Views from Western Australia

Tasmania is the only State that has offered compensation to members of the "Stolen Generation".  It is generally accepted that the numbers there are fairly small (numbering in the hundreds); this is different to other States, such as WA, where tens of thousands of children were probably affected.

The term "Stolen Generations" is somewhat unhelpful as some children were not removed without the parents consent.  Rob Riley’s story (biography written by Quentin Beresford) is a case in point, although he was the third generation affected by the policies that allowed the State to institutionalize Aboriginal children.  The issue for Riley, and many others, was the ongoing separation from family and community; rather than how the children were removed from family.  Lawyer Tony Buti argues this cogently in his slim volume "Separated"; Buti suggests that once children were within the controls of the State and institutions, the contact with family and community was minimized to the level that some children were informed their parents had died.

The issue of the children’s removal has been raised in some legal challenges and most of these have been unsuccessful, due to statutes of limitation and/or the fact that States had laws that enabled the removal of children legally.
There has recently been a breakthrough in litigation in the South Australian where a Supreme Court judge has found in favor of a complainant (Trevorrow) and awarded him financial compensation. I am not a lawyer, but having read the decision it appears to me that the case revolved around what happened to him while he was in the care of the State as much as it did involve how he got taken into State "care"; noting that under the legislative scheme in SA it was an unlawful removal.
It may be that this opens the doors for litigation by people in relation to what happened to them when they were children in the care of the State who was their legal guardian and therefore had a duty of care; although it is still early days.
Other than Tasmania, States and the Commonwealth have not initiated any serious discussions about monetary compensation. The numbers of children involved is possibly a major stumbling block.

However, we need some leadership on this matter. It is scandalous that governments maintain ‘institutional deafness’ and continue to hide behind the idea that it was legal at the time. There has been much consternation about the lack of a national apology. We have heard the shrieking of the revisionists and the attempt to dismiss this with the dismissive ‘black armband’ view of history; the response of those people with ‘white blindfolds’.  

The question is, where will the leadership come from? A range of people and organisations have now been campaigning on this for ten years. This might gain some momentum when Governments see it is in their own best interests to take the initiative.  Howard (and Rudd) has taken with the Northern Territory intervention in the name of protecting children; it makes one wonder where that strategy will end up in a generation or two’s time.  Howard’s position on the Stolen Generations is clear and he remains intransigent; he has said a number of times it is a State issue.  Rudd has said he will make an apology; but that was only one of the recommendations from the 1997 ‘Bringing Them Home Report’; compensation was another. 
After the election the new Prime Minister will need to grasp the nettle and make an apology and then instigate a working party involving all States that will commence negotiating a settlement with the Stolen Generations nationally.  The Canadians agreement would be a useful place to start and the current booming budget surplus provides the opportunity.

Maybe, the Trevorrow case will provide that catalyst.