Point 422 was stating the evidence placed before the court, in this case presumably by the plaintiff, it was not saying that was what happened.
The evidence includes statements by public servants at the time, who presumably have some idea of what it is they are doing:
"The commitment of the Commonwealth and the States to the policy of assimilation was reaffirmed at the Native Welfare Conference of 1963.
429 In a minute from the secretary of the APB to the Minister of Works dated 9 January 1961, the secretary described the policy of assimilation in the following terms:
In the State of South Australia, the [APB] defines assimilation as "to grow or become similar, or to bring to a likeness".
The Board accepts this definition which implies that to be assimilated the aborigines must be similar to the balance of the community in culture, religious beliefs, standards of living, personal cleanliness, hygiene, etc. Perhaps this policy could best be referred to as "social assimilation".
The Board is also aware of the possibility of biological assimilation, and know that already numbers of aborigines have been absorbed in the community in this manner but the total is insignificant when compared with the rapidly increasing population. There has been a number of marriages of our women to New Australians which may increase the possibility of more rapid assimilation by this means.
It should be noted that aborigines can be and have been assimilated but it does not mean that they are necessarily "accepted" by everyone. I feel that much nonsense is spoken and written about the acceptance of aborigines. Few of us are accepted in all stratas of society, nor would we want to be. What is important for the aborigine is that he and his family are accepted by those with whom they normally associate.
In some States it would appear that the term "assimilation" is accepted to mean aborigines living in groups within a community in a manner somewhat similar to other than aborigines but retaining some of their tribal beliefs and customs. This definition is not acceptable to my Board as this to us is a form of segregation. It is understood that when the policy of assimilation was approved by all Governments in 1951, the policy of assimilation was expected to result in a manner opposite and opposed to segregation.
The secretary then continued to discuss the methods adopted by the APB for advancing the policy of assimilation, which included the following with respect to Aboriginal children:
In this State we are advancing the policy by educating the children and taking care that they bathe and dress in clean clothes each day while attending school where they are taught something of the need of thrift and hygiene and are encouraged to improve their personal appearance. In this manner, the children of primitive or near-primitive aborigines are being prepared towards their ultimate assimilation."
The view taken was entirely reasonable at the time, unless you think it's fine to have a father boozing, mother missing and a child malnourished. Yes, it was later proved to be incorrect but at the time that's all they knew. That was largely the result of one womans actions (Mrs Angas) and the reason that the breach occurred. That is why compo was paid.
I'm fully aware of why the compensation was paid. The child was taken in breach of the State's duty of care. However if, as you contend the child wasn't taken because it was Aboriginal, and it certainly wasn't returned after the APB were made aware that there was no risk of neglect shortly after, then why wasn't the child returned for nearly a decade?
As for proof that there was no policy at the time there are notes all throughout that the departments had no authority to remove children without their parents consent, no matter how bad it was. For proof see points 92, 358, 909, 1215, 1217 - 1219, 1221 and for that matter, the whole damn part entitled "findings."
That there is no law authorising certain actions doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means the policy is illegal:
"In a letter dated 16 October 1958 to his counterpart in the State of Victoria, the Superintendent of Aborigines Welfare, the secretary of the APB responded to a number of inquiries made by the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board regarding the practices and policy for the care and protection of Aboriginal people in South Australia. In relation to Aboriginal children, the secretary of the APB wrote:
...Again in confidence, for some years without legal authority, the Board have taken charge of many aboriginal children, some are placed in Aboriginal Institutions, which by the way I very much dislike, and others are placed with foster parents, all at the cost of the Board. At the present time I think there are approximately 300 children so placed, and the cost of maintaining these children during this financial year will be over [sterling]30,000."
