Knowing when not to say sorry is more important. If ever there was a case to deny an apology, it is now with the absolute nonsense of the fabricated ‘stolen generation’.

I respect the author’s legal comments; but legalities will not stop demands for money. Last night on ABC radio, another (there must be more of them than elected politicians) self-appointed black ‘leader’ was heard to say that, yes, the apology is wonderful, but now we must be recompensed.

And no; as the author said, the sums of money might not be a big deal. But, what about the symbolism of paying out money and giving in (the Government will give in)?

The whole thing is about symbolism and kudos for black activists.

The flood gates – not perhaps from Treasury – are opened with this apology. The stirring and agitating from activists will now be unstoppable. And, ordinary black Australians will hardly know anything has happened.

Bruce Trevorrow is entitled to his payout, in my opinion, because of the way he was treated after he was removed, and kept in the dark for most of his life.

"Legalities will not stop demands for money." Let's unpack this statement.

As it stands, a national apology will not automatically result in additional compensation liability. Most of the legislation authorising the removal of children until 1970 was state-based (the Commonwealth didn't even have the constitutional power to legislate "with respect to" Indigenous people until 1967); only one claim under state legislation has thus far been successful, and that's only because the state (of SA) did not comply with its own legislation (Trevorrow v SA No.5).

As it stands, a national apology would not increase the chances of successful compensation claims.

What IS likely, however, is renewed calls for the establishment of something like a "compensation tribunal", much like those which have be set up to compensate large numbers of people for other major historical wrongs. (The James Hardie asbestos claims tribunal is one recent example; for tribunals similar to that which would be proposed in Australia to compensate members of the Stolen Generation, see those in South Africa and especially Canada, where the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was established after the 1998 apology, and where a $1.9bn amount was made available as compensation in November 2005.)

Indeed, the moral force behind calls for such a tribunal is overwhelming. If one accepts that these people were wronged, then one must also accept that they are entitled to compensation from the state. To hide behind the argument that such “wrongs” were not considered “wrong” at the time is both historically inaccurate (there was always much contemporary criticism of the policy) and to perpetuate the injustice.

I’m unsure as to what you mean by the term ‘Give in’. Do you imagine that this is some kind of moral battle between the forces of Reason (the government) and those of the Troublesome Black Activists? Might I remind you that activism is a key ingredient in the liberal struggle for freedom, equality and justice? These activists are merely the leaders of a movement which seeks to have historical wrongs against Indigenous people treated in the same way as are wrongs against others.

This is just by way of information ...

Without Aboriginal stockmen, some of the largest and most profitable
properties would not have survived. These men were paid, at best,
half the wages of white workers, plus 'rations.' Their pay went into
savings accounts held by the state-owned Commonwealth Bank. They were
issued passbooks, which were held by the local Aboriginal Protector,
usually a 'reserve' manager, mission superintendent or policeman. They could not withdraw even the smallest amount without the custodian's agreement, and because many were illiterate they were unable to read the amounts deposited and withdrawn.

Rodney Hall, who was the editor of an Aboriginal newsletter in Queensland in the 1960s, estimates that the sums owed to Aborigine's,
after a lifetime's work, could amount to millions of dollars.
'These stockmen quite reasonably expected their savings to be accumulating,' he wrote, 'but the balance seldom amounted to more than a few thousand dollars, sometimes just a few hundred. I alerted
the media, but there was never an answer. Never a single letter or phone call from a mainstream newspaper, radio or television station.
Not one. The issue was not allowed to exist in the national forum.
Somebody's pockets were lined. Are we to believe it was the protectors? Or the holders of the pastoral leases? Once this has been cleared up, we can revisit the subject of the scale of reparations Aboriginal people may legitamately expect.'

The scale of reparations might be calculated against a historical truth which no Australian government has acknowledged.

I disagree that it is about money. It is about laying the guilt of cruelly treating a whole continent of aboriginal people on the present generation of non aboriginals.It is accusing us of evil actions that we had no part in,would never ever have taken part in.
This is a symbolic, feel good ,token of ALP airy fairy thinking that should never have arisen.
It is an insult and an offense and is an untruth.

Leigh, the papers are full of white people suing someone because they had wronged them in the past, so why shouldn't Aboriginal be afforded the same rights or is that you believe only white's should be protected by the law and not Blacks.

Aboriginal people in Canada,the USA and Australia were all removed on the request of their Governments as a policy and only stopped after the second wold war. They apparently learnt from their mistakes and stopped the policy whilst Australia continued its force removal program well into the seventies and remains unrepentant for doing so.

If their is to be an apology I would prefer it went to all of the Indigenous community, because I think that those Indigenous people killed in action not able to vote or own property to save you and your family in two world wars deserve to be acknowledged as well as those of us who paid taxes for services such as hospital, schools and housing programs which none of us could use.

Due to the limitation of words the statement is not complete and a full statement can be located at; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Comment: “Stolen generation” v “stolen children” v “forcefully removed children”


As a constitutionalist I am concerned that you claimed to be a federalist during the election but now somehow seem to be a centralist.
The Federal Parliament is a legislative body not an executive body and therefore can only express sorry what occurred in breach of its own legislation, hence it exclude anything done under state legislative and/or executive powers or federal executive powers.
The term “stolen generation” implies all children state or federal and as such in my view is inappropriate.
The term “stolen children” would apply to all children, regardless of being Aboriginal, white, half cast, etc, who were unlawfully removed, but not those forcefully removed in compliance with applicable federal legislation, such as in the Northern Territory and/or the ACT.
The term “forcefully removed children” applies to all children, Aboriginal, white, half-cast or whatever, who were removed under federal law, even so lawfully, against the parents consent.
If however any apology/sorry is expressed just against Aboriginals then it only can do so within the provisions of Section 51(xxvi) since 1967 for the whole of the Commonwealth Australia, as prior to that it had no legislative powers as to Aboriginals throughout the Commonwealth and this would therefore exclude any harm done to Aboriginals prior to 1967 (when the referendum was held) other then those of the Northern Territory and/or ACT.
Because there appear to be no definition existing as to what is an Aboriginal and genetically there is no DNA structure, as I understand it, to define a race, any apology therefore could not specifically define what is an Aboriginal.
Why should a half-cast or quarter-cast etc be termed to be an Aboriginals rather then Caucasian, Asian, Negro, etc?
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
Constitutionalist and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on constitutional and other legal issues