Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

of forcible removal.Recommendation 9b: That all under-graduates and trainees in relevantprofessions receive, as part of their core curriculum, education about the historyand effects of forcible removal.While Australia ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention, its provisions have not beenincorporated into Australian law. The Genocide Act 1949 (Cth) merely approvedratification of the Convention and extended its provisions to external territories.Australian service personnel engaged in conflicts overseas are covered by itsprovisions but not those working within Australia. In 1992 the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade recommended that the Australian Government introduce legislation toimplement the Genocide Convention fully. The effect of implementation would be tocreate a criminal offence of genocide, including attempting to commit genocide,complicity in the crime of genocide and inciting others to commit genocide. Effectivepenalties would have to be provided. Implementation would establish a right tocompensation for victims of genocide.Genocide ConventionRecommendation 10: That the Commonwealth legislate to implement theGenocide Convention with full domestic effect.Land, culture and language restitutionThe purpose of restitution is to re-establish, to the extent possible, the situation thatexisted prior to the perpetration of gross violations of human rights. The children whowere removed have typically lost the use of their languages, been denied culturalknowledge and inclusion, been deprived of opportunities to take on culturalresponsibilities and are often unable to assert their native title rights.Many stolen children will be unable to satisfy the requirement of a continuingrelationship with their traditional land on their own.It is undeniable that the forced removal of Aboriginal people from their families and thelegacy of assimilation policies will have an impact on the ability of some Aboriginal peopleto claim native title rights … NSWALC would expect the courts to approach the issue ofconnection to land in a manner which is sensitive to the historical realities of Aboriginalpeople and understanding of the ability of Aboriginal communities to rebuild despite theimpact of policies aimed at their destruction. NSWALC believes the Inquiry into the removalof Aboriginal children should encourage such sensitivity and understanding (NSWAboriginal Land Council submission 643 page 3).However, native title is communal in nature and traditional Law recognises theauthority of traditional owners to define the content and scope of that title. In otherwords, the traditional owners or claimants are entitled to determine whether or not toinclude a person removed in childhood.The content of a particular group’s native title, including what it has to say about the rights ofparticular individuals within the group, is determined by the indigenous group concernedaccording to their traditional law and custom, not the common law.