Melissa The apology was just for show as for nearly 11years the state & federal levels have been notified of a stolen child who was removed from his father. Magistrate Dr Brown couldn't remember from one hour to another or one day to another DoCS members & my inlaws have lied thier guts out. When I watched the apology I just cried my eyes out for the hurt of my son & remembering the hurt of myself. Anyone who has anything to say about my comment I can produce an AVO application by a Karen Hatch the 10/6/97 where she applies for the reason she has custody of my son he was placed in the temporary custody of Danny Trindall I can show a document where I was charged with no adequate provision 15/7/97 under criminal law which was dismissed yet 16/7/97 the magistrate says there's no accusation of this.I thank you all God Bless May your Lord Shine on you all. Dave

You know, for a while I was opposed to compensation. I saw it, as I suspect many peope see it, as just another excuse for some people to grab as much cash as they can. I couldn't see why there should be compensation when there are already many government programs dedicated solely towards improving Aboriginal life - generous welfare concessions, study concessions etc etc. Anyway, that's how I viewd it. So I derided any calls for compensation for the Stolen Generation as just a money grab.

But then I thought to myself- hang on, if I was taken from my parents 30 ,40 years ago - would I want compensation? Hell yeah I thought. Of course I would! Let's face it, money doesn't make things better but it's often the only way to be repaid the debt from a 'wrong'. Think of people who sue airlines for let an aeroplane crash out of mechanic negligence, or car drivers who sue the other dirver for crashing into them. It's a fact of life that suing (and compensation) is a widely used means to righting a wrong.

Everybody who says compensation is wrong - just ask yourself - what if my child was taken from me? What if I was taken from my parents at age 5 and sent to live with strangers? Would I go away quietly? Would I just forget about it?

No we wouldn't, we would be on the phone to our lawyer in a split-second, first to take the govt to court to return our child and then to sue their pants off.

If it's ok for me and for you, why is it not ok for Aboriginals?

And if you are one of those who think the Stolen Generation issue is a bet-up and load of crock, well you're not really who I'm trying to talk to. You probably still believe those damn refugess were really throwing their kids overboard :-)

Countryboy
Dave here I was removed from my mother in 1960 after my parents separated & moved to town. My grandmother on my mothers side was buried as an elder of the Kamillaroi in 1960 & that's when they took me.I grew with Koori kids calling me cuzz & bro & older ones saying they were my aunt or uncle & me trying to work this out in my mind as I was rared as white with a step family & my father & his de-facto I went through all the garbage of life then when I marry[1990] & my son is born [1993] I tried to shelter him from this hurt of mine but no in 1997 they take my son & lock him away from me because my wife is diagnosed with trauma from childhood & DoCS in NSW gives my son to the same parents to do the same again My son loved his father & I loved him & still do but the mockery of the politicians etc just continue the abuse & his gutless grandfather & others stand over my son because they haven't the guts to do it to his father
I appreciate your time but if this was done while I was in gaol in my early adult years & these people were in there they would be dead CHILD ABUSE MUST STOP God Bless all Dave

I am actually staggard that this hasnt been mentioned yet, but forecable child removal is still a policy the child protection agency uses frequently. Given, mandatory child removal for a particular race is both racist and un-needed, such is the case of the stolen generation, but today if children are put in harms way there is still the need to remove them from the family home and child services acts to move them out of harms way. Infact if child services dosnt act and gives the parents the benefit of the doubt, it brings about criticism from the liberal loudies.Now aboriginal children were removed from their homes due to the fact that their parents were deemed at the time to not be fit to parent, and no argument the children shouldnt have been taken just because they were aboriginal, but their is ample evidence that many of the children were living in homes were alcohol and sexual abuse was still wide spread. No matter what the cause, under todays policys child abuse warrants forcible removal of children. So under todays policys if aboriginal people in the 60's were abusing children, then the government wasnt wrong.

Do we owe the aboriginal people an apology, of course, do we owe the aborigial people compensation, maybe....but the aboriginal people, the natural owners of the lands also have to take responsibility for their actions, if they dont start making decisions for themselves, decisions that they can be held accountable for, than the problem dosnt end. Was the sorry a empty gesture, only if the aboriginal people dont take the torch and run with it. It comes down to them to make the decisions that will affect their futures. We are sorry and we will probably provide the funding to get your people to start making life changing decisions, but after that, you have only yourselves to blame, and if your children get taken away from you again, it wont be a blanket policy, but a forced intiative born out of your own decisions to make an unstable home for your children

madeinaustralia, you have a point but it is important to distinguish between forced child removal on the basis of race and removal of a child (of any race) who is under threat or abuse.

Sure there would have been some Aboriginal children who would have been removed from their parents even if they were white, but we are dealing with those that were removed on the basis of their skin colour alone.

Removal of children in abusive situations is a neccesity and the correct action in a just society as ours. Removal from your parents on the basis of your skin colour is hardly just.

Two points here.

Point 1.
Where have all the bleeding hearts come from all of a sudden?

Point 2.
Countryboy, are you nieve enough to suggest that these families only started to abuse their children and place them in danger after the SG incidents occurred. I should certainly hope not!

You've got your appology from Mr Rud so lets all move on.

And to all of you who think compensation is owed, no worries how about we deduct all the welfare money that has pissed up against the wall by their own families, all the houses they have ruined and the cars they have wrecked, or is there another excuse behind this scandaless behaviour.

Of course there should be compensation for the harms done by governement policies contributing to the Stolen Generation(s). But just as the policies were directed toward a group of people so too the compensations need to be directed collectively to those who are disadvantaged. To me that is not giving lumps of money to individuals but it should be a big effort in health and education and work opportunity for the whole of indigenous people. If those affected by the stolen generation are convinced that Australia is making a massive effort to correct the systemic disadvantages I imagine that most will be satisfied. Those individuals who have been wrongly treated, and who are not satisfied with efforts and progress to remediate the lot of their people should be encouraged to use the legal mechanisms that exist. If the individual cases are too difficult to prove it reinforces the idea of programatic compensation by way of health and education. If we had infallible data files on all individuals and could add and subtract advantages incurred and wrongs suffered, then individual compensations would be possible. But I doubt that kind of accuracy and fairness is possible.

Can we please differentiate:

* children who would have been put into care regardless of their race or ethnicity, due to neglect, destitution, abuse, etc.;

* children who were taken without good reason from parents able to support them, in order to SEGREGATE them not only from whites but from paler half-caste kids, and usually taken to remote rural institutions such as Cootamundra (girls) or Kinchela (boys), i.e. also segregated by gender;

* paler Aboriginal children taken for no legitimate reason so that the ycould be raised to merge in with the white population.

I suspect that the ratios would be about 40: 40: 20. Actual figures would help.

Apart from those taken into care, Aboriginal people did not exactly have a picnic out there on the missions and reserves and remote settlements. Their education was dumbed down, their employment opportunities were limited to rural and unskilled employment, their chances of a fair go and of reaching their potential were nil. So why shouldn't they - all Aboriginal people - demand compensation ?

On top of that, certainly here in the south, they lost their land, and are not likely to get much of it back. So how about two sources of compensation:

* a flat figure for every Aboriginal person born before the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 - say $ 50,000 for pain, suffering, humiliation and destruction of opportunities ?

* and an annual amount for the rent of Aboriginal land, for each of those Aboriginal individuals who will never get their land back, say $ 5000 per year ? Perhaps apportioned accordingto what proportion of land has been taken, but the details can be worked out later.

How about it, Australia ? Or were crocodile tears into one's hanky, or hugging the nearest Blackfella, enough ? Said who ?

What a refreshing change!

Thank 'God' for the understanding and compassion from most of you here.

its not about 'stolen generation' but 'stolen children'...and people like melinda would do well to first assess the difference and legal implications before wading into the subject and writting books...

First includes an adult whom responsible for their own actions and must be accountable for the effects on themselves and on others...

Second is child, whom by definition is dependent, vulnerable and need of meaningful care...

So talking of compensation...thats up to the courts...each adult person who thinks 'damages' is due can argue their case...and which/should appy to each and every citizen of each country...

The parliament apology was a 'balanced human act'...and I suppose that a proportion of the community will see it as an opportunity to make some easy money...most see it for what it is...children were traumatized...particularly emotionally and which in this day and age when so much more is known to 'science of emotion'...should never be allowed...with consequences directly connected/enforced with any responsible adult causing harm to child now...for a healthier adaptable society...

To child protection and force removal of child...getting statistics from this draconian body is difficult...but there is a good case to make out that in majority of interventions they force removed the father primarily for the mothers benefit still leaving an emotional and traumatized child without relief...

And if any person can find a way to obtain the real common statistics of this government department...Ill describe how to 'make money' by compensations from both government and mother...

Sam
Ps~specialized bodies dealing with emotionally traumatixed children by repeatable scientific methods, eg anna freud centre in hamstead england, do not exist in australia...when such a need for such exists and be of great benefit to quantifying the nature, extent and effect of emotional harm to child and which greatly assists courts and public in general...need to ask the 'crown' as administrator of government why not...

Dave here To answer the situation with my son he was firstly removed because of allegations that I bashed & starved him but this was not believed at the start[as stated in court] so instead of investigating who placed these vicious allegations up[my in-laws] they instead interview my son in the presence of these people & state he is emotionally abused that interview took place after my in-laws took him from my yard while he was having access with his parents then taken to a psychological assessment without the leave of the court without his parents & with my in-laws. It is placed before the court that he is not to be in the middle of a fight between the adults[mother apparently wanted a divorce] so they give him to my in-laws that hate my guts[admitted in court] & my son is locked away from his father but nothing is done about this.I married only one cow out of the herd not the whole herd.
Like I say may your Lord shine on you all well but CHILD ABUSE MUST STOP
God Bless from Dave

When America and Australia compensate the Vietnamese for flogging the living daylights out of them to the tune of 3 million dead and many lives ruined, including the indiscriminate use of Agent Orange in their chemical warfare campaign, then I will maybe consider the arguments for compensating aborigines for providing them with free schooling, if they want to go to school, free university, Abstudy, lower entrance requirements to medical school than demanded of us whities, free health care, antibiotics, free housing so they can smash it up, free repairs to houses when they are smashed up, etc etc etc. Time to stop whingeing. SORRY to be so politically incorrect.

I suppose it'd be "PC" of me to point out to Henry that the Vietnam War is completely unrelated to the Stolen Generations, and further that the rest of his anti-Aboriginal tirade exemplifies why it is we needed the initial Apology - and why it was only the beginning.

I can only hope my youngest child, when he's my age, won't have to read [or meet people] like those expressing horrible views here.

And I can only hope that the children of these same people grow up and forgive them for being what they are.

Rainier
Dave here I tried to forgive in 1984 & straighten my life up but people still hounded me. I tried to forgive in 1995 but in 1997 they remove my son & put him through hell all because people & in-laws hate my guts & the authorities have continued to allow this to go on I can forgive for what they did to me not knowing what it was like to grow without my mother there when I needed her but they have now denied me the right to be a father & rare my own son who is rared by people who hate my guts I thank you all for you time
May your lord shine on you all well
Dave

Funny how one-eyed folk can be isn't it? Both the Vietnamese and the Australian Aborigines are human beings with very similar aspirations. We whities invaded Australia and are told by some that we have to say sorry and pay compensation, but no person who demands that we say sorry to the Aborigines has EVER considered saying sorry or paying compensation to the Vietnamese for smashing their country, killing 3 million, and dumping thousands of gallons of Agent Orange on the country leading to god-knows how many children being born with horrible deformities,even now. And on top of that, Vietnam had a world trade embargo imposed between 1975 and 1991, which deprived the place of food, medical supplies and investment. Compare that treatment with the GOOD that has been done for the Aborigines in the interval from the end of the Vietnam war, from 1975 till now.

I think those who dislike my view are, quite simply, hypocrites. We are ALL human beings and I happen to think globally, and not locally for just one group, when it comes the the basic principles of trying to do the right thing and rectify past wrongs.

HenryVII

Have you been to Vietnam? No Vietnamese I met in Vietnam were bothered about an apology or compensation. All they wanted was a chance to improve their lives through fair and free trade, something they are doing extremely well at the moment.

I think it is unfair and implausible to link a apology and compensation to the Stolen Generation to historical wars. Just how far back do you want to go? Should Australia compensate Turkey for invading at Gallipoli? Germany for the Somme? North Korea for the Korean War?

Who makes the call on what was a right or wrong war? If Southern Vietnam had won the war would you still demand compensation?

CountryBoy-Yes, how far do we go back? 1788?-if so, the Irishman in me wants compensation for the trauma and dispossesion suffered by my ancestors at the hands of the English, in particular the potato famines of the 1840s. And the Scotsman in me wants compensation for lands stolen during the clearances of 1822 and the dispossession of my people, among other injustices. Then again I want compensation from Germany for causing my father's problems during and after WW2. This affected me, as did the German bombing of my mother during the blitz. My wife could do with a bit of compensation for someone dropping a bomb on her family home in Vietnam and for imposing deliberately an international trade embargo that kept her and her family on rations less than any welfare supplied to the aboriginal community (e.g. 4 metres of cloth for clothes, per person, per year for goverment employees and 3 metres if you were not a government employee). And yes, I know Vietnam very well.

VN indeed asked for and was promised reparations by the USA druing the Paris peace talks, and never got them. Instead they got invaded by China and then had to fight a war with the US-China-Thai-UK supported criminals run by Pol Pot between 1978 and 1987 or so. This also was a major drain on the Vietnamese economy and causaed social trauma.

It would appear that since 1967 a great deal of money has been spent by the taxpayer on trying to do the right thing by the aboriginal community in Australia, that benefits are available to the aboriginal community (and I gather that goes down to 1/64th aboriginal) that are not available to we whities, quite a few of whom are on or below the poverty line and even homeless, and that all that comes back from the aboriginal community is, "Gimme gimme gimme". This is not anti-aboriginal, but it is a hard question that encompasses many issues that need the clear light of day for rational discussion rather than knee-jerk politically corect emotion.