Why do our governments and public institutions defame Australia by embracing an embellished 'Stolen Generations' narrative?

To determine which version of history is correct, what is needed is an objective assessment of the facts.  Such assessment has already been conducted by a trustworthy authority, namely the highest courts in the land.

Conservative historians have been substantially vindicated because court action on behalf of members of the "Stolen Generations" has nearly always been unsuccessful, even though the test cases presented were those that plaintiff lawyers thought most likely to succeed.

In Kruger v Commonwealth, the High Court found that the (NT) Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion.  It instead found that the Ordinance required action to be taken in the best interests of the Aboriginal people.  The Court also unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

Only one such compensation court case has ever succeeded, involving an Adelaide welfare officer who separated infant Bruce Trevorrow from his family.

In 1957 the plaintiff, an Aboriginal child of 13 months, was sent by his parents to hospital with stomach problems.  Two weeks later the plaintiff was removed from hospital and placed in the care of a foster family by an officer of the Aborigines Department.  The plaintiff continued to live with his foster family until the age of 10, in spite of frequent requests by his natural mother that he be returned. The plaintiff was then returned to live with his Aboriginal family.

The plaintiff suffered a range of emotional and physical problems, and only remained with his family for 14 months. He spent the remainder of his childhood life in and out of state institutions.  Trevorrow ended up being awarded $775,000 in damages, a decision confirmed on appeal.

In Collard vState ofWestern Australia (2013) WASC 455, the test case for families affected by the "Stolen Generations" policies in Western Australia, the action was dismissed entirely.  The court found that the children were not removed pursuant to a policy of assimilation.  Instead, the judgment suggested that the Collards were neglectful parents who had their vulnerable children taken by a government only seeking to protect the children.

In NSW only one "Stolen Generations" child has gone to court.  In the Joy Williams case, it too failed after the court found she'd been willingly given up by her troubled mother.

In the Northern Territory the courts have consistently found against all "Stolen Generations" claims.  In Cubillo and Gunner v Commonwealth, Counsel for the applicants had submitted that the Northern Territory in the 1940s and 1950s had a policy called “the removal policy” and “the half-caste policy”.  The Court however rejected all the applicants’ claims against the Commonwealth, while acknowledging the continuing trauma and suffering that resulted from their removal and detention.

Overall, when tested before the courts, the narrative of the "Stolen Generations" does not stand up.  Despite this, many states have introduced reparations schemes (many ex-gratia).  The Morrison government is in the course of delivering $378.6 million in compensation for living "Stolen Generations" members in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

In my opinion, the use of the term "Stolen" is inappropriate in the case of Indigenous children who generally might be better described as "institutionalised".  "Generations" similarly seems to be an overstatement of the numbers affected.

That said, being placed in an institution is amongst the worst possible outcomes for a child.  Where the State breached its duty of care in operating such facilities, there is a case for proper compensation.  A problem, however, arises in paying compensation (with few questions asked) for being allegedly "stolen", when in fact most (contrary to the official narrative) were found to have been either given up by a parent or had been in danger.