Roughly reading through this mammoth post, it came to my attention that no-one (unless I missed a post?) seems to realise that Aborigines are already being compensated.
Of course, there are the well known Mambo Land Title compensation cases, however, more recently there have been a number of compensation cases where Aborigines have been awarded compensation for being "taken", as well as abuse cases etc. (One such case actually arose in Canada, from an Aboriginal child being sexually & physically abused (beaten etc).
For anyone's interest, below is an exerpt from a case recently heard in Adelaide.
Judgments are extremely long, so for that reason alone, I have not put the whole case in this post. However, if anyone is interested enough to wish to view the case in its entirety, feel free to PM me.
It certainly makes for interesting reading.
TREVORROW v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (No 5)
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
1 August 2007
TORTS - MALICIOUS PROCEDURE AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
EQUITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT - THE CROWN - LIABILITIES OF THE CROWN - IN TORT - FOR ACTS OF SERVANTS OR AGENTS - LIABILITY OF SERVANT OR AGENT - FOR MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS FOUNDED ON SIMPLE CONTRACT AND TORT (INCLUDING BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY)
The plaintiff brought an action against the State of South Australia claiming misfeasance of public office, false imprisonment, breach of duty of care and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties. In 1949 and 1954 the State received legal advice that it did not have the authority to remove Aboriginal children absent certain procedures being followed - In 1957 the plaintiff aged 13 months was taken to hospital – In January 1958 the plaintiff was removed from hospital and placed into the care of a foster family by a statutory board and government department – In 1967 the plaintiff was returned to live with his natural mother – Consideration of whether the removal and fostering of the plaintiff by the board and department was without statutory warrant or legal authority and ultra vires - whether the board and department involved in the plaintiff’s removal, fostering and return were emanations and agents of the State – whether the State is liable for the actions of the departmental officers – whether there was misfeasance in public office – whether the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned – whether the State owed the plaintiff a duty of care and if so whether it was breached – whether the State owed the plaintiff fiduciary duties - consideration of remoteness and foreseeability – consideration of declarations, damages, equitable compensation and exemplary damages.
Held: The removal and placement of the plaintiff was without statutory warrant or legal authority and ultra vires – the statutory board and government department involved in the plaintiff’s removal, placement and return to his natural family were emanations and agents of the State – the State is liable for the actions of the board and departmental officers - the State owed a duty of care to the plaintiff at the time of his removal, fostering and subsequent return to his natural family – the State breached its duty of care to the plaintiff – the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned – the plaintiff was subject to misfeasance in public office – the State had a fiduciary duty to inform the plaintiff of the circumstances of his removal and to ensure he received independent legal advice - declarations made and damages including exemplary damages awarded.
The plaintiff made application for an extension of time pursuant to the Limitation of Actions Act – consideration of principles in extending time – consideration of the defence of laches – Held: Extension granted – State’s defence of laches rejected.
…
The Statutory Scheme
32
The statutory scheme in place at the time of the plaintiff’s removal from his natural family entrusted two bodies with roles to play in ensuring that Aboriginal children in need were properly cared for – the APB and the CWPRB.
33
Pursuant to section 7 of Aborigines Act 1934-1939,the APB had the following duties:
(a) to apportion, distribute, and apply, as seems most fit, the moneys at the disposal of the board:
(b) in its discretion, to apply part of the moneys at its disposal in the purchase of stock and implements to be loaned to aborigines to whom land has been allotted under section 18, and may supply the same accordingly either without payment or on such terms as are approved by the board, and no person shall, except with the approval of the board, acquire any title to any goods or chattels so loaned as aforesaid:
(c) to distribute blankets, clothing, provisions, and other relief or assistance to the aborigines.
(d) to provide, as far as practicable, for the supply of food, medical attendance, medicines, and shelter for the sick, aged, and infirm aborigines.
(e) to provide, when possible, for the custody, maintenance and education of the children of aborigines.
(f) to manage and regulate the use of all reserves for aborigines.
(g) to exercise a general supervision and care over all matters affecting the welfare of the aborigines, and to protect them against injustice, imposition, and fraud.
34
The APB was the legal guardian of Aboriginal children. Section 10 provided:
(1) The board shall be the legal guardian of every aboriginal child, notwithstanding that any such child has a parent or other relative living, until such child attains the age of twenty-one years, except whilst such child is a State child within the meaning of the Maintenance Act, 1926.
and further provided:
(2) Every protector shall, within his district, be the local guardian of every such child within his district.
(3) Such local guardian shall have and exercise the powers and duties prescribed.
35
Section 17(1) of the Aborigines Act 1934-1939 provided that the APB could place an Aboriginal person within a reserve or Aboriginal institution:
The board may cause any aborigine to be kept within the boundaries of any reserve or aboriginal institution, or to be removed to and kept within the boundaries of any reserve or aboriginal institution, or to be removed from one reserve or aboriginal institution to another reserve or aboriginal institution, and to be kept therein.
It should be immediately observed that this subsection had no part to play in the removal or placement of the plaintiff.
36
Under the legislative scheme in place, the CWPRB, pursuant to the Maintenance Act 1926-1937,bore the statutory responsibility for caring for children in need, whether Aboriginal or otherwise.
37
The legislative scheme envisaged that the two boards would work together. Importantly, section 38 of the Aborigines Act 1934-1939 provided that the APB and the CWPRB were authorised to work in concert to effect the removal of an Aboriginal child according to law:
Originally Posted by Panda
Probably thinking about having a little dance ... 
Bookmarks