Maltese 'child' migrants in Australia becoming impatient

Maltese nationals who emigrated to Australia as children are upset that in spite of several promises by the Maltese government, a decision on putting up a plaque to commemorate their migration has not yet been taken.

This is hardening the resolve of their association, Child Migrants of Malta, to take a more radical approach that could include litigation and the seeking of financial compensation.

Sources close to the Maltese government said a decision was expected by the government in the coming days. This would bring to a close an issue that has caused heartache to many.

Many child migrants from different countries in the world suffered rejection, institutionalisation and exploitation for cheap labour. A number also suffered sexual abuse.

David Plowman, chairman of the Child Migrants of Malta (C-MOM), told The Times that C-MOM wished for a resolution of the issue and a year ago had suggested that a plaque be put up in a prominent place, such as the Barrakka gardens, but a final decision had not yet been taken by the government.

A total of 310 Maltese children emigrated to Australia between 1950 and 1965.

For the younger children the loss of family connection was keenly felt. Most of those of or over school-leaving age, which at the time was 14 in Australia, were sent to Bindoon, a trade school.

About 20 per cent of the "child" migrants are alive and continue to reside in Australia.

Prof. Plowman said that although history would suggest that many of the child migrants had done well in their adopted country, the child migration experience was one that affected, in greater or smaller measure, all concerned.

Many felt, and in some cases continued to feel, rejected by their country of origin. A number also felt rejected by their family, particularly in situations where not all of the siblings were sent to Australia.

Prof. Plowman said that around the world, child migrants sought recognition of their special, if unfortunate, place in history. "They have forced governments to recognise their special needs and to make compensation for real or alleged abuses."

Home and receiving countries sought to settle the issues that continued to haunt a number of former child migrants, including financial compensation and assistance to visit family members in the home country, he said.

The federal and state governments in Australia also commemorated child migration in each affected state by memorials to child migration.

In western Australia, such a memorial was unveiled in Fremantle last December. It includes a separate plaque commemorating Maltese child migrants.

Prof. Plowman said that the C-MOM, in pushing child migrants' claims, wanted an amicable settlement with the Maltese government and the Church, based on recognition that would perhaps bring closure for those still bearing the scars of child migration.

But if such an approach did not bear fruit, Prof. Plowman said, the organisation would go for the more radical method adopted by child migrant organisations elsewhere, which included seeking financial compensation.

Prof. Plowman came to Malta in February last year meeting then Foreign Minister Joe Borg and Emigrants' Commission director Mgr Philip Calleja. "Mgr Calleja argued that the Maltese Church has nothing to be ashamed of or to apologise about," Prof. Plowman said.

Mgr Calleja, he said, argued that the Church had acted in good faith, obtained parental or guardian approval for the children concerned to emigrate, provided guardians for the journey and inspected Australian institutions to ensure they met the needs of immigrants.

He said that if there were circumstances that gave rise to problems in Australian institutions, this was hardly the fault of the Maltese Church.

Prof. Plowman countered that the C-MOM did not dispute the good intent of the child migration scheme, nor that many had benefited from it. However, there had been a downside for a number of them and the Christian thing to do was to seek to bring closure for such people.

Moreover, the material well-being of a number of former child migrants should not be allowed to mask the fact that many of them still harboured resentment and rancour at the way they had been treated.

Prof. Plowman indicated that he thought the most useful way to bring closure, without the attenuated financial repercussions that had followed similar closure in Britain, was to erect a plaque dedicated to child migration in a prominent place.

But there was no outcome to last February's meeting.

The meeting with Dr Borg highlighted the government's concern about litigation and financial compensation.

Prof. Plowman said then that such issues were not the intent at that stage but if no closure was brought about then it was likely that litigation would ensue.

He outlined his suggestion of a plaque and even suggested the wording:

"This plaque commemorates the 310 child migrants who travelled to Australia in search of a better life between 1950 and 1965.

"We respect their achievements. We rejoice in their successes. We regret any unintended consequences of child migration."

Prof. Plowman said that the plaque should be unveiled by a senior government official and blessed by a Church representative.

Prof. Plowman said Dr Borg had assured him of his support and promised to take the matter to Cabinet at the first opportunity. But soon after, Dr Borg resigned his post to become an EU Commissioner and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was sworn in.

To the frustration of those back in Australia, it appeared as if the government had turned its back on the minister's decision.

The association subsequently learned that the Church did not approve of, and would not bless, such a plaque. Unfortunately, this had not been communicated to C-MOM, Prof. Plowman said.

He returned to Malta last September together with his brother in order to meet relatives and again met Mgr. Calleja.

He reiterated that good intentions had not spared the British, the Irish, the Canadian and the Australian governments from litigation and, in the final outcome, heavy financial costs.

He indicated that C-MOM had now resolved to take a less conciliatory line and that, but for his restraining influence, a media campaign and litigation, similar to that experienced in Britain and Australia, would have already been in place.

Further delays would only lead to a more hardened position on the part of former child migrants.

Asked about the situation, a spokesman for the Curia said that contacts were made with the Emigrants' Commission on a request to find a suitable place for a plaque commemorating child migrants.

The Emigrants' Commission intervened to facilitate contacts with the civil authorities, who were empowered to decide on such matter.

The commission, the Curia pointed out, built Dar l-Emigrant as a memorial to Maltese migrants. "It continues to be a living memorial."

Prof. Plowman also met Dr Gonzi and Foreign Minister Michael Frendo.

He said the Prime Minister apologised for the delay in developments and promised that the matter would be considered by the Cabinet the following Monday and that Prof. Plowman would receive written confirmation of the government's intention to act along the lines agreed with the Foreign Minister in February.

But, Prof. Plowman lamented, by the time he returned to Australia the matter had been not considered by the Cabinet, nor had he received the promised written confirmation of action.

He said that in spite of further communications with the Maltese High Commissioner in Australia, no action had been taken by the government on either front. "This has further hardened C-MOM's resolve to take a more radical approach in the future."

When speaking during the inauguration of the Fremantle memorial, Prof. Plowman said the reasons given by Malta so far for the unexpected delays were unsustainable.

"Satisfying C-MOM's petition does not require the hocking of Maltese national treasures. The plaque will only cost a little under or over $100. The expression of regret will only cost an ounce of humility and sense of justice and the preservation of the child migration period records is merely honouring government and Church responsibilities.

"Any further delays in fulfilling the promises made by the government of Malta to C-MOM in February 2004 will erode the kudos the government and Church can reap from the exercise.

"Further delays will simply expose the government and the Church to ridicule as being incompetent. More seriously, C-MOM might feel the need to follow the lead of other child migrant groups and take a more forceful media and legal campaign.

"The Maltese government and the Church are erecting the road signs for this issue. They are the ones that will ultimately decide which path this issue will follow. But they should be in no doubt that C-MOM can travel along any path, except capitulation."

Historical note

The first English child migrants were sent to Perth in 1832. Catholic child migration from Britain commenced in 1938, was halted in 1939 because of war and resumed in 1947.

As early as 1938, attempts were made to include child migrants from Malta in the scheme. But it was not until 1950, when it became clear that Australia could not fulfil its post-war migration objectives from Britain, that Maltese migration in general, and Maltese child migration in particular, were approved by the Australian government.

As a result, a separate and distinct agreement was established with the Maltese government and the Catholic Church in Malta.

In the case of Malta, child migration lasted from 1950 to 1967 and involved 310 children. All except seven were sent to Western Australia, the others going to Adelaide.

Few, if any, of the Maltese child migrants did not know their families. Most were "economic refugees", leaving poor families, in many cases as a precursor to being reunited in Australia in the space of two or three years.

According to the migration agreement, children had to be aged 12 or less. At the lower end, there were five children aged only four and 36 aged seven or less. At the higher end, 83 were older than the age provided for in the agreement, including seven aged 16 and a total of 45 of or over school-leaving age, which, at the time, was 14 in Australia.

Younger siblings were often separated from their older siblings by being sent to a junior institution. Brothers and sisters were separated because the institutions to which they went were single sex.

For the younger children, the loss of family connection was keenly felt. Other problems emerged for the large number of or over school leaving age. For these, it was difficult to provide an educational programme and most were sent to Bindoon, a trade school.

Many of these former migrants complain that they did not receive an education in Australia.