huffnpuff

Good on you! Well said.

phanto

You're perceptive to notice 'highly emotive language' on this topic, but why should you be surprised?

However, you're wrong to suggest there's no difference between institutionalised abuse and non-institutionalised abuse.

How can you claim that: "The same level of abuse existed in many families and I would suggest that a great deal more than 500,000 people have been affected to the same extent"? Has there been a Senate inquiry to document the level of abuse in non-institutionalised care?

You miss the crucial point when you say: "A government has a duty of care towards all of the country’s children and not just those who are more directly under its control in its institutions." No child in any situation should be abused. None. But children who were made Wards of the State had the State as their lawful guardian, the Government was their mother and father. Their direct duty of care could not have been clearer. They failed woefully and should not be let off the hook because abuse happened to other children too.

This is the argument for redress. Ireland has a national redress scheme - and a generous one - and the nation is not bankrupt. There are also schemes in Canada, England and the USA. No bankruptcy there either.

The Australian States should apologise (and some have); but, more importantly, the States should prosecute those who committed criminal offences. And there I agree with you that prosecution should occur whether the child was institutionalised or not.

When you say, "It is totally impractical to make these demands on governments and it is often a sign that the individual has not moved on with their life," you obviously don't know about the Forde Inquiry in Queensland and the redress scheme there and the one in Tasmania. Perhaps you also don't know about the SA Mullighan Inquiry. These things are not 'impractical'.

As for 'moving on with their life', most have. But that doesn't mean that there is not important unfinished business which need to be attended to.

FrankGol
No I am not surprised that this is an emotive topic but that does not mean that it is an excuse to reject the norms of rational debate which are the basis for solving any problem. If the original authors have a good, logical argument then they will not need to resort to emotional language. There are many other equally emotive topics where people can maintain rational debate.

No there has not been a Senate inquiry into non-institutionalised care but there has not been a Senate enquiry into lots of things. That does not mean it did not exist. I think if you went looking for it you would surely find it just as the enquiries have found extensive institutionalised abuse. I have seen a lot of broken people some as the result of institutionalised abuse but a great number more have come from ‘normal’ families. You judge by the results and where there is smoke there is probably fire.

I think the government has a duty of care to all its children equally. When it comes to its attention that a child is being abused in the home its agencies must act as professionally as if the child is being abused in one of its institutions. In the past it did not act in relation to abuse in institutions or in relation to the home.

What I failed to make clear in my previous post was that it would be impractical to compensate every child that was abused. If you only compensate some then it may be practical but how do you decide who is more worthy of compensation? Is it only the victims of institutionalised abuse?

It would be quite logical in my opinion for children who were abused in the home to seek reparation from the government if it is given to those who were in institutions. If parents were abusing their children then it was up to the government to step in and save them. This should be applied retrospectively to all those who come forward with their stories.

Phanto

When the Senate Committee tabled "Forgotten Australians", several Senators wept openly, as did people in the public gallery. It was a highly charged event because what they were reporting was shameful and painful. Why be afraid of expressing our emotions when we are dealing with scandalous events like child abuse and maltreatment?

Expressing emotion does not have to be at the cost of rational argument, and I think this article managed the balance exceptionally well. As did the Senators in their report. (Judge for yourself: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/report/)

The 39 recommendations in the report are logical and rationally argued.

I agree that the fact that there is no Senate report inquiry into non-institutionalised care does not mean logically that there was no abuse. I was merely trying to get you to substantiate your claim that: "The same level of abuse existed in many families and I would suggest that a great deal more than 500,000 people have been affected to the same extent."

The "Forgotten Australians" documented systemic and widespread abuse in institutions. That we know from 700 witnesses. Let's deal with that.

The fundamental point you've missed is that the State was the mother and father of institutionalised children, and so had a particular legal duty of care to discharge as well as a moral one.

In regular families the legal duty of care lies with the parents. If they abuse their kids, the full force of the law should be invoked. The law is available to deal with cases of child abuse in families and all perpetrators should be dealt with in every case where proper evidence is available.

Institutionalised kids had no-one looking out for them and had no means to protect themselves because the State, their parents, would have had to call itself before the courts. And that simply did not happen. The cover-up continues.

If you want to extend a reparations scheme to all abused children, you need to do more than say me-too. You need to argue the case, not just piggy-back on the case for institutionalised children.

Phanto,the majority of kids in those homes came from abusive families.That's why we were in them to start with.We were made state wards so the government took control and found a place for us to be CARED for.They cared for us alright,they let the staff starve,rape, beat and work us like dogs.Our point is,the govt were legally bound to care for us and they didn't.We effectively had two bites of the cherry as far as abuse went.Their are laws in place for kids and governments to prosecute abusive parents but just try and prosecute the government.If all of us were aboriginal we could take legal action as the statute of limitations has been lifted for them.It has not been lifted for former state wards.We spend billions on overseas aid,free drugs for drug addicts,rehab and pollies lurks and perks and yet the ones that were abused by the govt workers are entitled to nothing.Not every state ward is seeking compensation,some are so embarrassed that even their families don't know they were in care.I do not believe we would all sue the govt,i for one am not,but the ones who can prove the abuse should be entitled to try.Believe me,their is documented evidence(hidden back then)of some of the atrocities committed on those kids.If we can support all the human detritus who don't want to work or blow their brains away with drugs,then we can make fair reparation to those who are still suffering physical or mental anguish caused by the govt.

FrankGol

There is nothing wrong with expressing emotion unless it is an attempt to manipulate others into a course of action. I am responding to the original authors of the article at the head of this thread who are trying to initiate a course of action to get an apology and compensation. Their article is full of emotive claims and very presumptive statements such as “an issue that goes to the heart of our national identity.”

No one needs to be convinced that systematic abuse took place and no one needs to be convinced that abuse is a bad thing and has had devastating effects on people. What taxpayers need to be convinced of is that compensation should be paid.

If it should be paid then the question remains did the government also have a duty of care to protect children in families. For instance, did it have a duty of care to make sure that people were fit to be parents in the same way it had a duty of care to check the credentials of the staff of its institutions? The fact that it was not legally bound to do so does not absolve it of the responsibility to do so. You could make a claim that it failed in its duty of care by not taking legal responsibility for children in families. Not everything is enshrined in law and many judgements are made based on natural justice.

‘Institutionalised kids had no-one looking out for them and had no means to protect themselves because the State, their parents, would have had to call itself before the courts.’ There are many different departments in government and one department will often expose the corrupt behaviour found in another department. It is a simplistic view of government to say it is its own judge and jury.

Just because the case for non-institutionalised children has not been argued does not mean that it does not exist. It has taken many decades for the case for institutionalised children to come to the fore. It may well be the tip of an iceberg.

HI TO ALL THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS AND IM SORRY THAT I DID NOT MENTION THE STATE WARD CHILDREN IN MY LAST POST ,AS THEY TOO ARE THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS AS OF ALL THE OTHER HOMIES I HAVE MENTIONED EARLIER WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT UNDER STANDING THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERMENT IS COVERING UP ALL THIS ABUSE THAT WE SUFFERED AS CHILDREN BY THE PEDOPHILES THAT WORKED FOR THE AUSTRALIAN WELFARE DEPARTMENTS OF WHICH HAD CONTROL OF ALL JUVINILLE INSTITITUTIONS, IN EVERY STATE WE ARE THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS ,,AND WE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN , AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE TO ALL YOU HIPPERCRITTS THAT WANT TO SIT ON YOUR PEDAL STOOLS AND DERGRADE US VICTIMS EVEN MORE ,I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT NONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SUFFERED AS CHILDREN EVER HAPPEN TO YOUR FREINDS OR FAMILY MEMBERS AS THEN YOU WILL KNOW HOW WE FEEL AND WHAT IT IS REALLY LIKE TO LIVE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN NEVER ERASE FROM YOUR MEMERORY , THE EXCUSE THE GOVERMENT AND THE PEDOPHILES ARE USING IS THAT I CAN NOT REMEMBER WELL I REMEMBER AND SHALL NEVER FORGET THE ABUSE I SUFFERED AND THAT OF WHAT I SEEN OTHER CHILDREN SUFFER FROM BY THESE PEDOPHILES THAT WORKED IN THESE INSTITUTIONS , THE GOVERMENT IS WANTING US NOT TO BE HEARD BECAUSE IT IS DAMMING AND DAMAGING FOR THEIR MORE=RALE AND TO ALL YOU SICK MOTHER -UCKERS OUT THEIR THAT COULDN'T CARE AS TO WHAT HAPPEN TOP US VICTIMS WELL YOU HAVE A TO UNDERSTAND IN LIFE, AND YES THEIR ARE FAIMLYS OUT THEIR THAT ARE ALSO UNDER CONTROL OF D.O.C.S. OF WHOME ARE THE SAME ORGANISATION THAT HAD CONTROL OF ALL CHILDREN IN THE STATES CHILDRENS HOMES RIGHT ACRROSS AUSTRALIA THE SURPRISE COULD BE THAT THEIR ARE AND COULD BE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT THEIR THAT ARE ABUSING THEIR OWN FAIMLYS THAT ARE UNDER D.O.C.S SUPERVISION,AS FOR US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS STILL LIVING TODAY WE WILL NOT STOP OUR FIGHT FOR JUSTICE NORE SHOULD ANYONE ELSE ,WE ARE THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS AND WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN KIND REGARDS MICHEAL