STOLEN GENERATIONS REPARATIONS TRIBUNAL BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 July 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:27): The bill before us would establish a stolen generations reparations tribunal, which would essentially administer a statutory redress scheme delivering ex gratia payments for victims of the stolen generations. It was proposed to address a range of injustices against Aboriginal South Australians related to their removal from their parents under previous state governments.

As members would be aware, the highest profile legal case in South Australia of this type was that pursued by Mr Bruce Trevorrow. After seeking initial legal advice in 1994, Mr Trevorrow took his matter to court in 1997. It took 10 years for the case to be finalised, and in 2007 the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court ruled that the government had been negligent in its treatment of Mr Trevorrow, who had been taken from his parents as a child in 1958.

The Supreme Court awarded Mr Trevorrow $525,000 in compensation, plus interest, which totalled $775,000. Sadly, Mr Trevorrow passed away a year later in June 2008. The state government subsequently appealed the decision, I understand, to set a precedent on these matters. On 22 March 2010, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the Rann government's appeal.

The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement has also issued proceedings for a further six claimants with similar cases to that of Mr Trevorrow. The Executive Director of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, Mr Neil Gillespie, advises that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement has been contacted by 156 people seeking a similar remedy. They have also identified up to 250 people who were taken away between 1950 and 1962 under the regime described in the Trevorrow case.

Appropriately, questions are being asked about the best means to pursue justice for these people. After all, we all know that justice needs to be delivered in a timely way to be real justice. Legal advocacy bodies such as the ALRM and the Law Society of South Australia support the introduction of a mechanism to facilitate the payment of appropriate compensation to Indigenous people who were removed from their families in accordance with a previous government policy as a means for dealing with their claims.

On a similar issue, the Liberal opposition has previously given in principle support for a statutory redress scheme for victims of abuse in state care as a means of both minimising the stress that victims need to go through to obtain their entitlement and to minimise the legal costs of all parties. However, we did not feel able to endorse the two models put forward in private members' bills in 2009 on the grounds that, at this time, only the government has the necessary information to effectively assess the models.

We find ourselves in a similar situation in relation to this bill. Similarly, in the case of stolen generations reparation, we are open to a statutory redress scheme but feel we need more information. We seek to bring that information into the public arena through an inquiry looking into the effectiveness and options for a redress scheme for stolen generations in South Australia. We have also received a range of feedback from stakeholders suggesting that further changes should be made to the bill before us to ensure that the state uses the most appropriate means to address any injustices suffered by stolen generations.

The opposition is committed to timely justice for South Australians who have been wronged. We acknowledge that life expectancy is lower for Aboriginal South Australians and therefore recognise the urgency of dealing with the issues raised by this bill. The opposition proposes that the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee would be an appropriate body to explore this issue further and expeditiously.

Section 6(d) of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act states that one of the functions of the committee is 'to inquire into matters concerning the health, housing, education, economic development, employment or training of Aboriginal people, or any other matter concerning the welfare of Aboriginal people'. Section 6(f) also allows for the committee to perform any other functions imposed on the committee under this or any other act or by resolution of both houses of parliament.

The committee would be directed to explore the pros and cons of the scheme proposed in the bill and should include the costs of such a scheme in its considerations. We hope that the mover, other members of this council and the government will see the wisdom of this approach as a step in pursuing justice for Aboriginal South Australians who were involved in the stolen generations. I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave all words after 'That' and insert:

the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for inquiry and report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.