Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Rabbit-Proof Fence

Rabbit-Proof Fence is a 2002 Australian drama film directed by Phillip Noyce and adapted from Doris Pilkington Garimara's 1996 nonfiction book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence, which recounts the 1931 escape of Pilkington's mother, Molly Craig, along with her younger sister Daisy and cousin Gracie from the Moore River Native Settlement near Perth, Western Australia, where they had been placed under government orders as part of policies aimed at assimilating Aboriginal children of mixed European and Aboriginal descent into white society. The girls, aged 14, 8, and 10 respectively, traversed approximately 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) across remote bushland, using the No. 2 rabbit-proof fence—a barrier constructed in the early 1900s to curb rabbit plagues—as a navigational guide to return to their families at Jigalong in the Pilbara region. The film stars Everlyn Sampi as Molly, Tianna Sansbury as Daisy, and Laura Monaghan as Gracie, with Kenneth Branagh portraying A. O. Neville, the Chief Protector of Aborigines who enforced the removals under the Aborigines Act 1905. It dramatizes the events as an act of defiance against state-mandated separation of families, highlighting the hardships of the journey including evasion of trackers, scarcity of food, and recapture of two of the girls, while Molly succeeded in reaching home. Released amid Australia's "history wars"—debates over the interpretation of colonial and early 20th-century policies toward Aboriginal populations—the film received critical praise for its portrayal of resilience and received multiple Australian Film Institute Awards, including Best Film, Best Original Music Score, and Best Sound, though its depiction of removals as uniformly coercive has faced scrutiny from historians citing archival records indicating varied circumstances, including parental consent or child welfare interventions in some instances.

Historical Context

The Stolen Generations Policy in

The Aborigines Act in established the office of Chief Protector of Aborigines, granting that official legal guardianship over every Aboriginal and "" child under the age of 16, thereby enabling the removal of such children from their families without parental consent or judicial oversight. This legislation, influenced by earlier inquiries such as the 1904 Roth Report recommending and control measures, empowered Protectors to relocate children to missions, reserves, or placements, ostensibly to provide in domestic or labor and shield them from perceived neglect or cultural influences deemed incompatible with European settlement. Amendments in 1911 and 1936 further expanded these powers, including provisions under the 1936 Act allowing courts to order removals of Aboriginal individuals, including children, from "insanitary or undesirable conditions" to government institutions. Auber Octavius Neville, appointed Chief Protector in 1915 and holding the position until 1940, administered these policies with a focus on mixed-descent children, whom he viewed as more assimilable into white society than full-blood Aboriginal populations, which were declining due to introduced diseases, frontier violence, and low fertility rates while mixed-race births rose from intermarriages and relationships. Neville's approach emphasized separating "" children—estimated to number in the thousands across by —from Aboriginal camps to institutions like the , where they received rudimentary education and vocational training aimed at eventual absorption into the white workforce, explicitly to "breed out the colour" through controlled intermarriage and cultural erasure rather than outright extermination. This rationale, articulated in Neville's departmental reports and later writings, posited that demographic trends necessitated intervention to prevent a growing of destitute mixed-race individuals, prioritizing eugenic-inspired over preservation of traditional Aboriginal structures. Implementation data from the period indicate that removals targeted primarily "" children deemed at risk of or corruption, with recording higher per capita rates than other states; for instance, departmental records under Neville show hundreds of such children annually apprenticed or institutionalized between 1910 and 1940, comprising an estimated 10-20% of the eligible Aboriginal child population in affected regions, though exact figures vary due to incomplete mission and logs. These policies were justified administratively as protective measures against parental "inadequacy" in a , but critics at the time, including some missionaries, noted inconsistencies in application, with removals often prioritizing labor needs over welfare assessments. The focus remained on children of mixed descent, as full-blood removals were rarer absent immediate neglect evidence, reflecting a policy calculus that full-blood populations were inevitably diminishing while mixed ones required redirection toward self-sufficiency in white-dominated society.

Role and Construction of the Rabbit-Proof Fence

The State Barrier Fence system, formerly known as the Rabbit-Proof Fence, was constructed in Western Australia between 1901 and 1907 to impede the invasion of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), which had proliferated since their introduction in the 1850s and devastated pastoral lands by consuming vegetation and competing with livestock. The primary No. 1 Fence extended 1,139 miles (1,832 km) from Starvation Boat Harbour on the southern coast northward to near Banningarra, while Nos. 2 and 3 fences added segments totaling over 2,000 miles across the system; construction employed multiple work gangs numbering up to 80–100 men at camps, at a total cost of approximately £338,000 (averaging £167 per mile). Engineering specifications included posts of mulga timber or iron spaced 12–18 feet apart, supporting galvanized wire netting with 1¼-inch extending 3 feet above and 6 inches below to block burrowing, overlaid with three plain wires and one for an effective height of about 6 feet to deter jumping or climbing. relied on boundary riders patrolling 30–70-mile sections via camels, bicycles, or later vehicles to mend damage from weather, floods, or emus, with inspectors overseeing larger districts. Despite initial successes in slowing rabbit incursions—reducing advance rates from 37 miles annually to 8 miles—the fences proved empirically limited, as rabbits exploited gaps via underground tunnels, flood overflows, or inadvertent human assistance, with populations establishing west of the No. 1 Fence by 1902. Stretching across semiarid expanses, the fence demarcated agriculturally developed southwestern areas from sparsely populated desert interiors, imposing a linear barrier in otherwise undifferentiated terrain. For nomadic Aboriginal peoples like the Mardu of the Western Desert, this imposed structure inadvertently functioned as a rare fixed navigational reference, aiding traversal between traditional lands and coastal regions amid vast, featureless landscapes.

Real-Life Events Involving Molly Craig and Sisters

In August 1931, , then aged approximately 14, along with her younger sister , aged 8, and their cousin , also aged 8, were forcibly removed from their families at the Jigalong Aboriginal camp in Western Australia's region by local police acting under directives from , the . The girls, who were of mixed Aboriginal and European descent, were transported roughly 1,200 miles south to the near , where they were to receive training in domestic service and other skills aimed at into white society. On October 20, 1931, after about two months at the settlement, , , and Gracie escaped during a period of that hindered pursuit, heading north along the No. 1 —a 1,100-mile barrier stretching across the state—as a guide toward Jigalong. The trio navigated harsh desert terrain, surviving on such as witchetty grubs, , and water from fence-line puddles, covering an estimated 1,500 miles over nine weeks; and successfully reached Jigalong in early December 1931, while Gracie was recaptured near Wiluna after being misled by another Aboriginal girl who directed her eastward away from the fence. Molly later married stockman Toby Kelly and gave birth to two daughters: (later Garimara) around 1937 and Annabelle in 1937. In November 1940, following treatment for in , Molly and her young daughters were returned to Moore River; Molly escaped again in 1941, trekking back to Jigalong while carrying 18-month-old Annabelle on her back, though she was forced to leave four-year-old behind at the settlement. These events were documented by in her 1996 book , drawing from family oral histories, government records, and interviews with survivors. Kelly died in Jigalong on January 13, 2004, at age 86 or 87.

Plot Summary

Main Narrative

In 1931, at Jigalong in , 14-year-old , her eight-year-old sister , and 10-year-old cousin Gracie are seized by police from their mothers under directives from , Chief , as part of policies to remove mixed-race Aboriginal children for . The girls are transported roughly 1,500 miles by truck and train to the , a remote camp where such children face regimented training to become domestic servants in white households, including separation from family ties and imposition of European customs. After several days enduring the settlement's strict routines and punishments, Molly orchestrates an escape by cutting through the under cover of night, with and Gracie following her lead into the surrounding bushland. The trio heads eastward initially before aligning with the —a vast barrier stretching across the continent—as their navigational lifeline westward toward Jigalong, covering grueling distances on foot while foraging berries, stealing potatoes from farms, and sipping from contaminated water sources to survive the arid terrain. Throughout the nine-week odyssey, the girls encounter sporadic from compassionate farmers offering scraps of and brief , as well as guidance from nomadic Aboriginal groups, but they remain vigilant against betrayal. Pursued relentlessly by Moodoo, an expert dispatched from , along with state police using vehicles and aircraft, the escapees employ tactics like wading through marshes to mask their footprints and hiding in thickets. Gracie, misled by false information about her mother's location, splits from and to reach Meekatharra, where she is recaptured and returned to the settlement. Molly and Daisy press on alone, navigating saltpans and evading further close calls with trackers, until they stagger into Jigalong territory, collapsing in exhaustion before reuniting with their mother Maude and extended family. In parallel, Neville upholds the removal and assimilation mandates from his Perth office, issuing orders to intensify searches and reinforcing the government's breeding program to dilute Aboriginal heritage over generations.

Epilogue and Real-Life Outcomes

The film's epilogue depicts Molly Craig in the 1960s retrieving her youngest daughter, Annabelle, from the Moore River Native Settlement and leading her on foot back to Jigalong, following the remnants of the rabbit-proof fence, while a voiceover narrates that the Australian government's policy of forcibly removing mixed-descent Aboriginal children from their families continued until the 1970s. In real life, Molly undertook a comparable journey around this time to rescue Annabelle, who had been institutionalized under the same assimilation policies, though Annabelle subsequently distanced herself from her Aboriginal roots, resulting in limited ongoing contact between mother and daughter. This second trek, spanning several weeks across arid terrain, is documented primarily through family recollections recorded by Molly's daughter Doris Pilkington Garimara. Molly Craig Kelly died peacefully in her sleep in January 2004 at her home in Jigalong, , at approximately 87 years of age. Her younger sister, (born Burungu), outlived her by over a decade, passing away on March 30, 2018, in South Hedland, , at the age of 95; Daisy had returned to Jigalong after the 1931 escape and lived a traditional life in the community. Their cousin , recaptured en route in 1931 after separating to seek her mother, endured further institutionalization before eventual release and died in 1983 at age 62. The three women's post-1931 trajectories reflect resilience amid ongoing systemic interventions, with Molly raising her elder daughter Doris (the author of the source book) in Jigalong after the initial return, though Doris herself faced removal later. Archival records from Western Australian government institutions confirm the girls' initial removals, placements at , and Gracie's recapture, but granular details of the escape routes and subsequent walks rely heavily on Garimara's biographical account, derived from oral histories shared by Molly and , rather than contemporaneous eyewitness documents or official trackers' logs.

Production

Development and Adaptation from Source Material

The film Rabbit-Proof Fence was adapted from Doris Pilkington Garimara's 1996 nonfiction book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence, which details the 1931 escape of her mother, Molly Craig, along with Craig's half-sister Daisy Kadibil and cousin Gracie Fields, from a government settlement intended to assimilate mixed-descent Aboriginal children. Producer and screenwriter Christine Olsen optioned the rights to Pilkington's book after encountering it and crafted the screenplay to center the narrative on the girls' resourcefulness and physical endurance during their 1,500-mile trek, foregrounding individual agency amid systemic removal policies rather than dwelling extensively on institutional mechanics. Director joined the project in the late , attracted by the account's depiction of innate human tenacity against overwhelming odds, viewing it as a universal story of survival that transcended the specific historical context of Australia's Stolen Generations. This directorial choice shaped the adaptation's structure, prioritizing the protagonists' perspective and the symbolic role of the fence as a guidepost for orientation, while streamlining the source material's familial backstory to heighten dramatic propulsion toward the escape and pursuit. The screenplay's development incorporated consultations with , ensuring fidelity to the core events as relayed in her oral-history-based text, though it selectively amplified the heroism of the journey to underscore themes of . Pre-production secured a modest of approximately A$6 million, enabling a focus on authentic traversal without expansive visual effects, with commencing in 2001. These adaptations from the preserved verifiable like the girls' reliance on ancestral knowledge and the fence's pragmatic utility, while condensing secondary details—such as broader operations—to maintain narrative momentum rooted in the escapees' causal drive for reunion.

Filming Locations and Techniques

The principal filming for Rabbit-Proof Fence occurred in Western Australia's region, including authentic sites around Jigalong to replicate the starting point of the girls' journey, and the area to portray the internment camp. These locations were selected for their historical accuracy and to capture the harsh, arid terrain central to the narrative. Additional scenes, particularly interiors, were shot in , , to manage production logistics while maintaining visual consistency with the Western Australian landscapes. Aerial cinematography featured helicopter shots to showcase expansive vistas of the rabbit-proof fence snaking through the bush, emphasizing its scale and isolation without relying on digital effects. On the ground, director and cinematographer utilized handheld cameras extensively during the trekking sequences, creating a subjective, immersive viewpoint that mirrored the physical exertion and unpredictability of the escape. This approach, combined with steady pans and tracking shots, avoided artificial stabilization to heighten , while editing focused on rhythmic pacing to sustain through natural environmental elements rather than CGI enhancements. Production faced logistical hurdles in remote areas, requiring coordination with local Aboriginal communities for access and cultural consultation to respectfully depict traditional practices and . The outback's environmental demands, including variable weather and isolation, necessitated adaptive scheduling, though the core emphasis remained on to preserve documentary-like over studio recreations.

Casting Non-Professional Actors

Director opted for non-professional Indigenous actors in the lead roles to ensure cultural and linguistic authenticity, drawing from rural Western Australian Aboriginal communities to mirror the real-life figures' backgrounds. , portraying , was an 11-year-old from the region, selected after a local in Broome introduced her to the . Tianna Sansbury played Daisy Craig Kadibil, and Laura Monaghan portrayed ; all three were untrained performers who had limited prior exposure to , with some reports noting they had never seen a movie before. The casting process involved a nationwide search publicized on Australian television, auditioning approximately 2,000 Aboriginal girls, predominantly from rural areas, to identify natural fits for the characters' distinct personalities—Sampi as the headstrong leader, Sansbury as the adventurous spirit, and as the more vulnerable dreamer. Noyce personally evaluated around 800 candidates, prioritizing those whose innate traits and dialects aligned with the Mardu people's traditions without requiring polished acting techniques. This approach contrasted sharply with the casting of professional actor as Chief Protector , underscoring the film's divide between Indigenous resilience and bureaucratic authority. Preparation emphasized minimal intervention to retain raw verisimilitude, with dialect coach providing basic line readings and emotional support during the shoot to keep the young actors grounded amid demanding schedules. No extensive formal training occurred; instead, the production relied on the actors' inherent familiarity with life from their communities, supplemented by on-location filming that immersed them in environments akin to the 1931 escape route, though the overall shoot lasted mere weeks on a constrained . This method yielded unforced performances reflective of the stolen generations' lived experiences, as Noyce later attributed the film's impact to the girls' unscripted authenticity over rehearsed delivery.

Cast and Performances

Principal Roles

Everlyn Sampi stars as , the 14-year-old half-Aboriginal protagonist whose resourcefulness and navigational skills drive the narrative of resistance against forced relocation, modeled directly on the historical (c. 1916–2003), who led a similar escape from the in 1931 at age 14. Tianna Sansbury plays Daisy Craig Kadibill, Molly's eight-year-old sister, representing the of youthful dependence and endurance amid systemic family separation policies targeting mixed-descent children. Laura Monaghan portrays , the 10-year-old cousin completing the trio, embodying the of interrupted familial bonds under the era's regime for "" youth. Kenneth Branagh depicts , the authoritative Chief Protector of Aborigines for (serving 1915–1940), portrayed as the policy's ideological architect who justified removing mixed-descent children to breeding camps for assimilation, consistent with Neville's own 1947 publication Australia's Coloured Minority, which outlined his eugenics-influenced views on racial "uplift." Ningali Lawford appears as Maude, Molly's mother, symbolizing the archetype of maternal loss and cultural continuity disrupted by state interventions that severed Aboriginal kinship ties under the Aborigines Act 1905 and subsequent protections.

Supporting Roles and Historical Figures Portrayed

The character of Moodoo, portrayed by Indigenous Australian actor , functions as an tasked by authorities at the with recapturing the escaped girls over their 1,600-kilometer journey. Gulpilil, renowned for his expertise in traditional dance and prior roles authentically depicting Aboriginal experiences such as in Walkabout (1971), infuses the role with nuanced conflict, highlighting Moodoo's internal tension between his tracking skills—honed through cultural knowledge of the land—and reluctance to fully embrace the pursuit. While fictional, Moodoo draws from historical practices where Aboriginal men were employed as trackers by Western Australian officials to locate runaways from government settlements, leveraging their superior against the unfamiliar terrain. Auber Octavius Neville, played by , represents the historical in , holding the position from July 1915 to December 1936 and overseeing the implementation of child removal policies under the Aborigines Act 1905. The film presents Neville as a detached administrator methodically enforcing through and "breeding out" the Aboriginal "taint" via controlled marriages, as depicted in his advocacy for policies targeting mixed-descent children like the protagonists. However, Neville's own writings, including his 1947 book Australia's Coloured Minority: Its Place in the Community, frame these measures as paternalistic efforts to protect and civilize Indigenous populations by integrating them into European society, rather than overt malice. Supporting enforcers, such as Riggs (Jason Clarke), embody the police officers who executed removals, arriving unannounced to seize children from families in remote communities like Jigalong in , reflecting documented procedures under Neville's department that prioritized efficiency over consent. Matrons at , including figures like the settlement's disciplinarian staff, are shown enforcing regimented labor and cultural erasure, mirroring survivor accounts of harsh routines designed to suppress identity in favor of domestic training for white households. These portrayals align with the era's administrative dynamics, where low-level officials and auxiliaries upheld state policies amid vast, under-resourced territories patrolled by the infrastructure completed in 1907.

Release

Premiere and Distribution

The film had its Australian premiere on February 4, 2002, ahead of a general theatrical release in the country on February 21, 2002. It received its North American at the on September 8, 2002, as part of the festival's special presentations program. In the United States, Films handled distribution, with a limited theatrical rollout beginning November 29, 2002, initially targeting arthouse theaters before broader expansion driven by festival exposure. International distribution was managed by for overseas markets, facilitating releases such as the on November 8, 2002. The rollout emphasized the film's roots in the Stolen Generations policy, aligning with advocacy efforts to highlight the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families during the early . Home video distribution followed, with the DVD released by Home Entertainment on April 15, 2003, making the film accessible for educational and personal viewing. Subsequent television broadcasts and streaming availability extended its reach post-theatrical run, supporting ongoing discussions of Australian Indigenous history.

Box Office Performance

Rabbit-Proof Fence was produced on an estimated budget of $6 million. The film grossed $16.2 million worldwide, including $6.2 million in the United States and and approximately $3.7 million in (equivalent to A$7.6 million). In the market, it opened on November 27, 2002, earning $88,352 from nine theaters, and expanded over subsequent weeks to achieve a domestic total of $6,199,600 with a strong 14.27x multiplier from its opening weekend. This performance reflected sustained audience interest for an independent drama with limited initial release. Internationally, earnings totaled $10 million, contributing to the film's overall profitability given its modest production scale.

Reception

Critical Reviews

Rabbit-Proof Fence garnered generally favorable critical reception, earning an 87% approval rating on from 143 reviews, with the consensus noting its visual beauty, strong acting, and compelling true-story narrative. On , it scored 78 out of 100 based on 31 reviews, indicating "generally favorable" feedback. Critics frequently praised the film's emotional resonance and the authentic performances by non-professional actors, particularly the three young leads portraying the escapees. gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars, highlighting the "beautiful, harrowing" depiction of the girls' 1,500-mile journey and its evocation of the human spirit amid the Australian outback's mystery. Cinematography by was commended for capturing the vast, arid landscape as a stark co-star to the human drama, enhancing the story's tension and isolation. However, some reviews critiqued the screenplay for melodrama and lack of nuance in portraying government officials as unrelentingly antagonistic. Slant Magazine rated it 2.5 out of 4, describing it as a "placid melodrama" that appeals to the heart at the expense of intellectual depth, functioning as a high-minded message film with predictable outcomes. Susan Granger noted the script's deficiency in raw tension and character development, rendering the resolution foreseeable and emotionally underdeveloped. The critical consensus positioned the film as an effective piece raising of historical injustices, though certain commentators observed simplifications in its narrative structure that prioritized inspirational escape over complex interpersonal dynamics.

Public and Political Responses

The release of in elicited strong emotional responses from audiences, particularly within communities, where screenings often prompted communal displays of , such as audiences passing around tissues during viewings. Reports described cinemas requiring additional supplies to accommodate tearful viewers, reflecting the film's resonance with personal and collective memories of the Stolen Generations. In educational settings, the film was integrated into curricula to foster understanding of Aboriginal removals, contributing to heightened for historical injustices among younger generations. Politically, the film polarized responses along partisan lines. Australian Labor Party figures endorsed it for illuminating government-sanctioned separations of Indigenous families, aligning with calls for formal acknowledgment of past policies. In contrast, John Howard's Liberal-National Coalition administration maintained a restrained stance, avoiding endorsements that might imply support for reparations or an , consistent with Howard's prior rejection of the 1997 Bringing Them Home report's recommendations. Conservative commentators, including , lambasted the film for what they viewed as exaggerated portrayals that fueled a "guilt industry" narrative, dismissing its depiction of policies as overly simplistic and emotionally manipulative. Internationally, the film amplified awareness of Australia's Stolen Generations beyond domestic debates, prompting discussions in global media and forums, though it faced similar conservative critiques questioning the uniformity of removal motives as child welfare rather than racial engineering. This pushback highlighted ongoing skepticism toward claims of systemic intent, emphasizing evidentiary disputes over policy scale and benevolence.

Accolades and Awards

Rabbit-Proof Fence garnered 23 awards and 25 nominations across various ceremonies, with a concentration of recognition in 2002 and 2003. At the 2002 Awards, the film secured the Best Film award, recognizing producers , Christine Olsen, and John Winter. It had received 10 nominations prior to the ceremony, leading the field for Australian features. Internationally, the film earned a nomination for Best Original Score – Motion Picture at the 2003 for composer . Additional wins included Best Direction for at the Film Critics Circle of (FCCA) Awards in 2002.
Award CeremonyCategoryResultRecipient
Australian Film Institute Awards (2002)Best FilmWon, Christine Olsen, John Winter
(2003)Best Original Score – Motion PictureNominated
Film Critics Circle of Awards (2002)Best DirectionWon

Historical Accuracy and Controversies

Discrepancies Between Film and Historical Records

The film depicts the three girls—, , and —under relentless pursuit during their 1,600-kilometer trek from Moore River Settlement back to Jigalong in 1931, including frequent aerial reconnaissance by plane and close tracking by mounted police and Aboriginal trackers. Historical records from Western Australian police logs and Chief Protector A. O. Neville's departmental reports indicate, however, that while an initial search involving a and local informants was launched shortly after their escape on August 20, 1931, efforts became intermittent, with no sustained or coordinated chase; the girls evaded detection for weeks at a time, covering much of the distance unimpeded until Gracie's separation. Gracie's recapture is shown in the film as resulting from a deliberate deception, where a lures her back by falsely claiming her mother is waiting at a nearby station. In verifiable accounts drawn from family oral histories documented by (Molly's daughter) and corroborated by settlement records, Gracie voluntarily left the group around early October 1931 near Wiluna after hearing from local Aboriginal contacts—likely informants or relatives aligned with authorities—that her mother was in the area; she was then apprehended there and returned to , reflecting betrayal by companions rather than a fabricated ruse. Conditions at Moore River Settlement are dramatized in the film as akin to a punitive camp, emphasizing deprivation, forced labor, and institutional cruelty without vocational purpose. Archival from Western Australian government inspections and Neville's annual reports (1915–1940) describes the settlement, established in 1918, as an intended self-sustaining facility for and skills , including basic schooling, domestic preparation for girls, and agricultural work for boys, though , inadequate , and outbreaks—leading to over 300 burials by 1951—undermined these aims and resulted in high mortality. The portrayal of as a callous antagonist fixated on diverges from his documented rationale in official correspondence and his 1947 book Australia's Coloured Minority, where he advocated as a humanitarian measure to "absorb" mixed-descent Aboriginal people into white society through segregated training and , viewing it as advancing their welfare amid the perceived decline of full-descent populations, rather than overt malice.

Criticisms from Historians and Commentators

Historian Keith Windschuttle has described Rabbit-Proof Fence as "grossly inaccurate," particularly in its portrayal of the 1931 removal of the three girls—Molly, Daisy, and Gracie—from Jigalong, arguing that Chief Protector A.O. Neville did not personally order their specific removal as depicted, based on a 1930 letter from Neville indicating otherwise. Windschuttle contended that the film's narrative overlooks evidence of voluntary parental consents in some Aboriginal child removals and instances where settlement policies improved welfare outcomes, such as reducing destitution among mixed-descent children by providing education and vocational training, thereby presenting a uniformly coercive policy absent from historical records. He criticized the escape logistics shown, including the feasibility of the 1,600-kilometer trek without capture, as exaggerated for dramatic effect, and urged its withdrawal from Australian school curricula used to teach Stolen Generations history. Commentator echoed these concerns, highlighting discrepancies between and Doris Pilkington Garimara's source book (1996), such as the invention of an obsessive tracker pursuit that does not appear in account, which instead emphasizes the girls' navigational skills and luck in evading detection. argued that politicizes the removals by framing them as part of a genocidal intent, ignoring archival data on cases where removals addressed neglect or parental requests amid high rates in fringe camps—rates exceeding 30% in some Western Australian Aboriginal communities during —thus prioritizing emotional over of policy motivations tied to . He further noted 's selective omission of post-escape outcomes, like Gracie's recapture and return to , which contradicted the triumphant narrative. These critiques underscore a broader contention that the film constructs a monolithic victimhood , sidelining quantitative historical —such as government reports documenting fewer than 10% of Western Australian Aboriginal children removed under assimilation policies between 1910 and 1950— in favor of emotive , potentially misleading public understanding of the era's complex welfare interventions. Windschuttle and Bolt, drawing from primary documents like Protectorate correspondence, maintain that such dramatizations amplify unverified claims while downplaying verifiable benefits, including gains among settled children that exceeded those in unsupervised communities.

Broader Debates on Stolen Generations Intent and Scale

The Bringing Them Home report, published in May 1997 by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission following a national inquiry, estimated that between one in ten and one in three Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families between 1910 and 1970, potentially affecting over 100,000 individuals across generations, with the policy framed as an act of assimilation intended to erode Aboriginal culture and identity. The report characterized these removals as tantamount to genocide under the UN Convention, citing motives rooted in "breeding out the colour" through separation of mixed-descent children, and recommended reparations, a national apology, and curriculum inclusion, though it relied heavily on survivor testimonies rather than comprehensive archival quantification. In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a parliamentary apology on behalf of the Australian government, acknowledging the "profound grief, suffering and loss" inflicted by the policies and committing to reconciliation, without offering compensation, which aligned with the report's narrative of systemic cultural destruction. Dissenting perspectives, prominent during the (1996–2007), contested the report's scale and genocidal intent, asserting that removals—estimated by some analyses at 10–20% of targeted part-Aboriginal children in specific jurisdictions—were predominantly welfare-driven responses to high rates of parental , , and breakdown in remote communities, rather than a uniform racial extermination campaign. The administration rejected the inquiry's key recommendations for a formal and , arguing they implied collective guilt for historical actions and overlooked evidence that many placements involved parental consent or court orders amid documented child , with policies varying by and often prioritizing over . Historian , in archival reviews, further challenged the "stolen generations" framing by demonstrating that claims of widespread forcible seizures lacked substantiation in primary records, with removals more commonly tied to individual cases of abuse or orphaning than to a coordinated effort to destroy group identity, as required for classification. Empirical data on outcomes supports mixed assessments of policy effects, with some longitudinal studies of removed mixed-descent children indicating improved , and prospects compared to peers left in dysfunctional fringe camps, though long-term cultural disconnection and were acknowledged in affected families. Contemporary statistics underscore ongoing causal factors, as children comprised 37% of those in out-of-home care in 2022–23 despite representing 5.8% of the , with substantiations for (29%) and emotional (52%) occurring at rates 7–10 times higher than non- equivalents, driven by intergenerational issues like and rather than solely historical legacies. These patterns, including a doubling of removals since the 2008 , suggest that interventions persist due to persistent community vulnerabilities, complicating attributions of current disparities to past removals alone and highlighting debates over whether the historical narrative overemphasizes intent at the expense of evidentiary context on .

Legacy

Cultural and Educational Impact

The film Rabbit-Proof Fence has been incorporated into educational curricula as a resource for teaching about the Stolen Generations and themes of , particularly in secondary schools following its 2002 release. It serves to illustrate resilience and the human cost of government removal policies, prompting discussions on historical injustices without endorsing unsubstantiated narratives of uniform victimhood. Educators have utilized it to foster empathy and critical examination of archival records, though its dramatic elements require supplementation with primary sources to avoid interpretive overreach. Culturally, the film elevated the public profile of its real-life subjects, including (later Kelly), whose 1931 escape informed the narrative; she passed away in January 2004 at age 87 in Jigalong, , shortly after the film's international acclaim. This exposure contributed to a broader appreciation of Mardu survival strategies, influencing subsequent literary and artistic works that emphasize Aboriginal agency over passive endurance, such as expansions on oral histories in Doris Pilkington Garimara's writings. However, some analyses critique the portrayal for prioritizing emotional resonance at the expense of nuanced depictions of familial and communal dynamics under assimilation efforts. On a global scale, disseminated awareness of the Stolen Generations beyond , reaching audiences through film festivals and distributions that highlighted individual acts of defiance against state policies. Its export prompted comparative discussions on child welfare in other nations, though detractors argue it simplifies the evidentiary basis for policy intentions, potentially conflating localized removals with systematic claims unsupported by comprehensive demographic data. This tension underscores the film's role in while inviting scrutiny of selective historical framing.

Influence on Australian Policy Discussions

The release of in 2002 intensified public and political pressure for a formal national to the Stolen Generations, building on the 1997 Bringing Them Home report's recommendations, which Prime Minister had rejected since 1997 by refusing both an apology and . During the height of the —a debate over the scale, intent, and interpretation of Indigenous child removals—the film served as a prominent amplifying emotive narratives of policies, contributing to a broader that some analysts credit with sustaining calls for acknowledgment amid Howard's resistance until his 2007 election loss. This momentum factored into Kevin Rudd's 2008 election platform, culminating in his February 13 parliamentary , which explicitly addressed the "profound grief, suffering and loss" inflicted on Indigenous families, though Rudd's statement framed the policy as a historical aberration without committing to compensation. The film also spurred discussions on , highlighting personal traumas that echoed in subsequent legal and state-level actions, such as the Northern Territory's 2023 approval of a $50.45 million class-action settlement for approximately 1,200 survivors, compensating for trauma from forced removals between 1913 and 1976. However, federal-wide remain absent, with governments citing evidentiary challenges and high estimated costs—up to $3.9 billion in 2008 assessments—as barriers, reflecting ongoing disputes over the policies' uniformity and scale that predate but were not resolved by the film's visibility. Skeptics in the , including historian , argued that works like Rabbit-Proof Fence prioritized anecdotal dramatization over archival scrutiny, potentially entrenching contested estimates of removals (e.g., the Bringing Them Home report's claim of 10-33% of children affected) and hindering consensus on verifiable data needed for policy. Critics contend that the film's portrayal of removals as a deliberate, genocidal-era wrong—ending with the girls' triumphant return—reinforced a of resolved historical , sidelining empirical analysis of assimilation's mixed motives (e.g., alongside cultural erosion) and diverting focus from contemporary child welfare crises, where removal rates exceed 50% of out-of-home placements as of 2023, often due to or rather than race-based policy. This emotive framing, amplified in left-leaning and circles despite biases toward black-armband interpretations, has been linked to resistance against evidence-based interventions like the , which targeted immediate safety failures but faced backlash as echoing past overreach, thus delaying reforms prioritizing causal factors such as family dysfunction over symbolic redress.

Recent Reassessments (Post-2002)

In the context of the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, Rabbit-Proof Fence was invoked alongside broader Stolen Generations narratives to underscore historical injustices and advocate for constitutional recognition of peoples. Proponents highlighted the film's depiction of forced removals as emblematic of systemic harms, yet critics contended that such portrayals risked exaggerating the uniformity of policies across jurisdictions and eras, where removals often intertwined welfare concerns with assimilation aims rather than consistent genocidal intent. This debate persisted amid empirical data showing continuity in child removals, with children in 2023 being 12.1 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be placed in out-of-home care, comprising over 59% of such placements in states like despite representing a small population fraction. Scholarly reassessments in the have reaffirmed the profound intergenerational trauma from removal policies while questioning absolutist framings like cultural genocide, citing evidence of mixed outcomes including educational and social successes for some children that complicate unidirectional victimhood accounts. For instance, research in 2025, marking the 30th anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report, emphasized archival evidence of widespread trauma but critiqued inadequate governmental responses and called for evidence-based over politicized simplifications. Similarly, analyses of policy intents argue that labeling removals as overlooks causal factors like in remote communities and the absence of explicit destruction aims under the UN , favoring over extermination. The film endures as a cultural for educating on assimilation-era policies, with events like its remastering in 2024 sustaining visibility, but no major sequels or official updates have emerged. Recent discourse increasingly urges balanced , integrating quantitative data on removal scales—estimated at 10-33% of children affected, varying by state—and long-term socioeconomic metrics to contextualize both harms and policy rationales without endorsing biased institutional narratives that prioritize emotive over empirical accounts.

References

  1. [1]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence | National Film and Sound Archive of Australia
    ... Doris Pilkington Garimara, the film was released in Australia in February 2002. ... Director Phillip Noyce on the set of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence with the ...<|separator|>
  2. [2]
    Rabbit Proof Fence | learning resource - ACMI
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (Phillip Noyce, 2002) is based on the true story of Molly ... Doris Pilkington Garimara (also known as Nugi Garimara). Molly proves ...
  3. [3]
    Follow The Rabbit-Proof Fence | UQP
    Follow The Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris (Nugi Garimara) Pilkington. An extraordinary story of courage and faith, based on ...<|separator|>
  4. [4]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - Teach with Movies
    Dec 17, 2009 · SELECTED AWARDS & CAST. Selected Awards: 2002 Australian Film Institute: Best Film, Best Sound, Best Original Score; 2002 Australian Film ...
  5. [5]
    Plot Summary - Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence - Course Hero
    Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence is based on a true story. In 1931 Molly Craig (who will become the mother of Doris Pilkington Garimara) and her cousins, Gracie ...
  6. [6]
    Which Rabbit-Proof Fence? Empathy, Assimilation, Hollywood – AHR
    Sep 1, 2002 · The Rabbit-Proof Fence story concerns three Mardudjara girls from the East Pilbara who in 1931 were taken from their community of Jigalong to the Moore River ...
  7. [7]
    Aborigines Act 1905, Western Australia - Find and Connect
    Jan 22, 2024 · The Act created the position of Chief Protector of Aborigines who became the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child to the age of 16 years, ...
  8. [8]
    Bringing them Home - Chapter 7 | Australian Human Rights ...
    Roth's recommendations were implemented by the Aborigines Act 1905 making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of `every Aboriginal and half-caste child' ...
  9. [9]
    To remove and protect | AIATSIS corporate website
    Aborigines Protection (Amendment) Act 1936​​ Court may order the removal of an `aborigine' who is `living in insanitary or undesirable conditions' to a reserve ...
  10. [10]
    Auber Octavius Neville - Australian Dictionary of Biography
    Auber Octavius Neville (1875-1954), public servant, was born on 20 October 1875 at Ford, Northumberland, England, son of Rev. Hastings Mackelean Neville, ...
  11. [11]
    A.O. Neville, the 'destiny of the race', and race thinking in the 1930s
    In many respects Auber Octavius Neville, senior bureaucrat in Western Australia from 1915-1940 and a national figure in Aboriginal affairs during that period, ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] History of the state vermin barrier fences, formerly known as rabbit ...
    Western Australia the fence was comparatively easy of construction. There was an abundance of timber, no great transport difficulties, and the construction ...
  13. [13]
    RABBIT PROOF FENCE Lost Nyabing Paddy Hickey Shire of Kent
    Construction of the Number 1 Rabbit Proof Fence began in 1901. It stretched 1834 kilometres from the South Coast to the Northwest Coast, along a line north of ...
  14. [14]
    The Rabbit Proof Fence - Part I - Breaking the Cycle - Education
    Sep 10, 2023 · The Rabbit Proof Fences were built over a six year period between 1901 and 1907 to keep a plague of rabbits and other agricultural pests that ...Missing: length cost
  15. [15]
    The Rabbit-Proof Fence | State Library of Western Australia
    Construction of the Number 1 Rabbit Proof Fence began in 1901. It stretched 1834 kilometres from the south coast to the northwest coast, along a line north of ...Missing: length cost effectiveness
  16. [16]
    Woman who inspired Rabbit-Proof Fence dies at 87 - The Guardian
    Jan 15, 2004 · ... Rabbit-Proof Fence has died in the country's far north-west. Molly Kelly was just 14 in 1931 when she led her eight-year-old sister Daisy ...
  17. [17]
    Molly Kelly - The Times
    Jan 17, 2004 · In 1931, when Kelly was about 14, policemen came to remove her, her younger sister Daisy and her cousin Gracie, in accordance with the ...
  18. [18]
    For Molly, the fence was a lifeline - The Sydney Morning Herald
    Jan 20, 2004 · In the end he ordered her removal, a decision he was to live to regret. The girls were taken from their families and sent south to Moore River ...
  19. [19]
    Craig, Molly (c. 1917–2004) - Encyclopedia.com
    Born Molly Craig, c. 1917, in Jigalong, a community on the edge of the desert in Western Australia; died Jan 13, 2004, in Jigalong; dau. of Maude ...
  20. [20]
    Daughter dies with her story still incomplete
    Jan 15, 2004 · In 1931 the then Molly Craig, probably 14, and two younger girls were taken from their families in the East Pilbara and transported to Moore ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - ASO mobile
    In Western Australia in 1931, three mixed-race Aboriginal children are forcibly abducted from their mothers at Jigalong, in the eastern Pilbara.
  22. [22]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - Official Site - Miramax
    Synopsis. Molly, Daisy, and Gracie are aboriginal children from Western ... Rabbit Proof Fence - Thieving My Eggs ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  23. [23]
    Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence - Reading Australia
    Publisher UQP. Date of Publication 1996. ISBN 9780702265976. Category Memoir. SCIS number. 5467116. Pages. 192. Unit Writer. TONY BRITTEN is an English teacher ...
  24. [24]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence | Christine Olsen | 2001 | ACMI collection
    The film is adapted from a book of the same title by author, Doris Pilkington, daughter of the real-life Molly and 'Stolen Generation' victim. Christopher ...Missing: development | Show results with:development
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Rabbit-Proof Fence Teaching Resource
    Here's a case study of the first steps in Rabbit-Proof Fence being made into a film: • Christine Olsen, a scriptwriter, reads Doris Pilkington. Garimara's book ...<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (Australia 2002) - The Global Film Book Blog
    Jul 5, 2010 · This compares favourably with grosses for Hollywood films in Australia and it was the second best performance by an Australian film in its ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  27. [27]
    Phillip Noyce looks back on 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' at 20
    Jan 18, 2023 · Phillip Noyce says he is proud of the film's legacy, as the first major movie to address the Stolen Generations.Missing: intent resilience
  28. [28]
    Film Review: Rabbit-Proof Fence - Cultural Survival
    Apr 18, 2003 · Director 2002. Phillip Noyce PG 95 minutes. Everlyn Sampi, Kenneth Branagh, David Gulpilil ... resilience, since 1972. Our Vision. Cultural ...
  29. [29]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) – Q&A interview with Doris Pilkington ...
    Nov 8, 2002 · Following a preview screening of RABBIT-PROOF FENCE, PHASE9 met the daughter of the film's protagonist and the book's writer, Doris Pilkington Garimara at the ...
  30. [30]
    Rabbit-proof fence - Collections | AIATSIS corporate website
    Rabbit-proof fence : the screenplay / Christine Olsen. View in Mura. General note. Adapted from the book Follow the rabbit-proof fence by Doris Pilkington ...
  31. [31]
    Australian Movie Locations
    Mar 17, 2020 · Rabbit Proof Fence (2002) Dir: Phillip Noyce. Cast: Everlyn Sampi ... The film's director, Phillip Noyce, says of filming: 'South ...
  32. [32]
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Philip Noyce's Landmark Movie Rabbit Proof Fence - IJRAR.org
    Abstract : This article discusses how the movie Rabbit Proof Fence, directed by Philip Noyce, revises the history of Australia by dramatizing the historical ...Missing: accuracy empirical data
  34. [34]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence , Relational Ecologies and the Commodification ...
    Apr 1, 2004 · The girls escaped from Moore River and undertook a trek of some 1600 kilometres on foot in order to return to their home in Jigalong, following ...
  35. [35]
    Long Road Home: Phillip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence
    Mar 13, 2002 · Rabbit-Proof Fence is based on the true story of three Aboriginal girls, Molly (played by Everlyn Sampi), Daisy (Tianna Sansbury) and Gracie (Laura Monaghan)Missing: resilience | Show results with:resilience<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence at 20: 'It was such a tough gig for three young ...
    Sep 2, 2022 · Then, in 2002, came Rabbit-Proof Fence: Phillip Noyce's wrenching adaptation of Doris Pilkington Garimara's account of the extraordinary 2,400km ...
  37. [37]
    Everlyn Sampi: pain, pride and the trail of the Rabbit-Proof Fence
    Jun 17, 2013 · The production team auditioned about 2,000 Aboriginal girls, almost all of whom were untrained actors, predominantly from rural communities.Missing: non- professional
  38. [38]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - IMDb
    Rating 7.4/10 (31,344) Director. Phillip Noyce · Writers. Doris Pilkington · Christine Olsen · All cast & crew · Production, box office & more at IMDbPro ...Full cast & crew · Parents guide · Plot · Natasha Wanganeen as Nina...
  39. [39]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - Full cast & crew - IMDb
    Cast ; Everlyn Sampi · Molly Craig ; Tianna Sansbury · Daisy Craig Kadibill ; Laura Monaghan · Gracie Fields ; David Gulpilil · Moodoo ; Ningali Lawford · Maud - Molly's ...Missing: non- professional
  40. [40]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - FILM FREAK CENTRAL
    Nov 27, 2002 · Molly (Everlyn Sampi), Daisy (Tianna Sansbury), and Gracie (Laurie Monaghan) are Aboriginal girls (ranging in age from about 9 to 14) who, in ...Missing: Indigenous | Show results with:Indigenous
  41. [41]
    Book - A.O. Neville, 'Australia's Coloured Minority: Its Place in the ...
    This book is of historical importance as it documents racist colonial beliefs in the assimilation of First Peoples in Australia in order to eradicate culture.
  42. [42]
    David Gulpilil as Moodoo - National Film and Sound Archive
    Summary. David Gulpilil as Moodoo the tracker, searching for the escaped girls in Rabbit-Proof Fence.Missing: character basis
  43. [43]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence: Mr Neville says no
    In Western Australia in 1931, three mixed-race Aboriginal children are forcibly abducted from their mothers at Jigalong, in the eastern Pilbara. Molly Craig ...
  44. [44]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - James Bowman
    Neville is shown presenting a slide show (to whom, we are not told) in which he explains that the taint of blackness in the mixed-race children can be bred out ...Missing: portrayal | Show results with:portrayal<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence: The stealing of children
    In Western Australia in 1931, three mixed-race Aboriginal children are forcibly abducted from their mothers at Jigalong, in the eastern Pilbara. Molly Craig ...
  46. [46]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - Release info - IMDb
    February 21, 2002. Norway. August 21, 2002(Norwegian International Film Festival). Canada. September 8, 2002(Toronto International Film Festival). Canada.
  47. [47]
    Toronto International Film Festival - Screen Australia
    2002 - Contemporary World Cinema - Nugget, The. 2002 - Special presentation - Rabbit-Proof Fence. 2002 - Contemporary World Cinema - One Night the Moon. 2001 ...
  48. [48]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence | Rotten Tomatoes
    Rating 87% (143) Tells the true story of three aboriginal girls who are forcibly taken from their families in 1931 to be trained as domestic servants.
  49. [49]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - Box Office and Financial Information
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) ; Video Release: April 15th, 2003 by Miramax Video ; MPAA Rating: PG for emotional thematic material ; Running Time: 93 minutes.<|separator|>
  50. [50]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - Wikipedia
    Rabbit-Proof Fence is a 2002 Australian epic drama film directed and produced by Phillip Noyce. ... Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington Garimara, an ...
  51. [51]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - Box Office Mojo
    Domestic (38.2%) $6,199,600 ; International (61.8%) $10,017,811 ; Worldwide $16,220,968.Missing: film earnings
  52. [52]
    Top Australian films - Feature film releases - Cinema - Fact Finders
    Rabbit-Proof Fence, Becker, 2002, 7,562,971. 54, Red Dog: True Blue, Roadshow, 2016, 7,542,724. 55, Penguin Bloom, Roadshow, 2021, 7,514,027. 56, Man From Snowy ...
  53. [53]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence Reviews - Metacritic
    Rating 4.0 (31) Haunting, heart-breaking and powerful. Beautifully uncovers the ugliest and most shameful part of Australian history. This is an absolute must-see, even for non ...
  54. [54]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence movie review (2002) - Roger Ebert
    Rating 3.5/4 · Review by Roger EbertAs the three girls flee across the vast landscape, they are pursued by white authorities and an aboriginal tracker named Moodoo (David Gulpilil), who seems not ...<|separator|>
  55. [55]
    Review: Rabbit-Proof Fence - Slant Magazine
    Rating 2.5/4 · Review by Chuck RudolphNov 25, 2002 · This is the kind of placid melodrama that attacks your brain by way of your heart, a familiar sort of high-minded message movie in which the ...Missing: criticisms sided
  56. [56]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - Susan Granger Reviews
    Jun 19, 2002 · But Christine Olsen's script lacks raw dramatic tension; the outcome is a foregone conclusion; and there's so little character development that ...Missing: criticisms sided melodramatic
  57. [57]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence | Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes
    Explore critic and audience reviews for Rabbit-Proof Fence on Rotten Tomatoes. Uncover scores, opinions, and ratings.
  58. [58]
    Lesson Plan: Understanding “Rabbit-Proof Fence” and the Stolen ...
    Feb 12, 2025 · Understand the historical context of the Stolen Generations in Australia. Analyze the themes, symbols, and characters in Rabbit-Proof Fence.
  59. [59]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) - Awards - IMDb
    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002). 2002 Nominee FCCA Award. Best Film · Phillip Noyce at an event for Salt (2010). 2002 Winner FCCA Award · Everlyn Sampi in Rabbit-Proof ...
  60. [60]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence wins AFI - The Sydney Morning Herald
    Dec 8, 2002 · On a night when the awards were shared around, Phillip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence, which recounts the true story of three Aboriginal girls ...
  61. [61]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence triumphs at last Down Under - Screen Daily
    Dec 8, 2002 · The AFI Award for best foreign film went to The Fellowship Of The Ring, while Mel Gibson won the global achievement award. Former long-term head ...
  62. [62]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence scoops 10 AFI nominations | News - Screen Daily
    Oct 17, 2002 · The awards are due to be held on December 7 and will be telecast on Network Ten. The nominations for best foreign film are Amelie, A Beautiful ...
  63. [63]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence - Golden Globes
    Golden Globe Awards. 2003 Nominee. Best Original Score - Motion Picture. Rabbit-Proof Fence · Peter Gabriel · Golden Globes. Subscribe to Newsletter. Email ...
  64. [64]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate, says Keith Windschuttle
    Dec 14, 2009 · THE film Rabbit-Proof Fence is "grossly inaccurate" and should be withdrawn from schools. Lanai Vasek and Nicolas Perpitch.
  65. [65]
    Director, historian at odds over film - The Sydney Morning Herald
    Dec 15, 2009 · THE director of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence, Phillip Noyce, has hit ... inaccurate'' and should not be used in schools. In a new book ...
  66. [66]
    111: Rabbit-Proof Fence | Based on a True Story Podcast
    Aug 13, 2018 · It was then that Doris decided to tell her mom's amazing story, which led to the book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence that the movie was based on.Missing: epilogue events
  67. [67]
    Moore River Native Settlement
    Today the Settlement represents historic importance in recognising past trauma and the impact that the Stolen Generations had on many Aboriginal people who were ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  68. [68]
    [PDF] AO Neville, the 'Destiny of the Race', and race
    In many respects Auber. Octavius Neville, senior bureaucrat in Western Australia from 1915-1940 and a national figure in Aboriginal affairs during that period, ...
  69. [69]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate: Keith Windschuttle
    Dec 13, 2009 · The film that in the eyes of millions of children around Australia tells the true story of the Stolen Generations, is grossly inaccurate and should be ...
  70. [70]
    Holes in the Rabbit-Proof Fence - Quadrant Online
    The 2002 film, Rabbit-Proof Fence, directed by Phil Noyce, is advertised as “a true story”. Many school teachers think it is an accurate portrayal of history.
  71. [71]
    Director, historian at odds over film - The Sydney Morning Herald
    Dec 15, 2009 · Rabbit-Proof Fence is under attack from historian Keith Windschuttle. Noyce rejects the historian's criticisms of the film, saying: ''Keith ...
  72. [72]
    Column – Take down this Rabbit-Proof Fence | Herald Sun
    Dec 16, 2009 · ... Rabbit-Proof Fence to be banned from our schools for being "grossly inaccurate". Lies are being taught as truth, and until the teachers know ...
  73. [73]
    Rabbit Proof Fence: what was stolen was the truth - Herald Sun
    Dec 14, 2009 · Keith Windschuttle, a frontline warrior in the history wars, has questioned the veracity of the film - though not the book on which it was ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  74. [74]
    The Stolen Generations | AIATSIS corporate website
    The report contained 54 recommendations to redress the wrongs done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A key recommendation of the Bringing them ...
  75. [75]
    Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples
    On 13 February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered a formal apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples, particularly the Stolen Generations, on behalf of the ...Missing: era | Show results with:era
  76. [76]
    30 years ago Australia confronted its Stolen Generation past
    May 28, 2025 · This is unsurprising given the approach by the Howard government was carefully designed to limit the impact of Bringing Them Home.
  77. [77]
    The myth of the Stolen Generations - a rebuttal - ABC News
    Feb 14, 2008 · Keith Windschuttle is one of the few historians to question seriously the accepted account of how Aboriginal children were removed in large numbers out of ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  78. [78]
    Closing the Gap targets: key findings and implications, Child protection
    Feb 21, 2025 · emotional abuse (around 52% of substantiations for First Nations children, 60% for non-Indigenous children); neglect (nearly 29% for First ...
  79. [79]
    Indigenous children in care doubled since stolen generations apology
    Jan 25, 2018 · “[The system] keeps failing Aboriginal families and communities because it is punitive, not supportive,” Weston told Guardian Australia. “We are ...
  80. [80]
    Removing babies is still harming First Nations families, almost two ...
    Feb 12, 2025 · Indigenous children are 11 times more likely to be removed than non-Indigenous children. Babies under one are at greatest risk.
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Towards a Decolonising Pedagogy: Understanding Australian ...
    The film Rabbit Proof Fence, directed by Phillip Noyce. (2002), is used in this article as a comparative text. This film is a widely used teaching resource, and ...
  82. [82]
    Reconciliation In Rabbit Proof Fence | ipl.org
    Why The Rabbit Proof Fence is an Effective way of educating Australian Students about the Issue of the Stolen Generation. If you were taken away from your ...
  83. [83]
    Inspiration for 'Rabbit Proof Fence' passes away - ABC News
    Jan 14, 2004 · The 87-year-old Aboriginal woman upon whose life the film Rabbit Proof Fence was based, has died at Jigalong in Western Australia's north.Missing: survivor | Show results with:survivor
  84. [84]
    (PDF) Rabbit-Proof Fence: A Critical Analysis - ResearchGate
    Set in 1931, the film describes the experience of three half-caste girls, Molly, Gracie and Daisy, who are forcibly removed from their family and community.Missing: true accuracy
  85. [85]
    Rabbit-Proof Fence, Phillip Noyce's acclaimed film on one of ... - Gale
    Rabbit-Proof Fence tells just one story out of thousands--stories of lives ruined by policies like the Aborigines Act 1905. Despite dealing with such emotive ...Missing: true empirical<|separator|>
  86. [86]
    Breaking through the Rabbit-Proof Fence: Colonial Displacement ...
    Mar 1, 2019 · This essay analyzes how contemporary Australian Aboriginal storytelling, exemplified by Doris Pilkington Garimara's book Rabbit-Proof Fence and its film ...
  87. [87]
    View of Rabbit-Proof Fence: A Critical Analysis | NEW - UTS ePress
    While Kevin Rudd portrayed the Stolen Generation as an historically ended process in his 2008 apology, he has recently warned of the 'emergence of a second ...Missing: data | Show results with:data
  88. [88]
    [PDF] The road to “sorry”: Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations
    Howard too ... year the film Rabbit Proof Fence, which depicted the story of three Aboriginal girls running from authorities, scooped the Australian Film ...
  89. [89]
    Framing Evasion: Revisiting Rabbit-Proof Fence and the History Wars
    Indeed, Rabbit-Proof Fence is credited by many as having directly contributed to the national conversation around the Stolen Generations, with some critics even ...
  90. [90]
    NT Stolen Generations $50 million class action settlement receives ...
    Apr 17, 2023 · The class action, which has an estimated 1,200 members, will see complainants receive a portion of $50.45 million in compensation for the trauma ...
  91. [91]
    Reparations for the stolen generations - Government responds
    In its submission to the Senate Inquiry, for example, the Commonwealth estimated the total potential cost of compensation as some $3.9 billion. If people wish ...
  92. [92]
    Restarting the History Wars: a decade of silence - John Quiggin
    Sep 22, 2013 · Instead, it was a critique of the Stolen Generations report and the film Rabbit Proof Fence. Windschuttle said that this volume had been ...
  93. [93]
    What to read (and watch) about indigenous Australians
    Oct 12, 2023 · Four books and a film that show why they want recognition of rights in the constitution | The Economist reads.
  94. [94]
    Australia's Stolen Generations, 1914–2021 (Chapter 4)
    56 Julie Cassidy, 'Unhelpful and inappropriate: the question of genocide and the Stolen Generations', Australian Indigenous Law Review, 13:1 (2009), 114–39; A.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  95. [95]
    Australia: Disproportionate Removal of Aboriginal Children
    Mar 26, 2025 · Western Australia's child protection authorities are disproportionately removing children from Aboriginal families and placing them in ...Missing: 1910-1940 | Show results with:1910-1940
  96. [96]
    30 years ago Australia confronted its Stolen Generation past
    May 29, 2025 · The landmark Bringing them Home inquiry was a chance to come to terms with the past. But the key recommendations of apology and compensation were rejected.<|separator|>
  97. [97]
    The question of genocide and indigenous child removal
    Aug 10, 2025 · The question of genocide and indigenous child removal: The colonial Australian context. December 2008; Journal of Genocide Research 10(4). DOI ...
  98. [98]
    The `Stolen Generations' and Cultural Genocide - Sage Journals
    The `Stolen Generations' and Cultural Genocide: The Forced Removal of Australian Indigenous Children from their Families and its Implications for the Sociology ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  99. [99]
    'Rabbit-Proof Fence': Phillip Noyce Political Drama Gets 4K Remaster
    Jul 19, 2024 · Phillip Noyce's 2002 drama Rabbit-Proof Fence will have a 4K remastered cut premiere at the Smith Rafael Film Center on Saturday, July 27 at 7PM ...