First Nations Child Removal and New South Wales Out-of-Home Care: A Historical Analysis of the Motivating Philosophies, Imposed Policies, and Underutilised Recommendations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First Nations Child Removal and New South Wales Out of Home Care: A Historical Analysis of the Motivating Philosophies, Imposed Policies and Underutilised Recommendations

In general, the research is good. It is a voice of the voiceless, the last, least and lost children of Indigenous Australians uprooted from their biological families.

1 Form:

The structure is fine:  Introduction; First Nations Child Removal and Care in NSW; Invasion and Resistance (1788 to 1800s); Civilising through the Black Native Institution (1814 to 1833) and the Emergence and Decline of Institutionalisation (1820 to 1880); The Aborigines Protection Board (1880 to 1940); Protection to Welfare, Boarding-Out, and Control (1940-1970); Activism, Welfarism, and Self-Determination (1970s–1980s); Change in Agency and the Bringing Them Home Report (1990–2000); From the BTH Report to the FIC Report: Continued Statements, Mounting Recommendations and Little Self-determination (2000 to 2019); They Are Still Not Home – Family Is Culture (2019) to Now (2024); Conclusion.

 

Area of improvement of the form: It is essential to ensure that the quotations and bibliography (references) adhere to the MDPI style.

 

2 Content:

The content is good. First, the research examines the past situation of the removal of the Indigenous Australians. Second, it highlights the present situation of the removal of First Nations children. Then the research give suggestions for the better future of the children:  Introduction; First Nation’s Child Removal and Care in NSW; Invasion and Resistance (1788 to 1800s); Civilising through the Black Native Institution (1814 to 1833) and the Emergence and Decline of Institutionalisation (1820 to 1880); The Aborigines Protection Board (1880 to 1940); Protection to Welfare, Boarding-Out, and Control (1940-1970); Activism, Welfarism, and Self-Determination (1970s–1980s); Change in Agency and the Bringing Them Home Report (1990–2000); From the BTH Report to the FIC Report: Continued Statements, Mounting Recommendations and Little Self-determination (2000 to 2019); They Are Still Not Home – Family Is Culture (2019) to Now (2024); Conclusion.

 

3 There are very few minor corrections!

 

 

Suggestions for some corrections!

Line Number	Suggestion for correction
39	affecting multiple generations (Hermaston, W. 2023).
57	Unlike previous attemps at historisising historising of child protection
58	to show the reprtition representation of subjugation
62	the segregation/ protectionism/assimilation era of the Aboriginal Protection Board
66	report suggest suggests that attempts to reform OOHC
84	and has continue continued to the present day.
156	First Nations people were being subjecated subjected
174	resulting in a widening of the state’s powers of compulsory
Footnote 30	Kidd, R. (1997) .The way… Kidd, R. (1997). The way…
Footnote 31	Committee on Health. (1998). Home Children, Why Were They Sent Here. Committee on Health. (1998). Home Children, Why Were They Sent Here?
Footnote 32	Davis, M (2019). Family is Culture: review report. Davis, M (2019). Family is Culture: Review Report.
211	what was assumed to be a soon-to-be extinct
215	Aboriginal people were generally displaced from their lands and communities as pastoralists displaced their communities.
217	First Nations people from tribesman tribesmen to inmates,
238	First Nations children were to only only to be removed
248	my family went without parently parental [sic] love
264	In this separation, it was do done to provide more
269	embraced through throughout the entire life
309	welfarism began to have a greater impact
315	should be directed towards the maintenance
334	being more meticulous and timelier timely.
368	First Nations children with kin and within the community
370	for combatting combating racism
373	the practices and knowledges knowledge of connection
380	in the USA to be delt dealt with by Tribal councils
390	form a national organisation for childcare, support each another other,
435	in recognition of the legacy of the harmful effects
463	We practiced practised discrimination and exclusion.
490	but you had a the right to bring us back.
493	and official apologies be made at a national state level and
514	service delivery is outsourced, this which created private bureaucratic structures
Footnote 100	Tomison, A. (1996). ‘Child Protection Towards 2000: Commentary’, Child Abuse Prevention, National Child Protection Clearing House Newsletter,
531	suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
534	their descendants and for their families left behind,
559	and with the government providing
569	regarding the provision of OOHC
573	First Nations communities, there was a lack of accountability
662	The numbers number of First Nations children in OOHC
666	doubling to 30.1 per 1,000 at on June 30, 2006, and tripling to 56 per 1,000 aton June 30
669	6,652 of those being were Indigenous.
692	and to review the ATSICPP with a view to strengthening to strengthen
693	visions consistent with the First Nations’ rights.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.

Yes very minor, but very much appreciated. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent paper, well written, well argued, and easy to follow.  A very few grammatical items could be fixed.

I noted throughout the paper that there is a fair amount of tie in with Canada, although you did not make note of this.  I found more tie ins with Australia and Canada than with the US or UK.  Canadian politics, actions, inactions and denials as well as stages are very similar to what you are describing.  Rather than include it in this paper, I would recommend a comparative paper drawing on the parallels and differences.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Mandaang guwu. (A gratitude from the Aboriginal Australian)

Very much appreciated your thoughts and the ideas of a comparison. 

Your further discussion in the future would be highly appreciated. Please get in touch and we can look at this together. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article and should be published. I work in the US context, so I learned so much about the history of Indigenous dynamics in Australia from this paper. Thank you for that. 

A few things I would suggest pondering. 

1. The paper seems to presume, at some level, that the government does not want to erase indigenous cultures anymore, and that the problematic features of the OOHC are resultant from a colonial or Eurocentric perspective. At some level, there is a sense that if those in power just understood the violent nature of their actions, they would change it--thus right this comprehensive genealogy of colonization leading up to the OOHC and into the present to show they have yet to break free from paternalistic policy and presupposition. (By the way, the research here is extensive, and I find that the actual narrative is impressive, cited, and clear.) However, I want to press on the presumption that making this clear--the fact that paternalism or eurocentrism is operative--will change anything. Is it not possible, for example, that this is purposefully just another iteration of colonialism, deploying in a new way? I think, honestly, that's what your article is arguing. It's not that policymakers need to understand the history to correct this ongoing policy. Instead, it is that you want to expose the allegedly more humane policy of simply being another iteration of colonization--I think you should say this more forcefully. This is on purpose. It's not an accident! At least this is how it typically works in the US. People critique and complain, and then the centers of power change their colonization strategies. (Dark, I know. But I think this is precisely what's happening here. PUT your finger on it. I think that will make this article far more compelling and forceful. 

2. In a few places, the introduction is unclear to me. 

• Line 53--What do you mean by bastardizing culture? I think stick with erasure personally. I find that it gets icky fast when, especially, non-indigenous people start to muse over which Native cultures are pure or not. 
• Lines 57-59 are not clear to me. I don't know what you mean by "waves of overlapping legislation." I assume you are referring to the literature to position your article in relation to it, but I think you could do that in plainer language. I also don't think you are simply "historicizing" the colonial child protection act. You are exposing it as colonial. I think that is what separates your article from others. I think instead of "repetition" in line 58 you say "evolution," or "reinscription." part of your main point is that this act/program you engage is an outgrowth of this long colonial history. So I don't think "repetition" quite captures that. 
• Lines 71-74: After getting the context, who is expected to improve this situation? That is unclear to me exactly. Again, I don't think the AUS government wants it to improve in the ways you think of improvement. So who? 
• Several sentences are also in the passive voice throughout. Watch out for those. I think it is very important to identify who is acting upon what or whom in these kinds of histories. 

 

These are some key initial things to think about before publication. Thanks for a fantastic read! 

Author Response

Mandaang guwu. (A gratitude from the Aboriginal Australian)

These comments are really powerful and gripping with the material and unfortunately empathising the experience of our different peoples. 

I have incorporated your feedback throughout and feel a debt of gratitude with assisting our voices, yes I am passive, its a trained problem I have. So Thanks. 

Your further discussion in the future would be highly appreciated.