This is an expensive approach – one case has so far cost taxpayers $10 million – and will not resolve the issue.  The stolen generations know that, whether or not they can prove it in court, they were unjustly treated.  They will not give in, because above all their struggle is for recognition.  The more they are humiliated by the skills of the Government QCs, the more determined will be their struggle. 

The size of the reconciliation walks in capital cities suggests that many Australians believe that they are being treated unjustly.  The articles about Australia carried by the international media during the Olympics frequently mention the need to overcome the legacy of misguided past policies towards Indigenous people.

Healing can come.  The fundamental need of the stolen generations is for a restoration of their dignity.  After years of manipulation, whether well-meaning or not, they need to be treated as responsible members of the Australian community.  Could the Government offer them the chance to help work out how the problems they face can be overcome?

The Federal Government could set up a small Mediation Commission of perhaps three widely-respected leaders, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The Government could fund it with $100 million plus the $63 million promised in 1997 (of which only $13 million had been spent by April 2000).  The Government would ask the States and churches to contribute.  The States have all apologised to the stolen generations, and could not refuse to contribute.  A meeting of church leaders has already been held to discuss contributing to such a fund.  A total of, say, $250 million would enable a realistic attempt to overcome the continuing harmful consequences of the separation policies.  (Canada has put $350 million into a Healing Fund to deal with similar issues there).

All who consider themselves to have been forcibly removed from their families would be invited through the media to contact the Human Rights Commission.  A secretariat there would receive the applications.  From these applications, the Commissioners would decide how to best hear from the applicants.  Some would form natural groupings.  All those at Cootamundra Girls’ Home or Kinchella Boys’ Home could meet together and decide what reparation would mean most to them.  They could choose representatives, or could come as a body to meet with the Commission.  Others might come together in regional meetings.  By this means, the Commission might be able to hear the needs and wishes of the applicants within a six-month period.

The Commission would then recommend to the Government, or to the Council for Australian Governments, how the $250 million could best be spent.  If they decide that that sum is inadequate, they could say so. Once agreement has been reached, they would be empowered to monitor the spending.  This is similar to the approach taken by the New Zealand Government, which in 1990 committed itself to answer Maori grievances over wrongful treatment by past authorities.  The Maori people have responded to this approach – since they too wish to resolve the grievances, rather than pass them on to the next generation.  Agreement has been reached on about 60% of the land mass of New Zealand, and the process will continue until it is completed.  

The matter of lump-sum compensation to members of the stolen generations can only be resolved by consultation.  The stolen generations have a right to compensation.  But they know that, to gain compensation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would need extensive proof of unjust removal, and the hurdles confronting anyone who attempts that are immense; whereas there could be general agreement to pay some thousands of dollars to those who could show that they were removed as children from their families.  They are also aware of the need for communal initiatives to advance the healing process. 

We have little doubt that, given the chance to discuss reparations as a whole, agreement could be reached on what portion of the overall sum should go to compensation to individuals, and what portion to communal initiatives.  The Commission would then decide on the mechanism of distributing compensation.  It may choose the form of tribunal which PIAC advocates, for instance.

All would be free to choose whether to take their case to court and seek damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or go to the tribunal and accept a smaller sum.  If they have a strong case – for instance, of sexual abuse – and they are prepared to endure the adversarial procedure, they may choose to go to court.  We believe that those who choose that path will be a small minority.  Most will choose a tribunal, both because of the difficulty of proving their case to a court’s satisfaction, and because vulnerable people will not lightly expose themselves to the trauma of court procedures. 

If, however, the Government offers no alternative, many more will go to the courts.  In Canada the Government did not take the leadership proposed in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.  As a result, 350 people have filed suits against the Government and churches.  This has forced the churches to curtail their work substantially, in order to meet legal and compensation costs, and this is creating resentment in the wider community.  Government leadership is vital to resolving these issues.

There are many areas in which finance is needed for the communal needs of the stolen generations.  Many of Bringing Them Home’s recommendations have so far been ignored.  In many parts of the country, Link-Up (which brings together separated families) is only now being established, and is discovering a need for its services far beyond its ability to meet.  In South West Australia, for instance, there are three people doing link-up work, for an estimated 800 – 2,000 people who would like this help.  And though much progress has been made in accessing records held by Governments and churches, there are still major difficulties.  Some could be solved simply, were funds available - for instance to employ staff to index records. 

Not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of the separation policies.  A new and inclusive initiative on this issue could alter the climate of relations, and move us towards fulfilling the Prime Minister’s election night commitment to reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by the centenary of Federation.

The National Sorry Day Committee , September 2000