Thread: Rudds apology

Originally Posted by CraigE

You are forgetting that it was law at the time so compensation should be a mute point. Compensation should only be available to those that were treated outside the law at the time, right or wrong.
It is not the government that will be paying compensation but the taxpayer.
If most of these people were genuine they would not be on a cash grab but would rather see the money go into a fund to give all underpriveliged a future. But no everyone these days just sees $ signs when they are wronged.

So should the $2.5 million dollars already paid to some of the chritian brothers be returend to the tax payer as it was law and government policy? or is it they were compensated because they were violated, beeten etc like a good number of aboriginals that were taken?

It would be a shame to lock the thread. Healthy discussion is what leads to education and fresh perspectives and thinking. Admittedly I definitely don't agree with some posts here yet I respect those that constructive as apposed to those that are vindictive, mulishas and spiteful. Plainly there are people whom disagree with me and I'm fine with that too. For too long this subject is shunned yet it should be discussed. And in light of recent events its never more poignant.

Well put, I have learnt more about this situation in the last week than the last 5-10 yrs. As Jamo pointed out as well, there are so many sides and view points, which to be honest, up until recently, I didn't really have a side or a view point, probably more a view point as it really isn't a "taking sides" situation.

Regards

Stevo

Originally Posted by incisor

can anyone tell me how many children were forcibly removed from their parents during this time, white black or brindle ?

or how many babies were forcibly adopted out, white black or brindle ?

there has been a lot of rhetoric about this but, very little mentioned about the general views of society and how that impacted on the everyday lives of most living in Australia during this era, white black or brindle ?

i also take the time to remind people that playing the man, will not win you the argument and that if you take the time to write your message in a coherent manner, most will take the time to read and absorb your comment instead of fobbing you off..

From Tango51's link-
http://matrix.aiatsis.gov.au/__data/.../4727/DP15.pdf

It is estimated that ten per cent of Indigenous Australian children were removed from their families and communities under state sanctioned policies and removal practices in Australia between 1910 and 1970 (HREOC 1997:18). Today, most Indigenous families continue to be affected in one or more generations by the forcible removal of children during this time (HREOC 1997:37).

This is also of interest-

We accept that, in line with the findings of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, the systemic removal of Indigenous children from their families constituted a gross violation of human rights (HREOC 1997). In summary, the Inquiry found that the policy of forced removal of Indigenous children was contrary to prohibitions on racial discrimination and genocide, and was contrary to accepted legal principle found in the common law.
The removals also led to other forms of criminal victimisation including widespread sexual and physical assault (HREOC 1997:277-278).

To contrast this, you could have a look at this study of Aboriginal population figures -
Untitled
Which leads you to this PDF -
http://www.anu.edu.au/nceph/indigeno...print/text.pdf

Which pretty much says that there hasn't been much in the way of recording Aboriginal population figures for most of the last century, and speculates as to why this is.

Guess it just isn't that simple.

Cheers
Simon

Originally Posted by stevo68

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the "Stolen" generation that all this has come about was approx 13000 people? Also as has been stated, there were also tens of thousands of white children removed from homes as well. My point here, is that it seem's ok that a white child was removed, not because of their skin colour but for other reasons. If that same child also suffered abuse, poor conditions etc there doesn't seem to be the same outpouring. In other words, what ever the reason the child was removed, shouldnt that be of more concern, not just because if it did happen due to the colour of their skin?

Also having read the responses on this forum, other forums, there does seem to be a majority view, and yes I do think that says something. As I stated a long time ago earlier in the thread, I think the average Aussie has no qualms about the Apology, and those that rant " racist, ignorant etc" seem to miss that. I think it is more the underlying perception that for many it is an open door to compensation. Will there be a repeat in 20-30yrs over the current NT intervention? It is interesting that those that hold the opposing view and label, perhaps people like myself as unsympathetic, racist etc, do not try themselves to see why the majority have a conflicting view.

We are the lucky country, every body has opportunity on their doorstep. Speak to a person from a war torn, third world country and compare. Speak to somebody from South Africa and about the current atrocities that happen over there. There are children in Thailand, called Miracle Children because there mothers took a pill to terminate the pregnancy at 6-7mths, and they now live in an orphanage. I personally donate $$$ oversea's to children who live in some of these ghastly conditions. They do not have the choices that children of all colour have over here.

I think proof will be in the pudding, the Apology has been done and if that helps people move on, I think that is wonderful. If a flood of lawsuits and compensation claims come out of the woodwork, well then it will show for what it really was....ie waiting for the apology to hopefully open that door. There have been examples of good outcomes and poor outcomes from any child that was removed from a home, personally if a child was abused or suffered, that should be bloody more important than skin colour,

Regards

Stevo

I've only spent a very small amount of time in remote communities, and I'm positive there are many on the forum who know more about life in remote communities than I do, but from my experience and observation, an Aboriginal person a remote community is living in third world conditions.

As quoted in my above post, some people think that those conditions are the equivalent of any of the circumstances you mention.

I've been looking for days for a file that I found by accident a few years ago. I think it is called 'The washing machine report'. It is a survey of washing machine usage and expected usable life cycle in Aboriginal housing in remote communities. Although being only about the humble washing machine it describes some of the extremities of remote community life. It describes situations like the population explosion during the NT wet season, when remote communities fill up with all of the people usually living out in the bush. During this time it is not uncommon to find forty or fifty people sharing one house, and I don't think you could describe them as mansions.



Cheers
Simon

G'day Folks

I have read and followed this thread for 17 pages now, and watched as debate, sometimes getting a little heated flowed, but as I see it, the "Apology" was made by the Govt. on behalf of the Govt. for the "Wrongs of Past Goverenments" and supported by the Opposition Party, in this context, it was long overdue. There is one underlying thread to the actions of past Govt's and the post war removal of children,both indigenious and non-indigenious, from poor/single mothers,camps and missions, and the covert acceptance of excesses by the Churches and private organisations, and that is the Prime Minister of the Day,1949--1966. Robert Gordon Menzies, later Knighted and honoured as Lord Warden of the Chique Ports and the idle and mentor of our last prime Minister, who would have never made an Apology as it would have shown his idle in a bad light.

To my mind I think the apology was the right thing to do, hopefully it will help many to be able to move on and hold their heads high, as, in the early and mid 20th century the social attudes and actions of both the Australian and British Governments was bordering on the gross infringment of basic human rights, and particularly post 1943 and the formation of the United Nations. the Govts. their Servants, and the Churches Heirachy are all equally culpable.

N.B. This is my personal opinion and is in no way that of any party,club, or organisation, either real or implied.


cheers

I haven't heard or read Rudd's speech - nor do I ever expect to.

I couldn't care less.

Originally Posted by muddydigger

So should the $2.5 million dollars already paid to some of the chritian brothers be returend to the tax payer as it was law and government policy? or is it they were compensated because they were violated, beeten etc like a good number of aboriginals that were taken?

I could live with that as it is only $10,000 per person, but the stolen generation are talking significantly more than that and could run into tens of billions or more at $100,000 per person allegedlly affected if all 50,000 recieve compensation. And whatever is paid there needs to be a clause that it is used to better their lives, not just wasted.
The question now is wether people would be happy with $10k I think not.
$500k to $5million dollar individual claims have already been mooted. If it is going to be paid then it needs to be kept comparable to what some of the victims of Christian Brothers abuse recieved ($10,000 average) (which is probablly more deserved as it involved significant physical and sexual abuse) (anyone else deserves similar for similar abuse).
As I first said this is all about $ not the apology. The apology will be used as a catalyst for compensation regardless wether it was said under parliamentary privelage or not.
The claims being heard have the potential to cripple our economy and infrastructure, so I do ask all that support exorbitant payouts that the consider that maybe next time they call for an ambulance or medical assistance and can not get it because of money diverted in compo that they remember their stance.
Cheers
CraigE

Originally Posted by CraigE

I could live with that as it is only $10,000 per person,

MUDDYDIGGER ,So monetary value has more precedence over human suffering? The government was responsible and so should pay for its mistakes.

but the stolen generation are talking significantly more than that and could run into tens of billions or more at $100,000 per person allegedlly affected if all 50,000 recieve compensation. And whatever is paid there needs to be a clause that it is used to better their lives, not just wasted.

MUDDYDIGGER ,Was the money awarded to other victims such as the Christian brothers awarded with a clause that says you can only use it better your lives? I think not, nore should it be, you cant dictate how the money is spent, its belongs to that individual because of the pain and suffering that they have suffered. You didnt suffer it nor did the governement and so have absalutly no say how any victim of crime spends compensation money.

The question now is wether people would be happy with $10k I think not.
$500k to $5million dollar individual claims have already been mooted. If it is going to be paid then it needs to be kept comparable to what some of the victims of Christian Brothers abuse recieved ($10,000 average) (which is probablly more deserved as it involved significant physical and sexual abuse)

MUDDYDIGGER, All compensation claims and any payout should be on a case by case bases, not a one glove fits all. Some cases are worse than others.
To give you an idea, some states are already paying out compensation to stolen generations. I think the maximum amount that can be awareded is $75000,00. That is for the worse case senario. Not an exorbatent amount I dont think for some who has suffered in such a way be they black white or brindle.
many of the stolen generation were subject to sexual abuse and or physical violence, how can you say one is more deserving than the other? They are both deserving of it.

(anyone else deserves similar for similar abuse).
As I first said this is all about $ not the apology. The apology will be used as a catalyst for compensation regardless wether it was said under parliamentary privelage or not.
The claims being heard have the potential to cripple our economy and infrastructure, so I do ask all that support exorbitant payouts that the consider that maybe next time they call for an ambulance or medical assistance and can not get it because of money diverted in compo that they remember their stance.

MUDDYDIGGER, they have asked for 1 Billion dollars and know full well they probably wont get it. Its typical lawyers talk, go for the biggest sum and work down. But 1 billion dollars awarded over 100,000 victims work it out. Thats right 100,000 victims over 90 years, not 50,000. Remember for each child taken potentially ther are three victims, the child the mother and the father!
The Australian Government has paid $458.8 Million in aid to Indonesia! after the Tsunami! Whilst I agree that humanitarian aid was required and I dont begrudge one cent of it, our Indiginous comunity is living in condtions worse than a third world country. I ask you who is more deserving of our tax payers money, Indonesians whom live in another country,and have never payed taxes to our government nor are likely too, and have nothing to do with Australian government, or have any cultral or Heritage signifcance to this country, or People who have sufered abuse, physical violence, sexual abuse, stolen from their famialies all at the hands of the Austrlian Government?? Remember these are Australian born, Australian raised individuals.

Cheers
CraigE

Once any compensation is awarded you cannot dictate how its is spent. It belongs to the victim as compensation for their pain and suffering.