Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Australia apology to Aborigines
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Maccaweeny" data-source="post: 176813"><p>"Justice will only be done if they're given money and land"- No, for there to be means for the awarding of damages, there must be a breach of conduct on the part of the federal government. Simply put, there wasn't, the common law cannot be retroactive. The act of separating Aboriginal children from their parents was legal at the time of incidence, pursuant to statutes that were then enacted by the legislature. Compensating parties for actions that were lawfully undertaken by a federal government would be highly unethical. </p><p> </p><p> Parties that <em>have</em> been awarded compensation have only done so through alleging that the federal/ state govt's did not fulfill the duty of care stipulated by the legislature. In the case of Trevorrow v State of South Australia, SASC 369; the government was found to be in breach of the the Maintenance Act 1926-1937 (SA), the Aborigines Act 1934-1939 (SA), the Social Welfare Act 1926-1965 (SA), the Aboriginal Affairs Act 1962 (SA) and the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA).</p><p> </p><p> When it comes down to it though, unless Indigenous groups can prove that the state was acting unlawfully, how can they be awarded damages? The law cannot be retroactive, we can't turn back and award damages for something that was conducted lawfully under the then pursuant statute. The wrongs committed were legal at the time of incidence. Yet, moving away from questions of legality, was it right? Of course not, though as C.J Mason has said again and again, the rule of law is not invalidated by questions of morality, of right and wrong, of questions of an all encompassing 'natural law'. Thus the government finds itself in a predicament where they are held responsible for something that is seen as morally reprehensible, yet was legal when it occurred. The former, being a question of ethics, is seen to necessitate an apology, the latter; a question of legality, would involve the awarding of damages/compensation. The govt. Is taking the standpoint that the policy was legal (understandably), no compensation will be given, yet it was wrong, so an apology is seen as fair.</p><p> </p><p> An apology is not measured by the cheque it comes with.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maccaweeny, post: 176813"] "Justice will only be done if they're given money and land"- No, for there to be means for the awarding of damages, there must be a breach of conduct on the part of the federal government. Simply put, there wasn't, the common law cannot be retroactive. The act of separating Aboriginal children from their parents was legal at the time of incidence, pursuant to statutes that were then enacted by the legislature. Compensating parties for actions that were lawfully undertaken by a federal government would be highly unethical. Parties that [i]have[/i] been awarded compensation have only done so through alleging that the federal/ state govt's did not fulfill the duty of care stipulated by the legislature. In the case of Trevorrow v State of South Australia, SASC 369; the government was found to be in breach of the the Maintenance Act 1926-1937 (SA), the Aborigines Act 1934-1939 (SA), the Social Welfare Act 1926-1965 (SA), the Aboriginal Affairs Act 1962 (SA) and the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA). When it comes down to it though, unless Indigenous groups can prove that the state was acting unlawfully, how can they be awarded damages? The law cannot be retroactive, we can't turn back and award damages for something that was conducted lawfully under the then pursuant statute. The wrongs committed were legal at the time of incidence. Yet, moving away from questions of legality, was it right? Of course not, though as C.J Mason has said again and again, the rule of law is not invalidated by questions of morality, of right and wrong, of questions of an all encompassing ‘natural law’. Thus the government finds itself in a predicament where they are held responsible for something that is seen as morally reprehensible, yet was legal when it occurred. The former, being a question of ethics, is seen to necessitate an apology, the latter; a question of legality, would involve the awarding of damages/compensation. The govt. Is taking the standpoint that the policy was legal (understandably), no compensation will be given, yet it was wrong, so an apology is seen as fair. An apology is not measured by the cheque it comes with. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Australia apology to Aborigines
Top