I‘d have to say that Sister Kate probably never did the Shimmy. But I know she did things that most other people would never have done, and when she breathed her last breath, she must have had the sure and certain satisfaction of knowing that she left the world a better place for many adults then living, who at one time in their lives had been in her care.

For people like Dr Anna Haebich, the best thing that Sister Kate ever did was to die. No matter what you say about a dead person, you can’t be sued for defamation. And Dr Haebich has some vitriolic scorn to pour out on this dead woman. Why? Well here’s the story.

Tag words: Sister Kate; Dr Anna Haebich; Broken Circles; Katherine Mary Clutterbuck; Stolen Generations; Parkerville Children's Home; 'Appeal for One Million Pennies; West Australian newspaper; Muriel Chase; Neville, the Chief Protector of Aborigines; Mollie; Gracie; Daisy; Rabbit Proof Fence; Moore River Settlement; Galatians 3:28; Archbishop Henry Le Fanu; Paul Hasluck; Ruth LeFroy; Queen’s Park Children; Buckland Hill cottage; Justice O’Loughlin; Dr Peter Read; Vera Whittington; Sara Van de Berg; Ken Colbung; Clearing the Wheat Belt; Nazi eugenics; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution; The Descent of Man; Karl Marx; Friederich Engels; Francis Galton; H. G. Wells; Christian; Aryan Race; Cubillo/Gunner case; Keith Windschuttle;The Fabrication of Aboriginal History – Volume 3. The Stolen Generations 1881-2008; Uniting Church; Sir Ronald Wilson; Bring Them Home Enquiry;

The Human Rights Commission Bringing Them Home Report, from Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson stated:

The policy of forcible removal of children from Indigenous Australians to other groups for the purpose of raising them separately from and ignorant of their culture and people could properly be labelled 'genocidal' in breach of binding international law.

The previous programmes in this series, looking at the decisions of the High Court of Australia in the Kruger Case in 1997 and the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the Cubillo and Gunner Cases, in 2000, conclusively rejected this sloppy finding of the Human Rights Commission.

Many years later, Sir Ronald Wilson, in an interview with the Bulletin magazine in 2001, recanted the finding of genocide. He said he was wrong in saying that that was what had happened with the government policies with Aboriginal children, particularly half-caste children. No case has ever been brought since the Federal Court ruling in 2000 rejecting the Stolen Generations narrative. No case could be brought because superior courts, with the advantage that the Bring Them Home Report did not have and do, hearing both sides of the story, seeing witnesses give evidence and be cross examined on their evidence, not just believing whatever the Aboriginal witnesses said, found that there were no stolen generations. The government had been properly implementing a policy of necessary, indeed often life saving child welfare.

But that hasn’t stopped Australia’s good name being blackened in the international community by aboriginals, academics, politicians and left wing activists who have ignored the judicial findings of fact, as they continue to chant the genocide lie to all of those people only too willing to listen to their untruths and choose to believe them. So let’s see how Australia’s name and reputation has been falsely smeared across the world, and let me give you an outrageous example of the lies told by one of the leading genocide experts about the Stolen Generations.

Tag words: The Human Rights Commission; Bringing Them Home Report; Sir Ronald Wilson; Mick Dodson; the Stolen Generations; Genocide; High Court of Australia; Kruger Case; Federal Court of Australia in the Cubillo and Gunner Cases; Nazis; holocaust; The Armenian Genocide; Adolf Hitler; Pol Pot; Cambodia; Rwanda; Tutsis; Journal of Genocide Research; Paul R Bartop; Deakin University; The Holocaust, the Aborigines, and the Bureaucracy of Destruction: An Australian Dimension of Genocide; Colin Tatz; Genocide in Australia; Justice O’Loughlin; Moore River Settlement; University of Natal; Professor Peter Read; Australian National University; Nicholas Hasluck; Sir Paul Hasluck; Bench and Book;

Molly, Gracie and Daisy were sent to the Moore River Settlement in 1931 by the Protector of Aborigines, AO Neville. What was it like, the place they were being sent to? Doris Pilkington, in her book, Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence tells us that the settlement was for Aboriginal half-caste children only. But is that right?

Tag words: Molly; Gracie; Daisy; Moore River Settlement; Protector of Aborigines; AO Neville; Doris Pilkington; Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence; Aboriginal half-caste children; Carrolup; Phil Noyce; Rabbit Proof Fence; E. C. Mitchell; Great Depression; Constable Riggs; Justice O’Loughlin; Cubillo/Gunner Case; Christine Olsen; Kenneth Branagh; Dr Cecil Cook; Ernestine Hill; Baz Luhrmann’ Australia; Crocodile Dundee; Stolen Generations; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Half Caste Home; Venereal Disease; J. W. Bleakley; Nicole Kidman; Nullah; Australian Prime Minister Joseph Lyons; res iudicata; Mission Island; Melville Island; Faraway Downs; Marcia Langton;

Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence is a book that is part of the curriculum for school children, Years 6-11, throughout Australia. It was also made into a movie with funding by the Australian Film Corporation in 2002 with a cast led by that great English actor, Kenneth Branagh and starring many prominent Australian actors. It was directed by one of my old class mates at Sydney University Law School, Phil Noyce, where he headed up the University Film Club. He’s become one of the great directors. He’s directed such big Hollywood movies as Gone Baby Gone (we seem to have a theme here) as well as Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, both starring Harrison Ford.

Movies always aim for high drama and Phil Noyce can deliver on that front. And to do that real life isn’t usually big enough for the screen. Almost any real life story needs to be embellished on to make a big cinema success. And that is what happened here.

The book itself was written by Australian author, Doris Pilkington, and it was published in 1996. This was 16 years after Peter Read had made up the Stolen Generations myth. Six years before Doris’s book was published, Barbara Cummings had written her book, Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home. It focussed on the alleged experiences of Lorna Nelson (Lorna Cubillo after she married) as a member of the Stolen Generations (a claim that Justice O’Loughlin rejected in the Federal Court case discussed in Parts 7 and 8 of this series, two years after Barbara Cummings convened the Bring Them Home Conference in Darwin that was to see the Cubillo/Gunner Case brought, unsuccessfully, as a claim for very substantial damages in the Federal Court of Australia in 2000. Her book also came out one year before the Keating government ordered the holding of the Bring Them Home Enquiry which had its first hearing on 4 December 1995 – also a year before her book was published. 

It’s hard to think of a better time that this book could have been launched to guarantee its commercial success. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

So what is the book about? And what is the movie about, because they both don’t tell the same story, even though the movie’s based on her book. More importantly, is the Rabbit Proof Fence story an example of truth telling? Or is it something else? It’s an important question because the book and the movie are regularly shown to our children at school as the gospel truth. So we need to know if it is.

Tag words: Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence; Australian Film Corporation; Kenneth Branagh; Phil Noyce; Gone Baby Gone; Patriot Games; Clear and Present Danger; Harrison Ford; Doris Pilkington; Stolen Generations myth; Barbara Cummings; Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home; Lorna Nelson; Lorna Cubillo; Justice O’Loughlin; Federal Court of Australia; Bring Them Home Conference; Paul Keating; Bring Them Home Enquiry; Molly; Gracie; Daisy; Jigalong; Moore River Station; Mardu Aboriginal people; Thomas Craig; Peter Gunner; Chief Protector of Aborigines; Mr Auber Octavius Neville; High Court of Australia; Kruger Case; half-caste; Mrs Chellow; Murra Munda Station; Pat Jacobs;

In the previous part of this programme I told you that Justice O’Loughlin who, before he was appointed to the bench, had done a lot of work as counsel appearing for Aboriginals, had heard the leading two test Stolen Generations cases of Cubillo and Gunner v The Commonwealth. He found that they hadn’t been wrongfully taken from their parents. In fact after this case no Stolen Generation cases have ever again been brought before the Courts. Why? Because after the six judges of the High Court who heard the case of Kruger v The Commonwealth found there was no genocide policy behind the removal of Aboriginal children, and this case (which found that in the carrying out of the welfare policies of the government towards Aboriginal children there was no genocide), and then its unsuccessful appeal from Justice O’Loughin’s judgment to the Full Federal Court and then the failure of Cubillo and Gunner to get leave to appeal to the High Court (heard by Chief Justice Gleeson and Justice McHugh) from the Full Court judgment (heard by Justices Sackville, Weinberg and Hely), the unanimous rejection of the claims of the Stolen Generations by 8 High Court judges and 4 Federal Court judges, and the judicial precedents then in place, after the utter failure of the cases brought, and the overwhelming evidence brought against those cases, has meant that there have been no further cases brought by anyone alleging that they were members of the Stolen Generations. Any such claim is utterly untenable. 

This claim that there ever was a genocidal policy of the Stolen Generations in Australia now only lives on in political and academic circles which choose to ignore the reality of the court findings in these two cases where, unlike the Bring Them Home Report with witnesses were from only one side, who were heard not a standard required in a Court of law.

Sadly Australia’s name remains smeared internationally because of the Bring Them Home Report and the on-going political/academic agitation which ignores the reality of the fatal impact on those claims as a result of these Court findings.

In my last programme I was up to the part about Peter Gunner and the circumstances of how he came to be taken into care. Remember that immediately after he was born his mother had put him on top of an ant’s nest in an attempt to kill him. Her aunty had rescued the baby. He was seven years old when he was taken to the Retta Davis Home – why was he taken?

Tag words: Cubillo v The Commonwealth; Gunner v The Commonwealth; Lorna Cubillo; Peter Gunner; Stolen Generations; Aboriginals; High Court of Australia; Kruger v The Commonwealth; genocide; Aboriginal children; Federal Court; Full Federal Court; Chief Justice Gleeson; Justice McHugh; Justice Sackville; Justice Weinberg; Justice Hely; Bring Them Home Report; Mrs McLeod; Utopia Station; Ivan Leonard (Ray) Vincent; Retta Dixon Home; St Mary’s; Topsy; Sir Ronald Wilson;Mick Dodson; Mr Lovegrove; The Rabbit Proof Fence;

On Friday 11 August 2000 Justice O’Loughlin handed down his judgment on the two stand out claims of people who said they were members of the Stolen Generations. And he, when he was a barrister, had frequently acted for Aboriginals, rejected these two outstandingly unlosable Stolen Generations cases brought by Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner. Why?

The following week after the judgment was handed down, , Nicholas Hasluck, in his book Bench and Book, reveals that one of the chair of the Bring Them Home Report, Sir Ronald Wilson, went on the attack at those findings, which had to meet the high judicial standard of proof on the balance of probability and not the sloppy, the person claiming to be a victim must be believed standard that his enquiry set. The Bring Them Home Report, after all knew what its findings were going to be before it started.

Nicholas Hasluck tells us what appeared in the paper the following Friday 18 August 2001:

An article in The Sydney Morning Herald by Sir Ronald Wilson. The Cubillo/Gunner ruling is a travesty, he declares. A compensation tribunal headed by Lois O'Donoghue should be set up to hand out damages for all the wrong-doing that took place. Here is one man who clearly won't accept the umpire's verdict.

Flash forward 11 months to Wednesday 6 June 2001 when Nicholas Hasluck told us this, which he sets out in his book:

An absolutely incredible discovery! While at the airport to catch a flight to Sydney, I chance upon the latest edition of The Bulletin. The cover story presents a picture of Sir Ronald Wilson and the headline: Second Thoughts on the Stolen Generation. The article, by the reporter Patrick Carlyon, sets out some astonishing admissions. 'With hindsight,' Wilson says, 'it was a mistake to use the word genocide.' What was that? 'No, you haven't misheard,' the reporter Carlyon affirms. 'Wilson is sorry for the most shocking finding in Bringing Them Home, the verdict that elevated Australian practices and policies to levels of evil associated with Hitler and the monsters of Rwanda.'

Elsewhere in The Bulletin story, Sir Ronald goes on to say that the Inquiry was careful to ensure that everything it did was in line with Indigenous aspirations. The findings were supported by 'evidence' but without having to go to that further level of proof which would stand up in a court of law.

The article reveals far more than the interviewee may have intended. It is open to the interpretation that Sir Ronald's Report was moulded to suit a pre-determined outcome, being little better than rhetoric masquerading as judicial method. Perhaps Sir Ronald and others will realise at last that by joining unsubstantiated allegations of genocide with demands for reconciliation they have prejudiced the possibility of any genuine consensus about the past, and clouded their push for an apology. I can't help wondering whether my correspondence played some part in compelling him to moderate his earlier position.

And I keep asking myself, why do I feel like we’ve been had?

So let’s see what the findings of a proper judge, going to that further level of proof which Sir Ronald said he didn’t do, found about the claims of the two outstanding examples of the Stolen Generations.

Tag words: Justice O’Loughlin; Federal Court of Australia; Stolen Generations; Lorna Cubillo; Peter Gunner; Nicholas Hasluck; Bench and Book; Bring Them Home Report; Sir Ronald Wilson; The Bulletin; Patrick Carlyon; Melinda Richards; Mick Dodson; The Leydin memorandum; the Milliken tests; Mrs McLeod; Topsy Kundrilba; Eileen Mosely; GK; Elizabeth Hollingworth;

Sure, the High Court case of Kruger v The Commonwealth had been a 6-0 wipe for the claim that the laws operating over the custody of Aboriginal children or half-caste children was genocidal. But the High Court correctly pointed out that it hadn’t heard any evidence about how the laws were enforced in practice. If the laws were pursued in a way that was genocidal, then the cases that were going to be brought by Lorna Cubillo and Robert Gunner would prove it. After the October 1994 Darwin Conference over the Stolen Generations, they had 550 Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal starters to bring a court action against the Commonwealth for damages as members of the Stolen Generations.

That was way too many cases to bring for a lot of practical reasons. For one thing, the preparation for each of 550 cases would take up a lot of time – and in the world of the law time is absolutely money – big money. The Court filing fees to start each matter alone would be hefty. I haven’t been able to find what the filing fees were for 1996 when the Court cases by Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner were started, but in 2022-2023 the fee that had to be paid to the Federal Court just for starting a court case was $4,760.00. So for 550 people that, in today’s moneys, would have cost $2,618,000.00 just to have the Court open a file on each case. That’s just to get you through the doors without anything being done. Each case would have had to have some sort of originating process prepared and filed with it. That means for each of the 550 people bringing a claim, the lawyers would have had to go through the facts and evidence that they had for each person before they could draft the necessary document.

So in this kind of situation what lawyers do is pick their absolute best cases as test cases to run. If they win the test case, then the next cases all ride on the back of the legal precedent established in the first case. Once critical elements of those test cases are found by the Court then the next case gets the benefit of that and doesn’t have to prove that again – at least not in the same detail as the first case. It gets easier, then, the theory goes, there would eventually there would be an embarrassing tsunami of claims and the government would lay down and pay compensation to all of the Aboriginal claimants – and other Aboriginals beyond the original 550.

How much compensation? Well Mick Dodson had set that up nicely. After the Bring Them Home Report had been released he’d said that probably not one Aboriginal family in Australia then had not been scarred by that forced separation policy. So that’s about 100,000 families at $500,000 each – that is a cool $50 billion that the taxpayers of Australia would be forking out.

So we are definitely talking big big bickies. To pull that off the lawyers for the Aboriginals were going to need the absolute best cases – the ones that would be a shoe in to prove. Out of their pool of 550 starters they chose their winning couple – Lorna Cubillo (her maiden name was Nelson – and if you remember from the previous programme she had helped Barbara Cummings write her 1990 book about policies for half-caste children in the Northern Territory called Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home.

The other starter, in the interests of gender equality maybe, was Peter Gunner. To win this high stake game, $50 billion compensation for the victims of the Stolen Generations, Lorna and Peter were simply the best. They were ..

Tag words: Kruger v The Commonwealth; High Court of Australia; Lorna Cubillo; Lorna Nelson; Robert Gunner; Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia; Gunner v Commonwealth of Australia; 1994 Darwin Conference; Stolen Generations; Mick Dodson; Bring Them Home Report; Barbara Cummings; Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home; Justice Maurice Francis O’Loughlin; Justice O’Loughlin; Daryl Williams; Ray Evans; Nicholas Hasluck; HR Nicholls Society; Bench and Book; Bob Hawke; Mabo Case; genocide;

The Bring Them Home enquiry was to be an investigation, broadly, in the words of the terms of reference to trace the past laws, practices and policies which resulted in the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families by compulsion, duress or undue influence, and the effects of those laws, practices and policies. The instructions for the inquiry were given by Michael Lavarch the Attorney-General of Australia on 2 August 1995.

The language isn’t balanced, it strongly suggests wrongdoing rather than an enquiry to find out if that was the case, but nonetheless the role of the Inquiry was to be an investigative role – truth telling might be the modern buzz words to use. A fact finding exercise to reveal the truth – whatever that may be.

One of the bodies engaged to assist the truth telling process of the inquiry was the Indigenous Advisory Council set up by the Human Rights Commission. It’s role was defined as beint to provide advice on the hearing process, the solicitation of evidence and submissions and the analysis of the material presented. An impartial resource.

Again, I repeat, the inquiry was to impartially establish the facts. It’s hard to see how that was going to be possible when one of the people appointed by the Human Rights Commission to the Indigenous Advisory Council was a high profile “Stolen Generations” activist, Barbara Cummings.

Barbara was not someone that I would have chosen to help as an impartial researcher and inquirer with the investigation to find out the truth of what had happened to people who claimed to be members of the Stolen Generations.

In 1990 Barbara had written a book about policies for half-caste children in the Northern Territory called Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home. The book was purportedly a history of this issue from the early twentieth century onwards. One of the people who helped Barbara write her book was a girl who had been at the Retta Dixon Home by the name of Lorna Nelson. Barbara had, herself, been born at the Retta Dixon Home. She grew up there with her mother and siblings – so she wasn’t a member of the Stolen Generations. As an adult she moved to Adelaide and took up a career as a social worker.

In 1994, three years before Michael Lavarch convened the Bring Them Home inquiry, Barbara was one of the convenors of a conference in Darwin. All children who had been in homes for half-castes in the Northern Territory were invited to attend. Some of the speakers addressing the conference described what they said had happened to them as cultural genocide. Remember those words.

One of the speakers at the conference was barrister, later Federal Court judge, Ron Merkel QC. He recommended to the people attending the Conference litigation against the Commonwealth government over this issue of the Stolen Generations and their right to compensation, if that was found to be the case.

But now Barbara was about to have her claim of genocide vindicated by a full bench (7 judges) of the highest court of the land, the High Court of Australia. Or was she?

Tag words: Bring Them Home enquiry; Michael Lavarch; Indigenous Advisory Council; Human Rights Commission; Barbara Cummings; Take This Child: From Kahlin Compound to Retta Dixon Home; Lorna Nelson; Stolen Generations; Ron Merkel QC; High Court of Australia; Kruger v Commonwealth of Australia; Cubillo v Commonwealth; Lorna Cubillo; Sir Ronald Wilson; Mick Dodson; Chief Justice Brennan; Justice Dawson; Justice Toohey; Justice McHugh; Justice Gummow; UN Genocide Convention; Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory; Aboriginals Ordinance 1918; Wik Peoples v State of Queensland; Justice Drummond; Governor Gipps; Lord Glenelg; Waters v The Commonwealth; Nicholas Hasluck; Sir Paul Hasluck; Shades of Darkness; Bench and Book;

I forgot to tell you something important that Sir Ronald Wilson, one of the two chairs who did the Bring Them Home Report, said. So I’ll tell you now before I continue with the exchange of correspondence between Sir Ronald Wilson and Nicholas Hasluck after the last letter that Nicholas sent to Sir Ronald on 19 May, 2000.

Sir Ronald had been one of Nicholas’ lecturers at the University of Western Australia in the early 1960s. Then they bumped into each other by chance while both of them were working barristers from time to time – just accidental contact no close connection. Sir Ronald worked as Crown Prosecutor, and Nicholas didn’t do criminal work. But Sir Ronald was appointed, first to the High Court of Australia, and then after he retired from there, to the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal. That appointment was made at about the same time that Nicholas was himself appointed to be the part-time President of the West Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal. This common area of work then resulted in more frequent inter-action than over the previous years.

And so it came to pass that in 1990 Nicholas was attending a semi-formal lunch with some of the heads of the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity judicial bodies in Australia. Sir Ronald made a short speech, thanking those attending for their attendance. Then he said something remarkable and disturbing, especially considering his later role in the Bring Them Home enquiry. He said of his new role on the Human Rights Commission:

I am looking forward to not having to write lengthy judgments. I will be dealing with matters expeditiously, and simply getting on with doing whatever needed doing.

This wasn’t a very judicial, or quasi-judicial way of approaching the important work he’d be doing on the Human Rights Commission and especially later on, on the Stolen Generations enquiry.

More significantly, this comment wasn’t a random one-off comment. In 1991, or 1992, Nicholas was attending a formal conference of the heads of the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity judicial bodies throughout Australia. Sir Ronald made a speech. In that speech, in a much larger and very formal public forum, Sir Ronald not only repeated what he had said before about how he was going to do the work that was his responsibility on the Human Rights Commission, but going further than he had on the last occasion. He said:

'at times, in dealing with matters briskly, I feel that I am 'living dangerously’

Him and the rest of Australia if that was how he approached his vital role as the most legally qualified commissioner co-leading the Bring Them Home Report with Mick Dodson – more of him later in the programme.

Nicholas said that with these comments still in his mind, the Bring Them Home Report and the media coverage that Sir Ronald got:

I have been left with the unsettling impression that their findings were likely to be affected by rhetoric and sentiment

Nicholas was not going to be disappointed on that score. So let’s go back and look at Sir Ronald’s final reply to the chain of correspondence that had been begun between him and Nicholas in May 2000, and then something far far more important that Sir Roland revealed publicly in 2001.

Tag words: Stolen Generations; Sir Ronald Wilson; Nicholas Hasluck; Bring Them Home Report; Mick Dodson; Bruce Trevorrow; Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal; West Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal; Sir Paul Hasluck; Shades of Darkness – Aboriginal Affairs 1925-1965; the Bulletin; Patrick Carlyon; Bench and Book – Diaries, Letters, Memories; Michael Lavarch; Paul Keating; Peter Read; Coral Oomera Edwards; Nazis; holocaust; Keith Windschuttle; The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Volume III. The Stolen Generations 1881-2008; Brittany Higgins; Bruce Lehrmann;

In my previous programme I said that there wasn’t a genocide and there wasn’t any Stolen Generations. In the way of the world today you might be thinking I’m a racist but you won’t once you understand how this whole Stolen Generations thing works.

I’m not just making this up. I have all of the judges of the highest courts in the land who have heard cases where the plaintiffs claim to be members of the Stolen Generations, agree with me. The only cases that have gone to court to prove that the individual litigants were victims of genocide, members of the Stolen Generations, have failed. There’s been one High Court Case, a Federal Court case, and the unsuccessful litigants in that case appealed from the decision to the Full Federal Court and failed in their appeal. In all of the cases the judges found that there was no genocide.

In 1997, the Bring Them Home Report, by Sir Ronald Wilson, a former judge of the High Court of Australia, and Mick Dodson, an Aboriginal activist, and a barrister, found that there was a nationwide policy of genocide and consequently there were Aboriginals who were members of Stolen Generations. Those findings were substantially based on hearing only witnesses who argued that either they were members of the Stolen Generations, left wing academics who supported the view that there were Stolen Generations or people who supported that view. Effectively no witnesses were called of people who held positions as ministers or senior or junior public servants, working in the areas which were claimed to be conducting the genocide – the people who were said to be carrying out the genocide.

But significantly, just few years after the Bring Them Home Report had been delivered, Sir Ronald Wilson came out publicly and said … well I’ll get to what he said in the next programme.

The most vital part of the Stolen Generations report is findings that there was actual genocide. If there was no genocide, what does that mean? As it stands at this point in my programme, the only people who had to make a determination on whether there was, or was not, Stolen Generations, are the two commissioners who delivered the Bring Them Home Report – Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson. But … well that big but is for the next programme.

The only contested court case that has loosely been described as having as the plaintiff a victim of the Stolen Generations, that has succeeded, was a case brought by an unfortunate man by the name of Bruce Trevorrow. The facts of his case were appalling, but what ...

Genocide is the vital ingredient in the Stolen Generations. If it’s not there … well I’ll talk about that in later programmes. Let’s first look at an interesting exchange of letters between Sir Ronald Wilson, one of the joint chair of that Commission, someone you could accept as being an experienced judge, on the High Court of Australia no less, who made the finding that there was genocide. So I need to introduce you to Nicholas Hasluck because he plays an important part in the story of the Stolen Generations, which the media isn’t telling us about, but he did in his book Bench and Book – Diaries, Letters, Memories published in 2021.

Tag words: Stolen Generations; racist; High Court of Australia; Federal Court; Full Federal Court; Bring Them Home Report; Sir Ronald Wilson; Mick Dodson; Aboriginal activist; Bruce Trevorrow; Nicholas Hasluck; Bench and Book – Diaries, Letters, Memories; Sir Paul Hasluck; Minister for Territories; Sir Robert Menzies; Nazi holocaust; World War II; Shades of Darkness – Aboriginal Affairs 1925-1965; Geoffrey Blainey; Western Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal; Chair of the Literature Board of Australia; National Press Club; Gough Whitlam; Hitler; Goering; Goebbels; The Sydney Morning Herald; The Fate of Reformers; Cecil Cook; the Protector for the Territory; Mr Bleakley; Mr Neville; national conference 1937; assimilation policies; biological absorption; White Australia policy; Bob Ellis; Eugene Bykhovsky; Colin Tatz;