Search

This article continues the themes developed in a previous paper looking at reparations for past wrongs in post-colonial Australia. It narrows the focus to examine the scope of the law of tort to provide reparations suffered as a result of colonisation and dispossession, with particular emphasis on the assimilation policies whose legacy is now known emphatically, although it ought not be exclusively, as the Stolen Generations. The search for more than just words is particularly topical in light of the Australian Prime Minister’s formal apology in early 2008. This highly symbolic step must not lose momentum. That momentum could be both political and legal. In the latter context, we explore here the concept of alien tort, in the light of current Australian tort jurisprudence, which has thus far proved inadequate to achieve compensation for the harms suffered. Taking a comparative approach, procedural and substantive developments are to better deliver justice consistent with community values. In particular, the greater acceptance of psychological harm as actionable tortious conduct in Canada and the United States is examined. The article further examines the scope for stolen children to bring suit under the US Alien Tort Claims Act 1789. While the Australian government enjoys sovereign immunity in the courts of the United States, non-state organisations such as churches that were complicit in the forcible removals may be subject to United States jurisdiction wherever they have a presence in that country. The procedural and substantive elements of such a claim are discussed. In particular, the relevant cause of action, the issue of forum non conveniens and the statute of limitations will be analysed to map out whether a claim could be developed and successfully prosecuted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The international community is increasingly concerned with indigenous rights. The essence of the claims that international law seeks to accommodate involves the ability of indigenous people to make decisions about social, cultural, economic and environmental matters in their region. This paper looks at some aspects of the human rights of indigenous Australians from that perspective. It contains three interlocking sections. The first section outlines the background to the Australian High Court decision in Wik Peoples v. Queensland in which the majority of the Court said that aboriginal native title to land could co-exist with pastoral lease activity. The second part looks at the furore provoked by this decision, advancing arguments about the media and political treatment of the issue. Here we contend, doubtless rhetorically ourselves, that the Australian government has moved from Wik to Wickedness in dealing with this issue. The third part looks at recent developments and offers some conclusions as to where the legal resolution of native title to land in Australia might have emerged. In our conclusion we also consider the direction of the political and legal debate since the Australian Labor Party led by Paul Keating lost the 1996 election in a landslide, and the increasing narrowness of an economically conservative political agenda. Our overall theme, which stems directly from that, is the paucity of the political debate over Australian indigenous human rights. Rhetoric has abounded and could prompt many questions about the political debate in Australia over this issue, and the obligations of politicians. Law has formed a vital background to this: at time lauded, at times rejected vehemently by the Government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]