That's how I like to think of this blog.
Yes, it's partly because I have a thing for lame metaphors. But it's also because this blog is part of a broader strategy, I've been trialling for the past few weeks.
It all started a few weeks ago over lunch with a friend who works in the Indigenous affairs sector. Having just relocated to Canberra in readiness for my new job, I remarked that it was an exciting time to be in town with the news about the forthcoming apology to the stolen generations.
We got around to talking about our perceptions of public reactions to the announcement. This was just based on our own informal observations of various media coverage and other public forums. Interestingly, we had both encountered the same thing. It appeared that many people opposed, or were disinterested in, the apology due to what we saw as a misunderstanding of its meaning and effect. People tended to think an apology was about things like fostering individual guilt, living in the past, creating national division, exposing taxpayers to indeterminate legal liability and perhaps most importantly, an opportunistic grab for compensation at the expense of real solutions to contemporary problems. All the stuff I've been talking about in previous posts.
Our perception was that anti-apology sentiment tended to be most concentrated in informal, online discussion forums – such as Facebook interest groups, comments on news stories, editorials or certain journalists’ blogs. Not very surprising given the participative nature of these forums.
We figured that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't hurt to add another voice to the foray -- a sustained presence aimed at putting out a few more facts about what the apology means, and what it doesn't. As I've said, not about pressuring people to conform to a particular viewpoint, simply about encouraging people to reach an informed conclusion on the issue.
Word got around and one thing led to another. Before I knew it I was working out of Reconciliation Australia's offices, putting that idea into action.
So where in cyberspace have I been hanging out over the past three weeks?
Well, lots of places, including:
Facebook interest groups (engaging in discussions, as well as linking to information and encouraging people to have their say in online votes such as news polls). Look out for me in some of the apology/Indigenous affairs-related groups. I post as Christina Sarah.
Commenting on journalists' blogs with wide readerships ... one in particular, no cigar for guessing whose.
Subscribing to a billion blog alerts services and commenting on those relating to stolen generations issues, as well as starting this one.
Subscribing to news alerts and media clips services (both mainstream and "alternative"/niche), frantically writing letters to the editor in response to news articles and editorials as well as posting online comments to news stories and readers'comments.
Posting to email groups (including ones like aus.politics and aus.legal on usenet)
Letter (alright, email) writing to a long list of ministers, shadow ministers and government and opposition MPs about the apology.
Pursuing the suggestion of one of RA's marvellous interns (thanks Nat) about a Facebook "user status" strategy on the day of the apology ... more on this soon.
... more on the results/findings and challenges in the next post ...
Friday, February 1, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
It's about more than money
Another key misconception about the apology is that it will lead to massive compensation claims against the government. Comments by members of the community to the effect of "it's all about the money" and labels like "the Stolen Generations Industry" are, sadly, very common.
So why don't I think an apology will open the floodgates?
I can think of four good reasons:
(1) The apology is about admitting moral, as distinct from legal, responsibility
In 1997, the High Court held that previous child removal laws in the Northern Territory were constitutional in Kruger v the Commonwealth. This means that the government had the legal power to pass those laws. In apologising, the government is simply saying it was morally wrong to exercise that legal power. There is no question, however, that it was not acting illegally in doing so.
The South Australian Supreme Court decision of Trevorrow suggests that stolen generation members would have to prove at least one of two things. They would have to show that their removal from their families or placement into State care was illegal, for example the government did not follow its own established laws or policies. Alternatively, they would have to prove that their removal or placement was negligent, such as where a child was placed into an abusive environment.
This means that anyone who wants to bring a court case seeking compensation for their wrongful removal as children must have existing legal rights. These rights are totally separate to any government apology. In this sense, a “stolen generations” claim would be no different to any other case that comes before the courts.
(2) The Commonwealth was never directly responsible for a centrally administered child-removal policy
The federal government never ran a national child removal policy. Instead, each of the States had their own laws and programs. The only exception was in the Northern Territory, where the federal government had responsibility for passing child removal laws due to constitutional reasons.
However, the federal government endorsed assimilation as the official national objective in Indigenous affairs at the Commonwealth/State Conferences on Native Welfare in 1937 and 1951. In this sense, it helped to set the policy environment in which child removals occurred, but it did not directly participate in the removal of Indigenous children in each of the States
This means that, in most cases, State governments or private care providers such as churches or religious orders would be the appropriate defendants, not the Commonwealth.
(3) An apology made in parliament is protected by parliamentary privilege
As the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee observed in its "stolen generations" inquiry, Healing: a Legacy of Generations, all statements made within the parliament are protected by parlimentary privilege. Section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) explaims that:
As the Federal Court has acknowledged in Hamsher and Ors v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, this provision is "expressed in terms of an absolute prohibition" which "cannot be waived in the absence of objection".
(4) The experience of the States and the Territories suggests otherwise
All of the State and Territory governments, along with other non-government organisations involved in the removal of children, have apologised. Interestingly, there has only been one successful court case since then, being the 2007 Trevorrow decision in the South Australian Supreme Court, in which the claimant was awarded $525K.
All of this tends to suggest that floodgates type arguments are based on a fear that is more hypothetical than real.
So why don't I think an apology will open the floodgates?
I can think of four good reasons:
(1) The apology is about admitting moral, as distinct from legal, responsibility
In 1997, the High Court held that previous child removal laws in the Northern Territory were constitutional in Kruger v the Commonwealth. This means that the government had the legal power to pass those laws. In apologising, the government is simply saying it was morally wrong to exercise that legal power. There is no question, however, that it was not acting illegally in doing so.
The South Australian Supreme Court decision of Trevorrow suggests that stolen generation members would have to prove at least one of two things. They would have to show that their removal from their families or placement into State care was illegal, for example the government did not follow its own established laws or policies. Alternatively, they would have to prove that their removal or placement was negligent, such as where a child was placed into an abusive environment.
This means that anyone who wants to bring a court case seeking compensation for their wrongful removal as children must have existing legal rights. These rights are totally separate to any government apology. In this sense, a “stolen generations” claim would be no different to any other case that comes before the courts.
(2) The Commonwealth was never directly responsible for a centrally administered child-removal policy
The federal government never ran a national child removal policy. Instead, each of the States had their own laws and programs. The only exception was in the Northern Territory, where the federal government had responsibility for passing child removal laws due to constitutional reasons.
However, the federal government endorsed assimilation as the official national objective in Indigenous affairs at the Commonwealth/State Conferences on Native Welfare in 1937 and 1951. In this sense, it helped to set the policy environment in which child removals occurred, but it did not directly participate in the removal of Indigenous children in each of the States
This means that, in most cases, State governments or private care providers such as churches or religious orders would be the appropriate defendants, not the Commonwealth.
(3) An apology made in parliament is protected by parliamentary privilege
As the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee observed in its "stolen generations" inquiry, Healing: a Legacy of Generations, all statements made within the parliament are protected by parlimentary privilege. Section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) explaims that:
In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of:
questioning or relying on the truth, motive, intention or good faith of anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament;
otherwise questioning or establishing the credibility, motive, intention or good faith of any person; or
drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament.
As the Federal Court has acknowledged in Hamsher and Ors v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, this provision is "expressed in terms of an absolute prohibition" which "cannot be waived in the absence of objection".
(4) The experience of the States and the Territories suggests otherwise
All of the State and Territory governments, along with other non-government organisations involved in the removal of children, have apologised. Interestingly, there has only been one successful court case since then, being the 2007 Trevorrow decision in the South Australian Supreme Court, in which the claimant was awarded $525K.
All of this tends to suggest that floodgates type arguments are based on a fear that is more hypothetical than real.
back like a virus ... disputing the "personal responsibility" argument
After a brief hiatus - due, in part, to another blogger's return during the week - I was pleasantly surprised to see that my ramblings here were picked up in Crikey's "Blogwatch - Sorry Edition" feature yesterday.
Figuring that was probably a good sign to stop neglecting my own patch of cyberspace, I thought I'd get back into the swing of things today and go through some of those common misunderstandings about "sorry" I talked about last time.
Up first, the personal responsibility argument.
Former PM John Howard was the major proponent of this view, so I'll let him explain in his own words ...
So, it seems that Howard's conception of "sorry" boiled down to individual shame and guilt, rather than pride, in the past and inter-generational or "inherited" blame.
Viewed on these terms, an apology sounds highly undesirable. But is that what it's really about?
Not according to the recommendations in Bringing Them Home. Recommendation 5a(1)specifically urged all Australian parliaments to "officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal".
The reference to "parliaments" implies two things:
1. The apology is by parliament, as distinct from the Australian people, in recognition of its predecessors' wrongdoings
No one is asking individual Australians to accept guilt, shame or responsibility for the actions of previous generations. Rather, the apology is about the parliament accepting responsibility for the (morally) wrongful actions of past parliaments and governments. In short, this is about parliaments saying sorry for previous parliaments.
As some people have quite correctly observed, the parliament is obviously elected to represent the Australian people. However, representative democracy is not the sole function of parliament, and does not automatically mean that the parliament is apologising in the name of the Australian people.
Instead, the basis of the apology is the concept of continuing responsible government. That is, the notion that the government must hold itself accountable to the Australian public.
When seen in this light, the apology is simply about the government coming clean" or holding itself accountable to the people through parliament, for the racially motivated child removal policies of its predecessors, which it views as morally wrong and therefore requiring acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility.
Of course, it would make sense that, if individual Australians want to take pride in their past, it would be logical to acknowledge that there were also some negative chapters, and to feel regret and empathy. However, a government apology does not force anyone to do so.
2. Parliament, as distinct from the Australian people, is capable of inheriting responsibility for the actions of its predecessors.
Although there are compelling arguments against "inherited guilt" in the case of individual people, institutions are different.
Unlike individuals, the institution of government does not die with individual members. So in this sense, it does not matter who is in power on the day. It is what the institution - the body politic - stands for.
This means that the government can apologise for the actions of previous governments, even if those previous governments. Although it is true that those governments considered themselves to be acting in the best interests of Indigenous people, the point is that the present government, with the benefit of hindsight, is entitled to acknowledge that the laws did not, in fact, have that effect.
So, we can see that an apology, as recommended by the Bringing Them Home Inquiry, was never about individual guilt. It would seem that the latter narrative was constructed by the government.
As the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee commented in its review of the government's responses to the implementation of Bringing Them Home's recommendations:
Figuring that was probably a good sign to stop neglecting my own patch of cyberspace, I thought I'd get back into the swing of things today and go through some of those common misunderstandings about "sorry" I talked about last time.
Up first, the personal responsibility argument.
Former PM John Howard was the major proponent of this view, so I'll let him explain in his own words ...
I have frequently said, and I will say it again today, that present generations of Australians cannot be held accountable, and we should not seek to hold them accountable, for the errors and misdeeds of earlier generations.
***
The Australian people do not want to embroil themselves in an exercise of shame and guilt. The Australian people know that mistakes were made in the past. The Australian people know that injustices occurred. The Australian people know that wrongs were committed. But for the overwhelming majority of the current generations of Australians, there was no personal involvement of them or of their parents. To say to them that they are personally responsible and that they should feel a sense of shame about those events is to visit upon them an unreasonable penalty and an injustice ...
So, it seems that Howard's conception of "sorry" boiled down to individual shame and guilt, rather than pride, in the past and inter-generational or "inherited" blame.
Viewed on these terms, an apology sounds highly undesirable. But is that what it's really about?
Not according to the recommendations in Bringing Them Home. Recommendation 5a(1)specifically urged all Australian parliaments to "officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal".
The reference to "parliaments" implies two things:
1. The apology is by parliament, as distinct from the Australian people, in recognition of its predecessors' wrongdoings
No one is asking individual Australians to accept guilt, shame or responsibility for the actions of previous generations. Rather, the apology is about the parliament accepting responsibility for the (morally) wrongful actions of past parliaments and governments. In short, this is about parliaments saying sorry for previous parliaments.
As some people have quite correctly observed, the parliament is obviously elected to represent the Australian people. However, representative democracy is not the sole function of parliament, and does not automatically mean that the parliament is apologising in the name of the Australian people.
Instead, the basis of the apology is the concept of continuing responsible government. That is, the notion that the government must hold itself accountable to the Australian public.
When seen in this light, the apology is simply about the government coming clean" or holding itself accountable to the people through parliament, for the racially motivated child removal policies of its predecessors, which it views as morally wrong and therefore requiring acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility.
Of course, it would make sense that, if individual Australians want to take pride in their past, it would be logical to acknowledge that there were also some negative chapters, and to feel regret and empathy. However, a government apology does not force anyone to do so.
2. Parliament, as distinct from the Australian people, is capable of inheriting responsibility for the actions of its predecessors.
Although there are compelling arguments against "inherited guilt" in the case of individual people, institutions are different.
Unlike individuals, the institution of government does not die with individual members. So in this sense, it does not matter who is in power on the day. It is what the institution - the body politic - stands for.
This means that the government can apologise for the actions of previous governments, even if those previous governments. Although it is true that those governments considered themselves to be acting in the best interests of Indigenous people, the point is that the present government, with the benefit of hindsight, is entitled to acknowledge that the laws did not, in fact, have that effect.
So, we can see that an apology, as recommended by the Bringing Them Home Inquiry, was never about individual guilt. It would seem that the latter narrative was constructed by the government.
As the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee commented in its review of the government's responses to the implementation of Bringing Them Home's recommendations:
[T]he Commonwealth Government appears to have changed the nature of the argument from one of governments accepting responsibility for the outcome of past policies and practices, by suggesting that Bringing Them Home requested a personal or ‘generational’ responsibility in which individual Australians should feel guilty.
Friday, January 25, 2008
On Facebook, Australia Day and the eternal question, "Why should I be sorry for something I didn't do?"
Like 1.7 million Australians, I spend a lot of time on Facebook.
Originally, I signed up to stay in touch with family and friends after I moved interstate, but was quickly sucked in by the strange appeal of its mindless voyerism. Yes sirree, I became a certified addict within days of joining. I did it all, from reconnecting with old kindy friends to joining important social causes like "I wish yum cha trolleys would circulate through my workplace" and everything else that's only fun because you're supposed to be doing something else.
But beyond the self-important profiles, trashy applications and other procrastination aids, Facebook has a serious side. The site hosts hundreds of thousands of interest groups -- spaces where users can create groups dedicated to discussing any issue of their choosing and recruiting members to join in the dialogue.
With a potential Australian audience of 1.7 million and growing, and 62 million worldwide, Facebook groups can do big things in terms of mobilising public interest and support for causes. Most major advocacy and social justice organisations have jumped on the virtual bandwagon. Think people power, Gen Y style.
So, being interested in Indigenous affairs, and with the apology tipped to be delivered within the next few weeks, I decided to search to see if anyone had started any apology-related groups.
And lo and behold, they had. But the results were mixed. Although there are groups like "One Million Australians Feel Sorry" with memberships around the 17,000 mark, there are also numerous groups popping up with names like "NO I'M NOT BLOODY SORRY AND HAVE NO ONE TO BE RECONCILED WITH", "I don't have anything to feel sorry about" and "NO to sorry, YES to the real road to reconciliation".
Shortly after, I went on to read the results of an issues survey by the Herald Sun, claiming that two thirds of Victorians surveyed opposed Kevin Rudd's plan to apologise. Respondents made comments along the lines of "That's past history" and "It's not just Aborigines that had that situation, as in taken away from their parents. A lot of English were taken away from their parents in England and brought here."
Then we had yesterday's Australia Day celebrations. I think this headline from newslimited's website summed up the sentiment of the day pretty well.
PM's address puts focus on race relations
-- Skywriter scrawls 'sorry' across Bondi sky
-- Rudd shines spotlight on race relations
-- More than 3000 attend cockroach race
All of this confirmed a suspicion I'd been harbouring in the back of my mind for quite some time. It seems that many Australians oppose, or are disinterested in, the apology because of what I believe is a misunderstanding about its nature, meaning and effect.
It seems that most people who oppose an apology do so because they believe things like:
- it will force individual Australians to apologise for something they didn't do.
- the current government is not responsible for the actions of past governments, particularly when those previous governments thought that they were acting in Indigenous people's best interests.
- it means that Australians have to feel guilty about their past and cannot feel proud of it.
- it is merely symbolic and will do nothing to solve contemporary problems.
- apologising will make governments and people afraid of intervening in abuse, neglect or other welfare cases relating to Indigenous children because they will be accused of creating another stolen generation.
- Saying "sorry" will expose the government to expensive compensation claims.
Some other people hold slightly more extreme views like:
- Many Indigenous people are using the apology issue as a scapegoat for their own problems, and need to move on and take responsibility for their own life choices and situations like everyone else has to, rather than expecting special treatment.
- There were not any "stolen generations" because there is no conclusive evidence, like comprehensive lists of names of children removed on the grounds of race alone.
- Most Indigenous people removed from their families as children were removed on welfare grounds and were given better lives, with more opportunities.
But rather than making a novel out of this post, I'll offer a response to each of these arguments in separate posts.
Right after I get home from the opera :)
brb.
Originally, I signed up to stay in touch with family and friends after I moved interstate, but was quickly sucked in by the strange appeal of its mindless voyerism. Yes sirree, I became a certified addict within days of joining. I did it all, from reconnecting with old kindy friends to joining important social causes like "I wish yum cha trolleys would circulate through my workplace" and everything else that's only fun because you're supposed to be doing something else.
But beyond the self-important profiles, trashy applications and other procrastination aids, Facebook has a serious side. The site hosts hundreds of thousands of interest groups -- spaces where users can create groups dedicated to discussing any issue of their choosing and recruiting members to join in the dialogue.
With a potential Australian audience of 1.7 million and growing, and 62 million worldwide, Facebook groups can do big things in terms of mobilising public interest and support for causes. Most major advocacy and social justice organisations have jumped on the virtual bandwagon. Think people power, Gen Y style.
So, being interested in Indigenous affairs, and with the apology tipped to be delivered within the next few weeks, I decided to search to see if anyone had started any apology-related groups.
And lo and behold, they had. But the results were mixed. Although there are groups like "One Million Australians Feel Sorry" with memberships around the 17,000 mark, there are also numerous groups popping up with names like "NO I'M NOT BLOODY SORRY AND HAVE NO ONE TO BE RECONCILED WITH", "I don't have anything to feel sorry about" and "NO to sorry, YES to the real road to reconciliation".
Shortly after, I went on to read the results of an issues survey by the Herald Sun, claiming that two thirds of Victorians surveyed opposed Kevin Rudd's plan to apologise. Respondents made comments along the lines of "That's past history" and "It's not just Aborigines that had that situation, as in taken away from their parents. A lot of English were taken away from their parents in England and brought here."
Then we had yesterday's Australia Day celebrations. I think this headline from newslimited's website summed up the sentiment of the day pretty well.
PM's address puts focus on race relations
-- Skywriter scrawls 'sorry' across Bondi sky
-- Rudd shines spotlight on race relations
-- More than 3000 attend cockroach race
All of this confirmed a suspicion I'd been harbouring in the back of my mind for quite some time. It seems that many Australians oppose, or are disinterested in, the apology because of what I believe is a misunderstanding about its nature, meaning and effect.
It seems that most people who oppose an apology do so because they believe things like:
- it will force individual Australians to apologise for something they didn't do.
- the current government is not responsible for the actions of past governments, particularly when those previous governments thought that they were acting in Indigenous people's best interests.
- it means that Australians have to feel guilty about their past and cannot feel proud of it.
- it is merely symbolic and will do nothing to solve contemporary problems.
- apologising will make governments and people afraid of intervening in abuse, neglect or other welfare cases relating to Indigenous children because they will be accused of creating another stolen generation.
- Saying "sorry" will expose the government to expensive compensation claims.
Some other people hold slightly more extreme views like:
- Many Indigenous people are using the apology issue as a scapegoat for their own problems, and need to move on and take responsibility for their own life choices and situations like everyone else has to, rather than expecting special treatment.
- There were not any "stolen generations" because there is no conclusive evidence, like comprehensive lists of names of children removed on the grounds of race alone.
- Most Indigenous people removed from their families as children were removed on welfare grounds and were given better lives, with more opportunities.
But rather than making a novel out of this post, I'll offer a response to each of these arguments in separate posts.
Right after I get home from the opera :)
brb.
A Reading Guide to the Apology Issue
To get the ball rolling, I thought I'd put together a collection of links to useful "sorry" resources on the web.
I'll be spending the next couple of weeks blogging about some of the specific issues covered in these sources, so they might be a helpful starting point to explore things in further detail.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions for additions to the list.
Until next time, happy reading!
Christina
_______________________________________________________
1. GENERAL OVERVIEWS AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
I'll be spending the next couple of weeks blogging about some of the specific issues covered in these sources, so they might be a helpful starting point to explore things in further detail.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions for additions to the list.
Until next time, happy reading!
Christina
_______________________________________________________
1. GENERAL OVERVIEWS AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
These resources cover "the basics", answering questions like:
"Who are the Stolen Generations?"
"Some people say the stolen generations are a lie. How can we be sure that these people's stories are true?"
"Why should we apologise and take responsibility for the acts of past governments?"
"What words would be used in an apology? Does it have to include the word sorry?"
"What does an apology mean to me as an Australian? Do I have to feel guilty?"
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission has put together an interesting webpage containing the original report from 1997, as well as related resources such an easy to read community guide to the report, FAQs about the stolen generations and an interesting magazine published for the 10th anniversary of the report in 2007.
Reconciliation Australia's Sorry Page
Get smart about the apology and what it means to us as Australians, and to the broader reconciliation process. While you're there, don't forget to browse some of the other interesting and inspiring sections of the site. You can even join in the reconciliation conversation and see what other people have said, including some of our favourite Aussie personalities.
_______________________________________________________
2. PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS AN APOLOGY
Two Australian Parliamentary Library Papers , "The Stolen Generation" (2000, updated 2007) and "From Dispossession to Reconciliation" (1999)
These papers provide concise summaries of major developments in public policy over the last century as it has related to the issue of removal of Indigenous children. They might be a useful starting point for further reading or research, if you're interested.
The response included a $63 million package over four years in practical assistance for those affected. Assistance was focused primarily on: records, family tracing and reunion; education and training; funding state criminal justice reforms; and passing a motion of reconciliation. However, those recommendations relating to a formal apology were not supported by the previous government, on the basis that Australians should not be asked to "accept responsibility for the acts of earlier generations, sanctioned by the law of the times".
The Government's Motion of Reconciliation (1999)
The Commonwealth Parliament has not apologised preferring instead to express its "deep and sincere regret" for past injustices in a Motion of Reconciliation on 26 August 1999 (pages 9205-9222 of House of Representatives Hansard). Despite this Motion of Reconciliation there remains a concern that the Australian Government has not issued a direct apology.
Healing: a Legacy of Generations (2000)
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's was asked to investigate the Government's progress towards implementing the Bringing Them Home Recommendations in 2000. The Committee made 10 recommendations, including a national apology and compensation scheme.
Government Response to the Senate Committee Report (2001)
Government Response to the Senate Committee Report (2001)
The Government rejected the Senate Committee's recommendations relating to an apology and reparations. The response contains a good summary of practical reconciliation ideology.
The Ministerial Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) Report on the Implementation of the Bringing them Home Recommendations (2003)
In response to the Senate Committee's recommendation for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the Government's responses to Bringing Them Home, MCATSIA agreed to sponsor an independent evaluation of both government and non-government responses. The final report was released in December 2003.
The Rudd Government's Promise to Apologise (2007)
In November 2007, the ALP (then in opposition) released its platform which included a pledge to "provide a comprehensive response to the Bringing Them Home Report, including a formal apology."
_______________________________________________________
3. STATE AND TERRITORY GOVERNMENT APOLOGIES
All State and Territory Governments have apologised to the Stolen Generations in their respective jurisdictions. Extracts of the relevant Motions of Apology have been documented in the Australian Parliamentary Library's research paper, From Dispossession to Reconciliation
_______________________________________________________
4. APOLOGIES BY OTHER COUNTRIES TO THEIR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OR ETHNIC GROUPS FOR HISTORICAL WRONGDOINGS
Australian Parliamentary Library - Comparative Analysis of Indigenous Affairs in Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, Norway and Sweden
Many other countries have made formal apologies to their Indigenous peoples for historical wrongdoings, including the forcible removal of Indigenous children on the basis of race. These include Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Norway and South Africa.
_______________________________________________________
5. THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION
Recommendations 3, 4, 14, 15, 16 a and b, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41 of Bringing Them Home address the issue of reparation, including the establishment of a formal compensation scheme. However, the controversial issue of monetary compensation remains unresolved.
DEBATE ABOUT A NATIONAL COMPENSATION SCHEME
The Howard Government’s Rejection of Calls to Apologise and Compensate – 1996-2007
While the previous government allocated significant funding and put several projects in place to address some of the issues raised in Bringing Them Home and subsequent reviews, it consistently refused to make a formal apology or establish an official compensation scheme for members of the stolen generation.
In its Response to Healing: a Legacy of Generations, the government argued that there was no equitable way to financially compensate people affected by the removal policies, and that it was more important to provide practical assistance such as facilities for family reunion and emotional health and wellbeing.
The United Nations’ Response to the Australian Government's Stance - 2000
In 2000, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern about the Government’s decision not to make a national apology or consider monetary compensation. The Committee recommended that the government “consider[ed] the need to address appropriately the extraordinary harm inflicted by these racially discriminatory practices”.
The Rudd Government's Response to Calls for Compensation - 2007/2008
The Rudd Government has rejected the call to establish a compensation fund, arguing that it intends to back the apology with a concerted effort to close the 17-year gap in life expectancy between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, while providing "targeted assistance" to members of the stolen generations.
However, some commentators argue that the government's response ignores the fact that closing the gap by providing decent services, opportunities and protection from abuse is already an obligation on the government to all of its citizens. On this view, closing the gap doesn't make up for the pain and suffering caused by the destruction of families.
The Tasmanian Government recently initiated legislation to create a $5 million fund to provide payments to eligible members of the Stolen Generations of Aborigines and their children. The Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Act was passed in November 2006.
There are three categories of eligible applicants. Eligible children of a deceased member of the Stolen Generations are entitled to $5,000 each, with a maximum of $20,000 for a family group. After claims from children are paid, the balance remaining in the fund is to be shared equally by eligible members of the Stolen Generations.
The application period is now closed, and 150 applications were received, of which 106 were successful.
On 17 December 2007, the WA Government announced a $114 million redress schem for those who as children were abused while in State care in WA.
Although not specific to the Stolen Generations, members of the stolen generations who were abused in care could seek compensation through this scheme.
PROPOSALS FOR REFORM
Democrats Senator for Queensland Andrew Bartlett introduced the Stolen Generations Compensation Bill into Federal parliament in September 2007.
The Bill is modelled on the Tasmanian compensation scheme (listed above), but makes provision for a wider range of claimants and further services that should be provided to claimants and their families, including funeral funds and healing centres.
Each person would receive a base, "common experience" sum of $20,000 plus an additional $3,000 for every year they were institutionalised.
The Bill has lapsed due to the dissolution of parliament and will have to be reintroduced in the next term.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) – Proposals for a National Compensation Framework
In its submission to the Healing: a Legacy of Generations inquiry, PIAC made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a Stolen Generations Reparation Tribunal. The submission outlines the nature and structure of the proposed Tribunal, including who should be entitled to reparations, the basis of liability, forms of reparations and procedures of the Tribunal.
In 2002, PIAC revised its Tribunal proposal to incorporate the views of Indigenous peoples obtained through a national consultation project called Moving Forward: Achieving Reparations.
COMPENSATION SCHEMES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
The Canadian Government has established a $1.9 billion compensation fund for people affected by the removal of Indigenous children to Indian Residential Schools from the early 1880s to the early 1970s.
Successful applicants receive a base sum of $10,000 plus a further $3,000 for each year they attended the school. The government has also provided an additional $3 billion in compensation to survivors who suffered physical and sexual abuse in the schools.
Of the 85,080 applications received, 56,625 have been processed, and 46,910 have received payment.
_______________________________________________________
6. COURT CASES INVOLVING THE STOLEN GENERATIONS
There have been multiple court cases in which members of the stolen generations have taken action against state and federal governments in relation to their removal from their families.
Some have taken the form of a constitutional challenge, where it was argued that the government had no power to pass laws authorizing their removal.
Other cases have been for personal damages for maltreatment and abuse suffered in care due to the government's alleged breach of duty of care over children in state institutions.
Only one case, Trevorrow v South Australia (2007), has been successful to date.
The Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies has produced a research paper about the limitations of litigation in stolen generation cases. It contains a good summary of the major decisions. _______________________________________________________
7. READING LISTS
Stolen Generations Bibliography - Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
The AIATSIS bibliography contains further readings about government policy, effects of removal on the stolen generations and biographies and autobiographies of members of the stolen generation. Most of these titles are books, so run them through the Libraries Australia catalogue to see if they are held at a library near you.
_______________________________________________________
8. ORAL HISTORIES
8. ORAL HISTORIES
Bringing them Home made several recommendations about records, family tracing and reunion (see recommendations: 1, 11, 13, 21, 22 a -b, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 a- b, 30 a - b, 31, 38 a - b - c and 39). This area received significant government attention, including $1.6 million to the National Library of Australia for an Oral History Project.
The project is designed to collect and preserve the stories of Indigenous people and others, such as missionaries, police and administrators involved in or affected by the process of child removals.
_______________________________________________________
9. ORGANISATIONS CAMPAIGNING FOR AN APOLOGY
These are a sample of the many organisations which have been active in advocating for an apology.
· National Sorry Day Committee
· The Stolen Generations Alliance
· Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation
· National Sorry Day Committee
· The Stolen Generations Alliance
· Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation
_______________________________________________________
10. “LINK UP” FAMILY TRACING, REUNION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Link-up services have been set up to assist Indigenous people who are members of the Stolen Generations and those who were adopted, fostered or institutionalised as a result of past government policies, to find connections to family and to access reunification and counselling services. Below are contact details for some of the main state and territory services.
Western Australia
· Kimberley Stolen Generation Link-up
· Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Association
Link-up services have been set up to assist Indigenous people who are members of the Stolen Generations and those who were adopted, fostered or institutionalised as a result of past government policies, to find connections to family and to access reunification and counselling services. Below are contact details for some of the main state and territory services.
Western Australia
· Kimberley Stolen Generation Link-up
· Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Association
New South Wales
· Link-Up NSW
Northern Territory
· Central Australian Stolen Generations & Families Aboriginal Corporation
· Karu Association Inc. (no website, ph (08) 8945 5237)
Queensland
· Link-Up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation
· North Qld Regional Office, Cairns (no website, ph (07) 4041 4626)
South Australia
· SA Link-Up Program
Victoria
· Victoria Link-Up (no website, ph (03) 9480 4511)
National
· Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Family History Unit
___________________________________________________
PLEASE NOTE: These links have been selected purely for their informative value. Reconciliation Australia does not endorse any opinions expressed on these webpages, other than official Reconciliation Australia content on www.reconcile.org.au or www.reconciliation.org.au.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Thanks for joining me on the Road to Sorry
It's been a long time coming, but the Rudd government has promised to apologise to the stolen generations – in other words those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed from their families as children, between the mid 1800s-1970.
The PM says the government’s keen to make the apology early in the piece. Update: On 30 January, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin announced 13 Feb as the date. The apology will be made in Parliament, with significant Indigenous participation, including a welcome to country ceremony in the Members Hall by Ngunnawal Elder Matilda House.
So with that in mind, the idea behind this blog is to create some space where everyone - no matter what side of the fence you're sitting on - can come and have a yarn about this important issue, and maybe discover a little more about what saying sorry is all about.
This blog isn't about trying to convert people to a particular way of thinking. There are a wide range of opinions in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community about the apology, and I think that's a wonderful thing! My philosophy is simply that it's important we all understand the background and meaning of the apology, and come to our own informed conclusions about whether or not it will create a better future for all of us.
Sadly, in my travels around the www, I have noticed an increasing amount of misinformation out there, so over the next few weeks I'll be posting a bit about some the key facts (and myths) of the apology, as well as some links to helpful information. I'd love to hear your thoughts, so please have your say in the comments section of each post.
In the meantime, be sure to check out the new "Sorry" materials on Reconciliation Australia's interactive website, "Reconcile - It's All Our Story". I've found the FAQs there really helpful. The addy is: http://www.reconcile.org.au/getsmart/pages/sorry.php
Finally, reconciliation is about all of us - so please join the conversation and invite your friends, colleagues and perhaps even your enemies too! Feel free to post links on your Facebook or Myspace profiles.
Thanks for stopping by. Hope to see you round!
Christina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
