I am sure you will forgive me if I do not deliver a formal lecture on an occasion like this. It would be easy to be heavy and serious with a theme such as the one chosen for this week, and the title “The Switchblade Mentality” scarcely leads you to expect an after dinner entertainment. I always feel mildly disappointed after speaking on topics like this when kind listeners come up and say “Thank you, I enjoyed that”.

A previous issue of this journal has been devoted to child abuse, and of course there is endless discussion in many places of the pros and cons of mandatory reporting laws. But non-lawyers must find it difficult to see the general picture of the laws relating to child abuse. Here is an attempt to provide one.

It is important right at the outset to define the problem about which we are concerned and its dimensions.

I have to take some issue with the reference to the “migrant family”.

In a multi-cultural society such as ours we must recognise that we, the non-Aboriginal people, are all migrants of one generation or seven.

The Gold Rush in 1851 meant sorrow and suffering for many adults. The story of children of this period is not as well known. The roving life of parents in search of gold, their fluctuating fortunes and frequent fatal accidents in the mines contributed to the plight of their offspring. In 1852 Canvas Town on the west side of St Kilda Road, in Melbourne, held over 7,000 people. There were, of course, many waifs and strays who suffered the hardships of a canvas town and the general social misfortune of the times. The ground was swampy and children’s diseases often swept the encampment. Death was commonplace. There was also a large number of children in gaols in 1858, not because they had committed any crime but because there was simply nowhere else to go. Finally a number of children during this era were confined to workhouses by magistrates.

Over the past twenty years, concepts and ideas about the care of the intellectually handicapped have been changing. These changes are largely based on the principle of “normalisation” which originated in Scandinavia and in essence implies that the intellectually handicapped should experience as nearly as possible, and in keeping with their special needs and capabilities, normal community living (Nirge).

The present study presents an evaluation of the effects of birth order and family size on the self-concept as measured by the 29 scores of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS). One hundred and seventeen middle and upper class 18 to 22-year-old female American university students were administered the TSCS and divided into the following birth-order groups: only, first, middle, and last; and family-size groups: subjects that came from two-child families, three or four-child families, and five-or-more-child families. Analysis of variance and t test statistical procedures showed the only-born to have the most favored birth-order position in terms of self-concept and tendencies to avoid the characteristics associated with pathological disorders. The most favored family size (in terms of self-concept and tendency to avoid the characteristics associated with pathological disorders) was three or more children with the least favored being a family with two children.