rightsED | Bringing them home

8. Northern Territory
The History

Note: This overview is based primarily on the Bringing them home report and provides
a background to the policies and practices that authorised the removal of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. It is not intended to be used as a
comprehensive historical document.

Occupation of the Territory

The north coast of Australia was proclaimed a British possession for King George IV in 1824. A
settlement at Fort Dundas on Melville Island soon followed. Two further settlements were set up at
Fort Wellington (1829) and Port Essington (1849). These early attempts at settlement in the Northern
Territory were short-lived. Illness, geographic isolation and the lack of trade prevented any growth.

In 1862, the South Australian Government supported an expedition by John Stuart to gain control
of territories in the north. While the first settlement at Escape Cliffs met the same fate as previous
settlements, a successful site was established at Port Darwin in 1869.

Very soon explorers such as Leichhardt and Giles trekked across the Territory in earnest. This
exploration revealed the great wealth of natural resources in the Northern Territory that would bring a
flood of mining companies, pastoralists and gold diggers. By the late 1880s most lands were occupied
for some kind of development, much of it by large companies.

The occupation and exploitation of land in the Northern Territory was achieved by dispossessing
another community – Indigenous people. Forced off their land, Indigenous people moved to work on
farm stations or in the mines (with Chinese immigrants). The farm stations were particularly dependent
on Indigenous labour, but paid barely subsistence wages in the knowledge that Indigenous people had
few other choices.

Other Indigenous people set up camps on the outskirts of non-Indigenous townships.

The rapid pace of development and non-Indigenous expansion gave rise to violence on both sides.
The police, played a strong role in controlling this violence, though usually by taking the side of the
non-Indigenous developers.

Unlike other settlements in Australia at the time, the difficulties in accessing the region effectively
deterred the establishment of missions in the Northern Territory. The Hermannsburg Mission was not
founded until 1877. Shortly after arriving, these Lutheran missionaries rounded up Indigenous children
for schooling, using rations as persuasion.

Segregation of ‘half-castes’
The growing number of mixed-descent children in the Northern Territory and the sexual exploitation of
young Indigenous women by non-Indigenous men began to cause public concern. The government’s
immediate response was to take these children away from the communities in which they were living
and place them in the care of missions. This was the first step in legal segregation of Indigenous
people based on whether they were ‘full-bloods’ or of mixed descent.

By 1909, the ‘half-caste’ population was estimated at 200. The significant number of mixed-descent
children since settlement was due to the few non-Indigenous women living there. However, it was
not until this period that non-Indigenous people feared being out-numbered by a mixed-descent
population. For the government, the answer lay in a policy of segregation through reserves and
compounds.

In 1910, the Northern Territory Aboriginals Act 1906 was passed, establishing the Northern Territory
Aboriginals Department. The Chief Protector, a position created under the law, was appointed the
‘legal guardian of every Aboriginal and every half-caste child up to the age of 18 years’. When the

83
© Australian Human Rights Commission 2010 | www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bringing_them_home
rightsED | Bringing them home

Commonwealth took control over the Territory in 1910, it confirmed these laws. This would provide the
means through which segregation could be legally achieved.

In town areas, compounds were established to contain all Indigenous people. They were required to
undertake farming to make their compound self-sufficient. The first of these, the Kahlin Compound,
was set up outside Darwin in 1913. Those living in rural areas were removed to stations, which were
under the control of a Superintendent. Similarly, they were trained in industrial and farm work.

In 1918, the Chief Protector’s powers were extended. Under the Aborigines Ordinance 1918, all
Indigenous females (regardless of age) were under the total control of the Chief Protector unless they
were married and living with a husband ‘who is substantially of European origin’. To marry a non-
Indigenous man they had to obtain the Chief Protector’s permission.

During the 1920s, the pace of removals increased rapidly. An immediate result of this was severe
overcrowding in places already in poor condition. Overcrowding was a particular problem at the Kahlin
Compound and The Bungalow (near Alice Springs).

The Methodist Missionary Society offered to relocate the children living on the Kahlin Compound to a
mission on Goulbourn Island. The proposal was declined because it threatened the availability of cheap
domestic labour from the Compound. Instead, in 1924, a new building was occupied next door for the
girls and younger boys. It was known as the Half-Caste Home.

Within four years, the Half-Caste Home had also reached critical overcrowding levels, with 76 inmates
living in a house large enough for one family. In 1931, the boys were moved south to Pine Creek.

Meanwhile, at The Bungalow, 50 children and 10 adults were living in three exposed sheds. Referring
to conditions at The Bungalow, a newspaper gave the following report in 1924:

At the Alice Springs bungalow the appearance of everybody and everything convicts the
Home and Territories Department of the progressive destruction of 50 young promising
lives and souls.

When conditions there reached crisis point in 1928, the children were moved to a temporary home
at Jay Creek. This ‘home’ consisted of a corrugated iron shed and two tents for staff. The children
suffered from a severe water shortage, extreme cold in the winter and lack of protection from the rain
when it came.

In spite of these conditions, 132 children were again living at The Bungalow by 1935.

Chief Protector Cook

In 1927, the Commonwealth Government set up an inquiry into Indigenous affairs in the Northern
Territory. The inquiry was led by J.W. Bleakley, the Queensland Chief Protector of Aborigines. In his
report, Bleakley estimated the Territory’s Indigenous population to be 21 000, of which 8 000 were
‘half-castes’. He also found that many Indigenous people were not being paid wages, living conditions
were appalling and that government-run institutions ‘were badly situated, inadequately financed and
insufficiently supervised’.

Bleakley recommended that missions be given responsibility for Indigenous children. By the early
1930s, there were seven missions operating in the Northern Territory, mostly in the north. The brutality
experienced by Indigenous people meant that the missions were often the only place of safety.

Even so, the missions were in poor condition, and disease was widespread. At the Hermannsburg
Mission, many children died from whooping cough in the late 1920s. At a mission on Groote Eylandt,
almost 50 percent of one generation of mixed-descent children suffered from leprosy. The government
provided little financial support to the missions to overcome these conditions.

84
© Australian Human Rights Commission 2010 | www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bringing_them_home
 rightsED | Bringing them home

When Dr Cecil Cook was appointed Chief Protector in 1927, he was wholly unsupportive of the
missions. This was partly because of the poor conditions. More importantly, Cook had a similar vision
of assimilation as West Australian Chief Protector A.O. Neville. Cook supported biological assimilation.

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of
the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be
eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence
of their progeny in the white.

Genetics and breeding out ‘race’ was Cook’s key to assimilation. The missions, who were more
concerned with education and protection, threatened his vision. Instead, Cook relied on the
compounds and homes as a means of segregating and controlling the development of Indigenous
children.

Cook’s vision, however, ignored the critical and dire state of these compounds and homes. Conditions
at Temple Bar, the Half-Caste Home and The Bungalow had not improved. Cook was forced to admit
to the situation when complaints were presented about these homes to the Commonwealth-State
Conference on Indigenous Affairs in 1937.

Even so, he continued to defend his policy. Cook argued that ‘everything necessary [must be done] to
convert the half-caste into a white citizen’.

The ‘New Deal’ and World War II

In 1937, John McEwan was appointed federal Minister for the Interior. His responsibilities included
Indigenous affairs. Soon after being appointed, he visited The Bungalow and Half-Caste Home and
was shocked by conditions at both homes. “I know many stock breeders who would not dream of
crowding their stock in the way that these half-caste children are huddled”, he said.

In response to this, McEwan announced the ‘New Deal’ policy in 1939 – it was based on assimilation
through education and employment. This new policy replaced Cook’s vision of biological assimilation.
One of the first priorities was the education of ‘half-castes’ to the ‘full white standard’. Children of
mixed descent were to be removed to government institutions where they would be given care and
education up to a certain age. The missions would also receive greater financial support from the
government. Also, the Bagot Aboriginal Reserve was opened in Darwin.

However, these plans were cut short in February 1942 with the bombing of Darwin by Japanese forces
in World War II. The bombing forced the evacuation of missions and reserves, with the children being
sent to homes and institutions in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.

After the war, the forcible removal of Indigenous children continued. Patrol officers and police were
required to report on the presence of mixed-descent children living in Indigenous communities, and
make plans for their removal to settlements and missions.

In 1949, one of the patrol officers made an official protest against these removals. This, combined with
protests from the Aborigines Advancement League, led to significant debate in government circles.
While the Director of Native Affairs (who replaced the Chief Protector) argued that the removals were
necessary, the age range of children who could be removed was narrowed down significantly.

Assimilation through welfare

The introduction of the Welfare Ordinance 1953 signalled a movement towards assimilation through
general child welfare laws.

Indigenous and non-Indigenous children were now covered by the same law. Those under government
control were called wards. A ward was any person who ‘by reason of his manner of living, his inability

85
© Australian Human Rights Commission 2010 | www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bringing_them_home
rightsED | Bringing them home

to manage his own affairs, his standard of social habit and behaviour, his personal associations …
stands in need of personal care’. People who were made wards were denied the most basic human
rights concerning their person and property.

Many non-Indigenous people expressed concern about this new law, fearing their children would be
removed. In response, the terms were narrowed so that only those who had no voting rights could be
made wards. At this stage, most Indigenous people could not vote. Further, the lack of proper housing
and welfare benefits directed to Indigenous people meant they were more likely to fall within the
definition of a ward.

Gradually, the government began to move away from removing children to institutions and missions.
In 1955, it decided that Indigenous children should ideally be transferred to one of the southern states
where conditions in the institutions and homes were much better. This scheme began in 1956, and
within four years 63 children had been relocated to the southern states.

Towards the end of the 1960s, children were increasingly placed into foster care instead of institutions
and homes, which were quickly closing down. In 1971, 97 percent of Territory children in foster care
were Indigenous.

Towards self-management
The assimilation policy was formally abolished by the Commonwealth Government in 1973, in favour of
self-management by Indigenous people.

In 1979, an independent community-controlled child-care agency was established. Karu, the new
agency, received financial support to recruit Indigenous foster parents, and reunite Indigenous children
and families. By this time, there was a marked decrease in the number of Indigenous children taken
into government care.

The Northern Territory was the first to adopt the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle when it did
so under the Community Welfare Act 1983. Under this, an Indigenous family must be the preferred
placement for an Indigenous child in need of alternative care. The Principle has also been included in
the Adoption of Children Act 1994.

Links
• National Archives of Australia Collection: Indigenous Peoples:
http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/indigenous_records.html

86
© Australian Human Rights Commission 2010 | www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bringing_them_home