions, institutions and other schools. The practice was common because it facilitated easier identification for teachers and superintendents. In the government operated ‘native settlements’ of Moore River and Carrolup in Western Australia, the practice of renaming children was normal.

The unilateral renaming of children in the various school systems was not the only thing the children had to deal with. In many cases the very nature of the schools and missions in physical terms was a challenge to Indigenous children. They would have to adjust to new environments of buildings, classrooms and dormitories. The distinctive time system, based on clocks, was another imposition on Indigenous children.

If the aim was to assimilate Indigenous children into mainstream society then one could assume that their education would prepare them for the new way of life.

However! This was not necessarily the end result. The long-time lesson to be learned from the history of Aboriginal education is that despite all the promises, schooling was not able to deliver to Indigenous Australians a place in Australian society.

The positions they were often trained for was, at best, as domestics for the girls or farm hands and manual labour for the boys. It has been suggested that the schooling of Aboriginal peoples was intended to train them for membership of an underclass, with their culture stripped from them and poverty and powerlessness their lifelong place. This certainly was not an avenue to mainstream society.

The desires of governments may not have been that explicit, but there are many examples where keeping Indigenous children in their ‘place’ is obvious. Statements questioning the ability of Aboriginal people to ever fulfill a meaningful place in mainstream society are common. In contrast, the belief that ‘they’ were getting it ‘too good’ has a long history as well.

In 1940 the New South Wales Government introduced a new education curriculum for Aboriginal reserve schools, which only prepared students for unskilled labour.

Far from being prepared for a meaningful place in mainstream society, the Aboriginal children were most likely, totally controlled within these institutional settings. Total control seems to be more a preparation for prisons and other controlled institutions – like say the army.

In Western Australia and Queensland, protection legislation forced Aboriginal peoples onto government settlements or missions. Children in these institutions were housed in segregated dormitories, away from their parents and families. This separation from family was government policy in all States and Territories. The effect of the dormitory system was the militaristic over-regimentation and disciplining of children’s lives.

Such was the level of control in some places that in the Northern Territory, legislation, passed in 1932, required Aboriginal people to wear brass tags around their necks. This form of control led to a position, where Indigenous people were only educated to life within institutions, not in the real world.

These places had an environment that comprised not only academic and practical training, but the whole life of the child in the school. The daily routines, demonstrated, that education was not central to the purpose of mission schools. Theoretically, this involved training children and adolescents in some useful trade or occupation. More often than not, however, the children merely provided for their own survival.

For example, school farms were thought to be useful places to train Aboriginal children, but they also had to provide foodstuffs for the school population. The Roelands Mission in south-west Western Australia received government subsidies that only covered one-third of its operating costs. The rest was raised from the mission farm, a consequence of which was, the children had to work ‘to enable the missionaries, to conduct their self-appointed role of re-socialising them’. In the event that children were not working to provide for their own sustenance, they were seldom learning anything of any real value.

This kind of practical training contained very little of instructional value, but consisted mainly of repetitive, routine chores of little or no educational value.

The levels of academic education achieved, demonstrate the lack of serious education focus in their schooling. In 1965, 58% of New South Wales adult Aboriginal respondents had only received a primary level education. An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey found that in 1986 - 31% of Aboriginal males over 55 years old reported that they had received no formal education.

Low levels of Indigenous education have been caused, in part, by the low level of training their supposed educators enjoyed. For much of the history of Indigenous education, the teachers have had little or no official training. This can be attributed, in part, to the strong involvement of churches in Indigenous education. Those church-based teachers of Indigenous children were, at best, compromised in their attempts to educate the children in their care.

The missionary desire to convert Indigenous people to Christianity was often more compelling than any educational objective. Reserves and missions were very often distant from settled areas and teachers were poorly paid for their services. Therefore, the best teachers, or often, even competent ones, were rarely drawn to the task. This problem was well known in the 1890s, but also little had improved by the 1960s. I wonder how much it has improved to date?

If the level of academic or other education afforded to Indigenous children and the quality of teachers provided, left much to be desired, what can be said of the care given to those children? The answer is universally distressing.

For years the health and well being of Indigenous children in government and mission schools, was much worse than that of non-Indigenous children in similar institutions. The most basic levels of health were often not available to Indigenous children, in institutions, missions and schools.

At the Hermannsburg mission here in Central Australia, a visitor noted in 1934 that there were 42 cases of tuberculosis. But, tuberculosis was not the only health problem facing Indigenous children. In Western Australia, there are examples of trachoma affecting children at mission schools up to the 1970s. Again, at Hermannsurg, in 1929, malnutrition led to outbreaks of beriberi and scurvy which killed 40 people. Following this, an outbreak of pneumonia left few people well enough to bury the dead. It was discovered, in 1966, at one regional West Australian institution, that it had been years since a physician had visited to examine the children. A government inquiry, in 1970, found that, at another WA mission, more than 60 of the 92 children living there had untreated medical conditions.

The hardships endured by Aboriginal children in government and other institutions, severely affected their physical health, and the abuses they suffered, affected both their physical, and mental well-being.

As mentioned earlier, an examination of the history reveals perhaps two differing interpretations on the intentions behind removal and separation. No doubt, there existed the belief by some, that removal was intended as a means of saving Indigenous children. However, it is equally valid to note, that the intentions of A. O. Neville was just as prevalent and more probably more importantly, it was the key to the development of removal policies and practices right around the country.

Today I have touched on the history of the separation of Aboriginal children from their families and communities; along with a brief discussion of their subsequent education.  As stated, the philosophy behind the education was more about training Aboriginal children for menial work in an underclass, rather than as participants in mainstream society.

We cannot overestimate the impact of the whole of life education the children received, and its impact on families across generations. I think Governments like to ignore issues like this. I call it "Institutional Deafness".

I strongly believe that today, this is all relevant to what is taking place within society and education is the tool that can make a difference in the long term.

We are talking about a major mind shift in Indigenous Australia that will enable the younger generation to be educated in the "mainstream" whilst still having a strong affiliation with their cultural heritage, a heritage that is one of the oldest in the world, one to be cherished and revered.

Governments have made many attempts towards the assimilated educational process such as Abstudy and ASSPA. These were, for the most part, good projects that had the ability to make a difference, but that have since been mainstreamed into areas such as Centrelink.

What Indigenous educators need to give thought to now, is how best to utilize these changes for the betterment of our young Indigenous students.

The understanding and passion by all, of the inherited aftermath that exists in our Indigenous community and most importantly in our Australian society needs some massive rethinking of continuing unique educational ways that allows for indigenous peoples to stand proud, retain their identity, language and culture whilst living in mainstream. Indigenous Australians live a bilingual life, one is their cultural inherited status that make up their being and the other, the attempt at the crossover into mainstream. This in itself is very difficult for those people, let alone anyone else, to comprehend or understand.

And remember, education is two ways, Indigenous Australia must move on, and learn the western means of survival in mainstream for our betterment, but mainstream Australia must also align it self to learn from our Indigenous peoples. We also have a lot to offer.

I quote Doctor Richard Walley OAM "Aboriginal culture is simple in its complexity, but complex in its simplicity"

Our peoples Identity, culture and languages is our passport to life, whilst education is the passport to the future.