SA Footy

With the new govt poised to say Sorry to the stolen generation, and lots of talk of resulting compensation claims, can anyone clarify the following:

If the Prime Minister says "Sorry" in Parliament, does Parliamentary Privilege have any bearing on whether or not compensation can be sought by the stolen generation and indeed ordered by a Court?

I have a very limited understanding, but I thought Parliamentary Privilege applied to the individual speaking, not the Country itself.

Could be very wrong though.

Once the words are said I'll wait for the thunder of briefcases hitting desks.

It will be interesting to see if it is possible to express regret for someone else's mistakes in the past, without it carrying with it a declaration of current guilt and thus creating multiple suits for megabucks!

Psyber wrote:Once the words are said I'll wait for the thunder of briefcases hitting desks.

It will be interesting to see if it is possible to express regret for someone else's mistakes in the past, without it carrying with it a declaration of current guilt and thus creating multiple suits for megabucks!

Think I've said this before, saying sorry wont make the Government liable for anything. No guilt in civil cases Psyber.

Andy speaking generally if someone acknowledges responsibility for something that's caused you a loss then you have a case for civil action don't you?

I expect the wording will be VERY careful and scrutinised first by the best legal brains the Govt can buy

hondo71 wrote:Andy speaking generally if someone acknowledges responsibility for something that's caused you a loss then you have a case for civil action don't you?

I expect the wording will be VERY careful and scrutinised first by the best legal brains the Govt can buy

No, cause of action arises from the facts. Otherwise what would happen in a situation where person A rear ended person B who admitted responsibility because he is a halfwit?

Andy #24 wrote:

hondo71 wrote:Andy speaking generally if someone acknowledges responsibility for something that's caused you a loss then you have a case for civil action don't you?

I expect the wording will be VERY careful and scrutinised first by the best legal brains the Govt can buy

No, cause of action arises from the facts. Otherwise what would happen in a situation where person A rear ended person B who admitted responsibility because he is a halfwit?

Doesn't matter if he is a half or a full-wit
If he rear-ended your car you can take him to court ... haven't you ever watched Judge Judy

I have a feeling we might be mis-understanding each other TBH

Andy #24 wrote:

Psyber wrote:Once the words are said I'll wait for the thunder of briefcases hitting desks.

It will be interesting to see if it is possible to express regret for someone else's mistakes in the past, without it carrying with it a declaration of current guilt and thus creating multiple suits for megabucks!

Think I've said this before, saying sorry wont make the Government liable for anything. No guilt in civil cases Psyber.

So why do insurance companies always stipulate that you must NEVER admit liability, but just pass it on to them.

In fact, regardless of the letter of the law, if you make yourself look guilty to the magistrate/judge/jury you are likely to be found so - the law as a system of resolution has nothing to do with truth and justice - any lawyer will tell you that.

Years ago when I was facing "Speed Dangerous" charges my Barrister friend went to a lot of trouble to make sure we got the right Magistrate, not one who would automatically find me guilty on the basis of the police report, and because of prevailing public opinion against those like me in the late 1980s - a "rich bastard in a Porsche". As he pointed out Magistrates tend to be socialist lawyers, otherwise they would be Barristers in private practice "making real money".

Because they're being cautious. If you make an admission it can be used as evidence, so if you admitted liabilty then denied it in court it could affect your credibility. However, an explanation and or other facts could easily outweigh the evidentiary value of the admission.

Regarding the Stolen Generation I would imagine the facts are quite well known so an apology, even if it is construed as an admission wont have any evidentiary value whatsoever. At least that's my take on it.

Lawyers may tell you that the law has nothing to do with truth, but none (or only stupid ones) will tell you it has nothing to do with justice. The two do not always equate. Justice in a nutshell is about what can be proven according to law. If the magistrates are socialists you would think they may be more idealistic than just determining guilt on public opinion. That is a big slur on any magistrate. Anyway, socialism is dead, it's all about social democracy these days.

Think bottom salary now for magistrates is about $220k these days, more than many lawyers are on.

Andy #24 wrote:Because they're being cautious. If you make an admission it can be used as evidence, so if you admitted liabilty then denied it in court it could affect your credibility. However, an explanation and or other facts could easily outweigh the evidentiary value of the admission.

Regarding the Stolen Generation I would imagine the facts are quite well known so an apology, even if it is construed as an admission wont have any evidentiary value whatsoever. At least that's my take on it.

I would dispute the factual nature of the claims that imply the all children "stolen" were removed for racist or spurious reasons. Some not removed from their parents and communities in the recent news obviously should have been, but were left there at risk for "politically correct" motives out of the welfare agencies fear of being called racist again. These kids were victims of the "stolen generation" propaganda machine.

As I have posted before not all aboriginal children removed back in those days suffered - I knew one personally who didn't.

Andy #24 wrote:Lawyers may tell you that the law has nothing to do with truth, but none (or only stupid ones) will tell you it has nothing to do with justice. The two do not always equate. Justice in a nutshell is about what can be proven according to law.

What is "proven" according to Law is not always the truth and may also not be just. It is what the Magistrate/Judge/Jury can be persuaded to believe on the day, and that may depend on his or her mood on the day!

Andy #24 wrote: If the magistrates are socialists you would think they may be more idealistic than just determining guilt on public opinion. That is a big slur on any magistrate. Anyway, socialism is dead, it's all about social democracy these days.

When did anyone believe Socialists were idealists?? It is about the power to push your idea of a Utopia controlled by people who think as you do, and to force it on others. The NAZIs were a National Socialist Workers Party! True idealists are liberal not authoritarian. "Social Democracy" is just a more politically acceptable term for the same way of thinking.

Andy #24 wrote:Think bottom salary now for magistrates is about $220k these days, more than many lawyers are on.

Recently a lawyer charged me $450 and hour, plus $350 an hour for his junior, just to get Probate on a will. I would expect anyone senior enough to be a magistrate would be on the top rate - sure that is gross and there are costs to run the business - but by the time you are in private with juniors working for you, or are a barrister that $220K would be chicken feed. [Even at only $220 an hour I can net that on a 36 hour week in my field, which is relatively underpaid compared to lawyers.]

Andy, your summing up about an admission of guilt being irrelevant in this case is correct.

You missed the point Psyber. Truth and justice aren't the same as far as the law is concerned. No judge is omnipotent and nothing from the past can be proved with 100% accuracy. Justice is concerned with giving everyone equal opportunity to present there case and decide from that. Judges aren't influenced by how they feel on a certain day in deciding guilt. It's a methodical process. They may be in sentencingwhere there is more discretion but even that is pushing it.

Your concerns about the motives are unfounded. There has already been litigation in the High Court where it was decided that the removal did not constitute genocide because the motives were not evil but even paternal (however stupid) IIRC.

Social democracy is the same in that people think the wealthy should help support the less fortunate. Apart from that you are talking shite.

We all know there isn't the potential to make as much money in the judiciary as in the private sector. My point was just that it's still a lot of money. I've been told that most barristers don't start making money untill about ten years in.

I seem to remember you posting that pollies should do the job for free and we would get people with altruistic motives, but here you say because they're is less money we only get left winged hippies doing it. Should people in the public service get paid competitively or not?

hondo71 wrote:

Andy #24 wrote:

hondo71 wrote:Andy speaking generally if someone acknowledges responsibility for something that's caused you a loss then you have a case for civil action don't you?

I expect the wording will be VERY careful and scrutinised first by the best legal brains the Govt can buy

No, cause of action arises from the facts. Otherwise what would happen in a situation where person A rear ended person B who admitted responsibility because he is a halfwit?

Doesn't matter if he is a half or a full-wit
If he rear-ended your car you can take him to court ... haven't you ever watched Judge Judy

I have a feeling we might be mis-understanding each other TBH

Yeah, I meant if the person who was rear ended admits liability this doesn't mean the other guy can sue him.

Andy #24 wrote: ... Judges aren't influenced by how they feel on a certain day in deciding guilt. It's a methodical process. They may be in sentencing where there is more discretion but even that is pushing it.

That is not what several Barristers I know say. Personally, I don't think logic plays much of a role in any person's decision making. We are all blinded by where we come from, and our prejudice about what is right and wrong. Judges are influenced by prevailing social expectations. There have always been known "hanging" judges and known lenient ones, and Melbourne had one who used to fall asleep during trials, because of his Sleep Apnoea, but no one did anything about it for years.

Andy #24 wrote: I seem to remember you posting that pollies should do the job for free and we would get people with altruistic motives, but here you say because they're is less money we only get left winged hippies doing it. Should people in the public service get paid competitively or not?

I did suggest the possibility that may be true because attractive pay for pollies attracts people for whom it is the best paying career they can get into. So, we, potentially, get people who are in it only for the money, or even worse those only in it for the power who can afford to indulge that lust for power if paid well. I did concede that there were problems with the idea in practice! I do recall knowing and meeting several times, one alcoholic former union heavy who was a Minister in Don Dunstan's SA government. Don had to do his job! [I won't name him for obvious reasons.]

In the Law, at least people have to have study and qualify to become a lawyer before they can become a magistrate or judge. They can't just get the job by sucking up to party power-brokers, and perhaps that makes some difference. I have more faith in the integrity of the average lawyer than the average pollie, but that is not saying a lot. Nevertheless, I know personally several lawyers and one Victorian Supreme Court judge whom I believe to be genuinely well-motivated and basically altruistic.

My barrister friend from Adelaide said the bit about the magistrates, not me, but I think it is plausible, that there are those who have the Socialist idea that they know what is right and best for us all, and are prepared to forsake some money for the sake of the opportunity to impose their way of thinking - "serving the cxommunity" in their own eyes.

Yes, I think those in the public service should be paid similarly to those in the same jobs in industry, and professionals proportionally with what they could net in private practice, but we should not assume that every head of a government department should be compared with, say, the head of BHP or ANZ etc. Most of them wouldn't get near it in the real world, and even if silly corporations are prepared to pay obscene salaries, governments should be more responsible and only offer realistic increments based on qualifications and increased responsibility.

Judges here are known to fall asleep too, or even read newspapers and magazines behind the bench.
Defence lawyers also 'shop' for judges and magistrates wherever they are able to. Commonly known fact.

Ahh come February 13 the psuedo-intellegencia will feel reconciled with their psuedo guilt for what happened 50 years ago (I merely quote 50 years knowing that it happend over and around that timeframe).

But will they want to move to aboriginal Australia's heart land and make a real difference??? No they'll live in their white mans world, reinforcing their own racial sterotypes while through their own complicity the real issues such as health, abuse and alcoholism will continue.

But at least the psuedo intellectuals will feel better....

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Ahh come February 13 the psuedo-intellegencia will feel reconciled with their psuedo guilt for what happened 50 years ago (I merely quote 50 years knowing that it happend over and around that timeframe).

But will they want to move to aboriginal Australia's heart land and make a real difference??? No they'll live in their white mans world, reinforcing their own racial sterotypes while through their own complicity the real issues such as health, abuse and alcoholism will continue.

But at least the psuedo intellectuals will feel better....

Yes I agree. I would like to see real effort and the money going into providing health care and social services equivalaent to those available to the people living in the cities, and to upgrading those services in the cities.

Disagreed, I think its the first step in a long overdue healing process.
I know my old man will feel a bit better and he's one of the stolen generation who drives taxis for a living at the age of 68 so I'd hardly describe him as a psudo intellectual.
As the son of a stolen generation I'll feel better too and look forward to it.

Perhaps its the pseudo intellectuals that actually guess as to how others will feel whilst having no idea themselves and enjoy ramming their morals down others throats.