While some prominent pundits continue to fume over the apology to the Stolen Generations, and corners of the blogosphere seem less than willing to head The Australian’s call for a “New Civility”, it would seem that public opinion on the issue has indeed coalesced:
More than two-thirds of Australians support the apology, says a poll taken at the weekend. In total, 68 per cent voiced their approval, up sharply from the 55 per cent who backed the apology two weeks ago.
The Galaxy Research poll, commissioned by the GetUp political action organisation, also showed that the number who disagreed fell just as sharply – down from 36 per cent to 22 per cent.
Rod Cameron made the point on Lateline the other night that there had been a real shift in public opinion on Indigenous issues, and Kevin Rudd has taken it and run with it, in spectacular style. The evidence of this shift gathering further momentum is in, and it demonstrates that political leadership – in this case from the PM – is a powerful instrument in forming public perceptions. But what of compensation?
I’ve chatted to a couple of friends over the last couple of days both of whom work in the public service. They both told me that a lot of their workmates, who’d been in support of the apology, were grumbling about compensation “demands�. And the sort of comments made were along the lines of “will it ever end?�, “won’t it wreck the economy?� (that $50 billion figure conjured up by Windschuttle is doing its vicious work), “isn’t an apology enough?�, etc. Now from what I’m told these are intelligent people, not without good will, and largely Labor voters. Public sector workplaces, remember.
It’s always useful when discussing public opinion to stop and remember that very few of our fellow citizens follow politics in any where near as much detail as we do.
Now, I’m not sure how much such people actually care absent of a stimulus from the media and events. But it does seem to me Rudd has done the politically realistic thing – and I also think he has quite a talent for persuading and educating. We have to also remember that most views on this matter have been formed over the last ten years. Howard’s views on this have had a long time to permeate public opinion and probably represent “common sense” at the moment. But that doesn’t mean that these views are not open to change, and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that we’re seeing a bit of a pattern from Rudd now – act boldly after patiently preparing the ground. But it’s up to those of us who support compensation to do our bit too.
It seems to me that the first thing proponents of compensation should turn their mind to is the work of public education and persuasion. A key part of that might be pointing to the fact that a compensation scheme, along the lines that Ken Parish at Troppo suggests, is hardly likely to bring the walls crashing down. There’s another well thought out proposal from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, made in a submission to a Senate committee in 2000 [link to pdf].
What I’m wondering, because I think that the most powerful form of campaigning can actually be talking to workmates, family and friends about an issue, is whether anyone knows of a lucid and accessible statement of the case for compensation on the web that could be sent as a link (perhaps FAQ style). Any ideas?
It would be interesting to compare are realistic figure for a total compensation payout against – say – the costs to date of the Iraq War.
Which is more beneficial to the all-important “national interest”?
That’s terrific, that the number disapproving of an apology has dropped so suddenly from 36% to 22%. I suppose there’s a factor you might call “well-it’s-happened-now-shrug”.
Personally, I’m so pleased to see that dramatic drop, that I don’t mind if GetUp claims the credit for it. (I’m satisfied it was mainly to the credit, rather, of the PM and his Minister Jenny Macklin, and all those who were consulted, and those who were honoured guests in Parliament last Wednesday…. but if GetUp helped, good luck to them).
Now, on with the hard work.
I note that Cornelai Rau’s lawyers just accepted a new compo offer too.
Now for Haneef, and Hicks, and a million Iraqi families…
It seems to me that only right and proper that such compensation issues should be primarily a judicial matter rather than a political one. Perhaps Rudd will be happy to one day argue that it’s not up to him whether or not Aboriginals are paid compensation?
gandhi,
Do you mean thousands of people should have to individually go through the courts?
The Canadian government recently came to a settlement with their ’stolen generation’ – they already had 12,000 individual claims , the court system couldn’t cope. Their fund is $3 billion of which, I think, about $2 billion is for individual payments, estimated to be about $28,000 each, more if there was sexual or serious physical abuse.
Would $30,000 be sufficient compensation? Compare it to Cornelia Rau who most likely got a couple of million. I know its difficult to do comparisons between the two situations but is the level of suffering that occurred that much different?
Chris – apples and oranges mate.
Stolen Geneartions occurred because of policies being drawn up and carried out – Rau’s was a case of monumental fuckups in following basic procedures.
I don’t know if that means the payout should be higher for one than the other, but it’s certainly not just about comparing the “level of suffering”.
I can’t see handing out wheelbarrows of cash solving any of the aboriginal problems.
Desipis – compensation is not just about solving tangible problems.
If you believe in the role of government in looking after its citizens, then tangible Aboriginal “problems” must be addressed irrespective of compensation for past injustices – indeed, irrespective of whether such have even occurred.
Totally separate issues, except to the extent that current problems have been caused or exascerbated by past injustices. That doesn’t mean one policy will address both though.
Most lawsuits will fail for the same reason those in the NT did – that people who made the decisions are dead, and records sketchy, etc. It may be that pressure through the courts will force a decision on a compensation scheme and/or reparations tribunal, and I have a suspicion Rudd may be counting on that.
The latest Newspoll shows 64% of people opposing compensation… which I think bears out the analysis in the post. I don’t think tossing around figures like $2 million is at all helpful in this context. As I’m arguing, making the case that it’s just is absolutely key in educating our fellow citizens. Assuming it is and that it should just happen will get us precisely nowhere.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-19-feb.jpg
On Sorry Day last week – my brother (the one who says: arrgh, they’re all the same, politicians) texted me – waxing lyrical over the speech and booting Nelson; and my mum apparently turned up at the sister’s place with a Sorry Cake for the kids! OK they’re Labor voters – but not of the latte variety.
Mark is right. Leadership works. Compo is achievable.
FDB said:
Hrm – so thats basically an argument that the former was intentional and the latter was due to incompetence. If anything wouldn’t that mean higher payouts? I’m just wondering if an offer of $30,000 would be considered to be a bit of an insult.
Mark said:
I agree – at that level there is certainly going to be a lot of public opposition, at say $5000 most probably wouldn’t care. But I think it would be useful if some numbers were suggested as to what is appropriate and what would be accepted.
I’d suggest having a look at Ken Parish’s post and the other link at the end of mine, Chris.
Shouldn’t we leave compensation to be arranged on a State-by-State basis? As I understand it, child removal was carried out by State agencies, under State laws; the Commonwealth played no part in it, and couldn’t constitutionally have prevented it even if it had wanted to. (At least prior to the 1967 referendum, which gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws specifically to benefit Aboriginal people).
How about the NT prior to self-government in 78, Paulus?
I think there’d be a good case for a national approach – it seems wrong that some states may and others may not go down the compensation track and inequitable that some might be more generous than others.
Tassie already has such a scheme. Nowhere else does. That’s a problem.
There’d be nothing to stop the states having to pay for compensation occurring within their jurisdictions in a nationally uniform system.
When in doubt, ask a librarian!
My library has a display that includes the following FAQ:
http://www.reconcile.org.au/getsmart/pages/sorry/sorry–faq.php
Another option when dealing with a Compensation Curmudgeon might be to say something like: “Doing what’s right is more important than money, isn’t it?”
And there’s the realistic approach: for some members of the Stolen Generation, there isn’t sufficient proof for them to get compo anyway. Fortunately the last CC I talked to was eligible for reparations from Germany for his slave-labour, and understands the issues.
That link didn’t work! Try this one:
http://www.reconcile.org.au/getsmart/pages/sorry/sorry–faq.php#7
That one doesn’t work either!
Third time lucky:
http://www.reconcile.org.au/getsmart/pages/sorry/sorry–faq.php
Bloody hell! They’re not making it easy!
Mark,
There’s also Redress WA
http://www.redress.wa.gov.au/about.asp
If the numbers that are discussed there are accurate – only around 3000 people which would add up to around 400 million (much lower than I expected) then its hardly worth arguing over. The government is going to have spend an order of magnitude or more than that trying to fix up the problems in the remote communities anyway (if they’re serious about it).
Maybe they could start by giving people a certain amount of time (say a year) to register now for compensation even if there is no promise of compensation yet. If the numbers do turn out to be that low I imagine the public opposition would be quite low. Would the children and families of those stolen have any right to sue as well (given they would have been affected second hand)?
Chris,
The point of Ken’s proposal is to exchange common law rights for a statutory scheme. The legislation would probably include clauses removing common law causes of action in favour of a simplified tribunal process.
Done properly it would be faster, cheaper, more humane and would place less stress on the already overloaded court systems. In my view it can’t happen soon enough.
I should add that I speak as a libertarian — the sort of people who are usually pretty reluctant to abandon common law rights or hand out taxpayer money without bloody good cause. This is such a case.
Although it may appear like comparing apples with oranges, I would take a cue from the ’stolen wages’ issue currently facing NSW and Queensland Governments. I believe Queensland claimants are being offered around $5000 which has been roundly condemned as inadequate. A political course might be adopted such that all bonafide claimants in both outrages were offered $20 000 – take it now or take your chances in the courts.
A big problem with taking the common law route is that only the lawyers end up getting any financial benefit.
There is no doubt that the resolution of this issue requires restitution. The relevant part of Rudd’s speech is the following:
He then goes on to talk about the old approaches not working and the need for a new beginning.
This is Rudd’s form of restitution. There is little doubt that if he’d tried for individual compensation of victims at the outset his attempt to achieve bipartisanship would have failed.
But restitution for an apology to be fully effective must be in a form that is acceptable to victims with the proviso that they take a reasonable rather than opportunistic view.
Mick Dodson, when asked, said that compensation as an issue would not go away.
Ken Parish’s approach with a limit of say $100,000 and the expectation that possibly 3,000 will be compensated provides a pragmatic way forward and has the attraction of saving masses of money. There is little doubt given the examples quoted that successful cases in the courts will yield more than $100,000. In each case the legal costs on both sides are likely to be greater than the compensation won, if any. After a couple more cases surely our pollies and the people will see the need for a more pragmatic approach.
Another point is that legal proceedings in themselves can be quite traumatic for victims, which is not in the spirit of what Rudd intended.
The question is whether this desire for financial compensation is widespread across the Aboriginal community. From those I’ve spoken to since The Apology, I’m not sure it is. Ther’re happy because their elders are happy, and they don’t want compensation is how it was put to me. I’m not sure how much of this opposition to compo is based on negative racial stereotypes of Aborigines being “bludgers”. I suspect a fair deal.