Stolen generations survivors to receive redress
Following years of campaigning, stolen generations survivors in one state will be eligible for redress for the harm caused by forced removals from family and community.
Survivors who were removed from their families in Western Australia before 1972 will be eligible for individual payments of up to $85,000 under the scheme, announced by the state government on Tuesday.
The announcement follows National Sorry Day on Monday, which marks the anniversary of the tabling of the Bringing Them Home report to parliament in 1997.
Redress for survivors was one of more than 50 recommendations in this landmark report.
Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities under accepted government policies during a period spanning from the 1910s until the 1970s.
"The WA Stolen Generations Redress Scheme is a major step in the pursuit of reconciliation and healing," Premier Roger Cook said.
The government said it would also work with Aboriginal organisations to support communications, scheme roll-out and planning for additional measures to assist the healing for survivors.
Attorney-General Tony Buti said the announcement of redress is a recognition of the wrongs of the past.
"It marks a significant step in recognising members of Western Australia's stolen generations by providing reparations for surviving members," he said.
"We hope this support can contribute to healing for those impacted."
With the announcement of WA's redress scheme, Queensland remains the only jurisdiction that does not offer reparations to survivors.
WA's scheme is expected to open for registration in late 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Terri Irwin unleashes on Katter Party crocodile culling bill in savage, 14-page long response
Terri Irwin has penned a scathing response to the Katter's Australian Party's latest bill to cull crocodiles in North Queensland. Describing the recently amended proposal as 'lazy and sloppy', the animal conservationist and director of Australia Zoo warned it was a 'recipe for disaster' that would 'turn the clock back to the dark and destructive days prior to the 1970s.' The bill cites a massive increase in crocodile numbers - something Irwin disputes - as justification for removing and euthanising crocs found in 'populated' waterways, and enabling hunting safaris on Aboriginal-controlled land. 'North Queenslanders are angry about losing more of our recreational waterways to the increasing crocodile population,' KAP MP Shane Knuth said when speaking about the bill state parliament last month. 'The constant threat of attacks, recent deaths and near-death experiences are dramatically affecting North Queensland's outdoor lifestyle. We never had to worry about the threats of crocodiles in our recreational waterways and beaches until the last two decades.' Irwin said the amended bill is a copy paste of the original and described one section - which imagines currently croc-infested waterways being used recreationally - as 'reckless, ill-informed and dangerous on so many levels'. The section in question reminisces about the 1970s, 80s and 90s when 'there was always that little bit of risk [of encountering a crocodile], but we didn't have to worry about seeing all these croc signs and we did not have to worry about swimming in that nice little saltwater creek.' 'That is all we are trying to achieve – that is, to bring it [the risk of swimming in these waterways] back so it is an acceptable risk,' the proposal continues, before going on to concede that even after crocodiles are 'removed' from the aforementioned waterways, some swimmers will 'still get taken by a croc'. In her 14-page long submission, Irwin argued the proposals are likely to actually increase crocodile-related deaths by creating a false sense of security. 'The removal of crocodiles, either through trapping or culling, will instead increase the likelihood of crocodile attacks as people believe the lie that once a crocodile is removed from a waterway then there will be no crocodiles,' she wrote. 'Research has consistently shown that when a crocodile dies or is removed, then another crocodile immediately comes in to take over that territory. Because of this reality, the Bill will not eliminate or even greatly reduce the risk of crocodile attacks.' She also shot down claims that crocodile numbers have dramatically increased, saying there is no Queensland data that confirms that and that the bill's cited increase does not account for multiple sightings of the same croc. 'It is the Irwin family and Australia Zoo's belief that individual culling and relocation are not effective ways to manage crocodile/human coexistence; rather, research and educating people are the key,' she said. 'The best course of action is for people in crocodile territory to be 'Croc-wise', reduce risk wherever possible and take sensible steps to minimise human-crocodile interaction.' She also cited the work of her late husband Steve 'Crocodile Hunter' Irwin, saying 'his capture and study techniques remain world's best practice to this day.' His legacy has meant that 'Australia Zoo, in partnership with the University of Queensland … now manage the largest and most successful crocodile research project in the world,' and she claimed that neither of those institutions or their research were consulted in the preparation of the bill. Another proposal within the bill recommends that Indigenous landholders be given the opportunity to offer safari-like hunting experiences to 'high end clients' as a source of income. Irwin also strongly rejected this idea and said, 'even with the best of intentions, it is a recipe for disaster and will increase the number of attacks and deaths caused by crocodiles by increasing contact with crocodiles by safari shooters who have limited or no experience with crocodiles.' Crocodiles are protected in Queensland and are listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.
Sky News AU
10 hours ago
- Sky News AU
New poll shows more than 70 per cent of public support Australian flag as Mornington Peninsula council responds to backlash
The Australian flag is viewed as a symbol of unity by an overwhelming majority of the public, despite local council bureaucrats erasing it from flyers. Mornington Peninsula Shire Council was sent into damage control this week after it emerged that council materials were being put out with the Aboriginal flag, Torres Strait Islander flag and the woke 'progress pride' flag – but not the Australian flag. The council flyers are wildly out of step with community attitudes, with a new poll released on Thursday showing that just 10 per cent of people want to get rid of the Australian flag. The survey of 1000 people, commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs and carried out by Dynata – an independent marketing research firm – found that 71 per cent of Australians believe our national flag helped unite all Australians. While Australia currently has three officially recognised national flags, the IPA poll found that 61 per cent of Australians believe we should have just one flag – the Australian flag – while 29 per cent of respondents support the Australian flag being displayed alongside the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag. Institute of Public Affairs Deputy Executive Director Daniel Wild said the Australian flag was the nation's 'most inclusive flag'. 'The Australian flag is our most inclusive flag as it represents our entire nation and every Australian, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or gender,' Mr Wild said. 'The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags have an important place in our society, but Australia has only one national flag. The Mornington Peninsula Council materials that had the Australian Flag removed include a flyer encouraging parents to sign their kids up to Kindergarten, a Child and Family news flyer, and a Health and Development Assessment flyer. According to the Herald Sun, at least one council office in Mornington also displays only the three minority flags on its entry doors. The Mayor of Mornington Peninsula and the council's chief executive have both denied knowing about the flyers before they appeared in the news. And on Tuesday evening Councillors voted to amend the council's flag policy to ensure the incident was not repeated. Mayor Anthony Marsh has told that "going forward" the council will ensure the Australian flag is included on all publications and materials it puts out. According to Mr Wild, the public backlash against the council reflects the fact Australians have 'had a gutful' of divisive identity politics. 'At a time when social cohesion is disintegrating across the nation, mainstream Australians understand that our symbols are unifying, and should be cherished and celebrated at all times. After all, there is far more that unites Australians than divides us,' he said.
Sky News AU
13 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in damage control after replacing Australian flag with LGBTQ Pride flag on school flyer
An image of the flyer, which advertised kindergarten registrations for 2026, went viral online on Monday, with councillors meeting on Tuesday to reaffirm the importance of the national flag in a vote. The LGBTQ+ flag was displayed instead of the Australian flag alongside the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. Mayor Anthony Marsh on Thursday told "going forward" the council will ensure the Australian flag is included on all publications and materials it puts out. 'All children are welcome at our kindergartens," Mayor Marsh said. "The flyer in question was produced before Council clarified its position on the use of flags. Going forward, where flags are flown or appear in Council publications or materials, the Australian Flag will be included. Council will ensure this is applied consistently.' On Tuesday night, Councillor Bruce Ranken brought the motion as a matter of 'urgent business' which did not 'sit within policy' and said a response was needed to be made to show the community this incident was 'not good enough'. While the motion was passed 9-1, Councillor Max Patton voted against the motion over concerns the motion would have 'unintended consequences' citing Victorian Government policy which is 'acknowledged as a prominent flag as well'. Councillor Patton told on Thursday he wanted to make it abundantly clear the absence of the national flag on the publication was an "oversight" which needed correcting, but he wanted a clearer explanation of how ratepayers would be affected if the motion was passed. "If a footy club or community group leases a shire building and only has one flagpole with their flag on it, will they be forced to remove their flag and fly the national flag? Will ratepayers be forced to pay for an additional flagpole so both can be flown? There is a chance that this could turn into quite an expensive exercise, and I want to know how we will be impacted before making a decision," he said. "I would have supported a motion calling for a report into how this happened and making measured recommendations for a policy-aligned path forward. But without knowing how it might financially impact our community or clubs who lease our buildings or ratepayers I could not support the motion." CEO Mark Stoermer said the policy did not cover printed material and that discussions had taken place internally to change the policy. Cr Ranken said the motion was to provide boundaries to ensure the national symbol was 'never overlooked'. 'It also brings consistency, clarity and respect to our practices, guided by national protocols and supported by a review of current procedures,' he said. 'The core of this motion is straight forward, it affirms the Australian national flag as the primary and preeminent flag across all Mornington Peninsula Shire buildings, properties and events where flags are displayed.' Cr Ranken said the motion sought to 'prioritise' national standards and the council's own policy within the organisation so there is 'no confusion, and no repeat' of an instance of omitting the Australian flag in the future. Mayor Marsh said flags had been a problem 'for a while' and noted the matter was not a question of 'flags on poles', which councillors had debated, but the display of flags on documents and other communications. Mayor Marsh said he had received calls at 10pm on Monday and 'all throughout the day' on Tuesday and said the motion was something 'we need to get right'.
