6. The transfer was from that group to another group.

6. The transfer was from that group to another group.

A. Evidentiary comment:

The only transfers that are relevant are such that occur from one group protected under this article (see Common Element 1) to another group. A strict interpretation of this provision would exclude transfers into the general population, away from one group without transferring to a particular group, such as those reported below.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (Australia), Bringing them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, House of Representatives Official Hansard, 38^th Parliament, 26 May 1997, p. 4002; online: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html,

In the early days of colonization of Australia, aboriginal children were transferred from their homes into the custody of the white authorities and educated like white persons, leaving them without the knowledge of their culture. Once in the control of the authorities, the children were not surrendered back to the parents.

Mostly, this was accomplished by Missions and the so-called Protectors, who took children from their parents under the guise of having them learn a trade. "They were to be physically separated from their families on the settlements, receive a European education in domestic and stock work and then sent out to approved work situation. Neville theorised that this process would lead to their acceptance by the non-indigenous people and their own loss of identification as Indigenous people."

Colin Tatz, Genocide in Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Research Discussion Paper No 8 (1999) pp. 28- 29:

"In 1983, historian Peter Read published a short monograph on the "stolen generations" in New South Wales. The annual reports of the Aborigines Protection [later Welfare] Board were always explicit: "this policy of dissociating the children from [native] camp life must eventually solve the Aboriginal problem". By placing children in "first-class private homes", the superior standard of life would "pave the way for the absorption of these people into the general population". Further, "to allow these children to remain on the reserve to grow up in comparative idleness in the midst of more or less vicious surroundings would be, to say the least, an injustice to the children themselves, and a positive menace to the State". The committal notices prescribed by law required a column to be completed under the heading "Reason for Board taking control of the child". The great majority of responses were penned in one standard phrase: "For being Aboriginal"!"