Motion : The Commonwealth Government should offer financial compensation to members of the Stolen Generations

1. Motion: The Commonwealth Government should offer financial compensation to members of the Stolen Generations Click to watch videos! The Debate is about compensation. Not about apology!

2. Motion: “The Commonwealth government should offer financial compensation to members of the Stolen Generations.” • Against • Not this Generation’s Fault • The Removal was Legal, not Crime • Good Intention • Unclear Circumstances • Difficult to Prove in Court • Better to Close the Gap • No Money Can Compensate • Alienating Well-intentioned Non-indigenous Australians • Would Lead to Compensating ALL Other Unjustly Damaged Groups • For • Trans-generation Responsibility • Compensation makes Apology Sincere • Analogy to Other Victims of Crime • Existing Compensation Model • Compensation for Direct Victims • Compensation is a Separate Issue • Not Very Costly • Commonwealth in charge of N.T. • It was a Policy of Genocide. counters

3. Yes : The Commonwealth Government should offer financial compensation • Direct Victims should be Directly Compensated - It is important for people who suffered from the policy to be directly compensated • Good Intention is No Immunity from Responsibility - The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions - Good intentions don’t exculpate in the law • Important Gesture and Sincerity - Words without deeds are empty - Symbolic recognition of pain • Trans-generation and Collective Responsibility - Compare with the Native American case - Compare with the U.S. Slavery Case • Analogy to Other Victim Groups -Compensation for Victims of Crime - Compensation for Victims of Miscarriage of Justice • Compensation is Part of Reparation Package - Duty to implement to Recommendations of the “Bring Them Home” Report - Australian Human Rights Commission • Existing Model of Compensation - Tasmanian Model - more details • The Government has a Separate Responsibility to Close the Gap Anyway • The Commonwealth Government is responsible for NT and ACT - Federal Government was in charge of NT • Compensation Scheme is Not Too Costly - The Stolen Generations Compensation Bill 2008 - Not many direct victims are still alive

4. No : The Commonwealth Government should NOT offer financial compensation • Not this Generation’s Fault - Howard's speech to the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University - Compare with the Native American case - Compare with the U.S. Slavery Case • Not Illegal at the Time - Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves - Many cases of removal of aboriginal children were not criminal, and so the analogy to victims of crime fails. • Better to Close the Gap Argument - Jenny Macklin on closing the gap • Varied Circumstances. Therefore, compensation claims must be examined case-by-case. - Many are given up voluntarily - Some Found Happiness - Some have good intentions - Howard's speech to the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University • Difficult to Prove in Court. Therefore, better to spend the money on closing the gap - Only one successful case in one decade - Trevorrow vs. State of South Australia - Andrew Bolt on the Trevorrow Case • No Money Can Compensate - Brenden Nelson's Apology Speech • What About Other Victim Groups? - To be consistent and not divisive, IF the government compensates members of the Stolen Generations, THEN it should compensate all other victim groups who have suffered unjustly under past government policies (e.g., women, communists, homosexuals, victims of death penalties)! But that is too expensive and impractical. So, the government should not compensate any groups who have suffered under past government policies. • Any Federal Compensation Scheme would be too Expensive and so Alienate well-intentioned Australians

5. The commonwealth government should offer financial compensation to members of the Stolen Generation 1 Definitions Commonwealth = unlawful removal? Stolen = improper removal? Members including their descendants? 2 Substance Given that some states - e.g. Tasmania - have already set up funds for reparation, are we arguing about just the Northern Territory (over which the Commonwealth government has direct jurisdiction)? Or are we talking about a general scheme over and above any provision made by the states?

6. In a complex situation, where there is ambiguity and confusion some arguments seem more interesting to reflect on than others FOR THE DIRECT VICTIM ARGUMENT 1 2 THE ANALOGY TO OTHER VICTIMS OF CRIME ARGUMENT AGAINST 1 DIFFICULTY OF PROOF IN LAW 2 VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES Let’s start with this one

7. Compensation to Victims of crime VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE ACT 1996 ( Details of the Act ) 1. Purpose and objectives of Act (1) The purpose of this Act is to provide assistance to victims of crime. (2) The objectives of this Act are: (a) to assist victims of crime to recover from the crime by paying them financial assistance for expenses incurred, or reasonably likely to be incurred, by them as a directresult of the crime; and (b) to pay certain victims of crime financial assistance (including special financial assistance) as a symbolic expression by the State of the community's sympathy and condolence for, and recognition of, significant adverse effects experienced or suffered by them as victims of crime; and (c) to allow victims of crime to have recourse to financial assistance under this Act where compensation for the injury cannot be obtained from the offender or other sources.

8. Payments are symbolic, limited to acts of violence (3) Awards of financial assistance (including special financial assistance) to victims of crime are not intended to reflect the level of compensation to which victims of crime may be entitled at common law or otherwise. (4) The scheme provided by this Act is intended to complement other services provided by government to victims of crime. "act of violence" means a criminal act or a series of related criminal acts, whether committed by one or more persons, that has - (a) occurred in Victoria; and (b) directly resulted in injury or death to one or morepersons, irrespective of where the injury or death occurs Is there any useful analogy here that can be applied to the victims of the stolen generation?

9. Key points to dwell on “symbolic expression by the State of the community's sympathy and condolence for, and recognition of, significant adverse effects experienced or suffered by them” “are not intended to reflect the level of compensation to which victims of crime may be entitled at common law” But then this is not really a COMPENSATION scheme Contrast COMPENSATION with REPARATION...... .... financial compensation is only a small part of a proper reparation scheme Reparation: Compensation Rehabilitation Apology Restitution Guarantee of future rights • United Nations general principles and guidelines on reparations http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/remedy.htm

10. Back to the arguments Those arguing FOR the motion have a strong case in terms of depicting financial compensation as part of a larger process of making reparation What about the AGAINST? Not this generation’s fault Actions were not illegal, and so not crimes, and so the analogy to victims of crimes breaks down! Even if evidence shows that in some cases officials went beyond the law in taking and detaining children for no legally good reason … The existing court system already deals with cases of illegal removal of aboriginal children and award compensations - see the Trevorrow case in South Australia. ...... So no Federal compensation scheme is required.

11. The other arguments against Good intentions Difficulty of proof/unclear circumstances This one has some merit: especially in old cases lack of written evidence and reliable witnesses A risk of injustice, where similar cases are in fact treated in different ways .... so compensation can produce unfairness and division rather than bring satisfaction and resolution