|
Joy Williams is a Stolen Generation child. Her mother Dora was taken away when she was 10 hours old, Joy was taken at seven hours and Joy’s daughter Julie Anne at 10 months. The only reason ever given was the colour of their skin.
“How do you assist a nation of people who are grieving because this policy affected every Aboriginal community in Australia?” demands Williams, one of hundreds of Aborigines suing Australia’s national and state governments.
“You have a nation in mourning and nothing is being done,” Williams said angrily.
Source: A Stolen Generation Cries Out by Michael Perry, Reuter, 20/5/97
An Aboriginal woman yesterday lost her last bid to sue the NSW Government in what began as the state’s first stolen generation test case.
Joy Williams, 58, claimed her psychiatric problems resulted from her experiences in two institutions under the control of the Aborigines Welfare Board (AWB).
Her mother consented for her to come under the care of the AWB when she was one month old.
The High Court yesterday upheld earlier decisions by the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and found that there were insufficient prospects for a successful appeal.
Ms Williams, of Wollongong, had sued the State of NSW for up to $2.2 million, claiming she developed borderline personality and substance abuse disorders as a result of her experiences at the Bomaderry and Wentworth Falls institutions.
In 1999, Justice Alan Abadee rejected her claim that the AWB owed her a duty of care in relation to her upbringing in the institutions, where she was a ward until she turned 18.
In dismissing her challenge last September, the appeal court found Justice Adabee had not erred in his finding that the institutions were caring institutions with loving staff who did their best for her.
Yesterday’s decision puts an end to Ms Williams’ lengthy battle for compensation, once thought a test case for Aboriginal people who had been removed from their families or handed over to institutions when they were children.
Justice Adadee had rejected her original submission that she was a member of the stolen generation, saying she was not taken against her mother’s will.
In the appeal case, her legal team had abandoned any reference to the stolen generation.
Source: Illawarra Mercury, 23/6/01, page 8.
This material has been produced by UNITEC Institute of Technology
under contract to the Ministry of Education.
| 
