❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the denial of stolen wages reparation to two sisters, Phyllis Ningamara and Nancy Dilyai, and seeks clarification on the scheme's criteria and consistency. The Minister defends the scheme's application and denies unfairness.
AnsweredQoN 288Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
STOLEN
WAGES REPARATION SCHEME — PHYLLIS NINGAMARA AND NANCY DILYAI
288. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the applications to the
WA stolen wages reparation scheme by two sisters, Phyllis Ningamara and Nancy Dilyai,
that were disqualified because the Kimberley research school and Argyle station
where they were sent by the state government to do domestic work when they were
taken from their family home on Ivanhoe station were not considered
institutions or facilities within the scope of the scheme.
(1) Will the
minister please provide a definition of ''government native welfare
settlement'', as this cannot be found in the guidelines for the stolen
wages scheme; and, if not, why not?
(2) Will the
minister please explain how the arrangements at the Kimberley research school
and Argyle station were different from those at Charles Perkins Hostel in
Kununurra, the Amy Bethel hostel in Derby, Moola Bulla station near Halls Creek
and the Beagle Bay Mission north of Broome?
(3) Why were the
sisters' applications denied when the applications in relation to the
other institutions were accepted?
(4) In what ways
did the Kimberley research school and Argyle station differ from these other
institutions and facilities?
(5) Will the
minister apologise to Ms Dilyai and Ms Ningamara for the unfairness inherent in
the stolen wages scheme and establish a new scheme that is more even-handed in
its treatment of Aboriginal people whose wages were stolen?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), will the
government include Aboriginal people in devising a new scheme?
WAGES REPARATION SCHEME — PHYLLIS NINGAMARA AND NANCY DILYAI
288. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the applications to the
WA stolen wages reparation scheme by two sisters, Phyllis Ningamara and Nancy Dilyai,
that were disqualified because the Kimberley research school and Argyle station
where they were sent by the state government to do domestic work when they were
taken from their family home on Ivanhoe station were not considered
institutions or facilities within the scope of the scheme.
(1) Will the
minister please provide a definition of ''government native welfare
settlement'', as this cannot be found in the guidelines for the stolen
wages scheme; and, if not, why not?
(2) Will the
minister please explain how the arrangements at the Kimberley research school
and Argyle station were different from those at Charles Perkins Hostel in
Kununurra, the Amy Bethel hostel in Derby, Moola Bulla station near Halls Creek
and the Beagle Bay Mission north of Broome?
(3) Why were the
sisters' applications denied when the applications in relation to the
other institutions were accepted?
(4) In what ways
did the Kimberley research school and Argyle station differ from these other
institutions and facilities?
(5) Will the
minister apologise to Ms Dilyai and Ms Ningamara for the unfairness inherent in
the stolen wages scheme and establish a new scheme that is more even-handed in
its treatment of Aboriginal people whose wages were stolen?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), will the
government include Aboriginal people in devising a new scheme?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1) The state
government's response was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages
Taskforce, which acknowledged the complexity of the issue due to the lack of
surviving records and the passage of time. Government native welfare
settlements were broadly defined as places where children and young people were
taken into care. The task force recognised that government controls were at
their most extensive for those living on government settlements, including
Carolup and Moore River, but acknowledged that they were also in place in other
institutions across the state. As a result, each application was assessed by
the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on a case-by-case basis against all
criteria rather than solely on the specific locations.
(2) The arrangements for assessing
applications were not different.
(3) Neither Ms Phyllis
Ningamara nor Ms Nancy Dilyai was aged 14 years or over while resident at the
Kimberley research school.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) No.
(6) The
eligibility criteria for the scheme were reasonable and clear and were applied
consistently in assessing each application.
(7) Not applicable.
some notice of the question.
(1) The state
government's response was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages
Taskforce, which acknowledged the complexity of the issue due to the lack of
surviving records and the passage of time. Government native welfare
settlements were broadly defined as places where children and young people were
taken into care. The task force recognised that government controls were at
their most extensive for those living on government settlements, including
Carolup and Moore River, but acknowledged that they were also in place in other
institutions across the state. As a result, each application was assessed by
the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on a case-by-case basis against all
criteria rather than solely on the specific locations.
(2) The arrangements for assessing
applications were not different.
(3) Neither Ms Phyllis
Ningamara nor Ms Nancy Dilyai was aged 14 years or over while resident at the
Kimberley research school.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) No.
(6) The
eligibility criteria for the scheme were reasonable and clear and were applied
consistently in assessing each application.
(7) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.