Peter Farago
GEELONG One Fire Reconciliation Group member Stuart McCallum last week branded the Independent “irresponsible” for reporting that 35 local Aborigines were planning to sue the Government for compensation after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations.
Mr McCallum’s letter to the editor implied the Independent irresponsibly brought to light the fact that many Aborigines believed the Rudd Govern-ment’s apology should have been more than symbolic and involve financial reparations to victims.
Mr McCallum wrote: “Saying sorry and reconciliation are not about money but accepting responsibility for past mistakes and moving on.
“Having the courage to say sorry will help the self-esteem of the next generation enormously,” he went on.
“We stuffed up and we want to put things right.”
That’s fair enough. But there are people who think otherwise.
Should their voices, or indeed intentions, be suppressed?
In fact, another Geelong One Fire Reconciliation Group member, John Butler, wrote on the same page that compensation was “overdue” to Aborigines who suffered “considerable trauma” at the hands of welfare agencies and government policies.
Also last week, Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative chairperson Lyn McInnes told the Independent the organisation had “no doubt” a compensation fund would follow the apology to indigenous Australians.
Ms McInnes said the 35 Aborigines who the Independent revealed were planning to seek compensation through the courts might now not have to follow that course of action if the Rudd Government created a fund.
She said the apology, which Mr Rudd offered “in the true spirit of reconciliation”, was a “step forward”.
But the fact the local Aboriginal co-operative believed the Government would offer compensation is a serious issue to all taxpayers whether they support the apology or not.
In fact, two days after the apology, metropolitan media outlets ran reports of other Aborigines planning to seek compensation through the courts.
The Independent’s February 13 report revealing the Aborigines’ plans to sue was not published in a malicious manner but to inform readers of the potential consequences of the Government’s apology, which the parliament roundly supported.
Mr Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations was issued on behalf of the Parliament of Australia, which represents all Australians.
The apology was a major policy that Labor took to last year’s federal election.
If a court found that a compensation claim was legitimate, it would be public money paid to the claimant.
It would be irresponsible to hide the fact that after an official apology was offered, Aborigines would still seek cash reparations from taxpayers for past Government practices.
Mr McCallum said once the apology was offered, people should move on.
Does that mean Aborigines who are part of the stolen generations, too?