Registration concerns in $180m settlement

A Federal Court judge has expressed some concerns over the registration process in the historic settlement of up to $180 million in the stolen wages class action.

The state government last week announced it would pay up to $180.4 million to compensate thousands of Indigenous Australians who were paid little to no wages from 1936 to 1972.

Until 1972, employers were legally allowed to hold on trust 75 per cent of the wages of Aboriginal people.

The settlement will be paid to eligible Aboriginal workers or their surviving spouses and children, with a separate $15.4 million for some of the applicant’s legal costs.

Speaking to the court today, Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy said the proposed registration process contained certain minimums or tests for claimants to satisfy.

“When I saw what you wanted, I’ve got a problem generally with the particularity of registration form,” Justice Murphy said.

“I don’t propose to change the registration form at all … but without those [additional] words, I’m worried that someone will not be treated as registered merely because they haven’t been able to, at that stage, complete one of the minimums.

“With a group like this, it makes sense to gather everything else at the same time.

“[But] it creates your own problems when you do that, and the problem is the registration itself might make it too hard.”

Mervyn Street, on behalf of workers and surviving relatives, launched the Stolen Wages class action in the Federal Court of Australia's Western Australia in 2020.

Perth-based law firm Shine Lawyers represented Mr Street.

In its announcement, the state government said it would pay $16,500 in respect of each eligible claimant into an administered fund, up to a total of $165 million.

The maximum would only be paid if there are 10,000 or more eligible claimants.

Justice Murphy told the court that registration was “ground zero” of the settlement process and the first step before identifying eligibility.

“I have zero interest in hearing a raft of appeals on whether or not the evidence is reasonable or cogent and I hope it’s a problem that doesn’t arise,” he said.

“This settlement is about an important matter of public administration and this case is being conducted in public and involves 10,000 or a lot more people who are disadvantaged.

“When I saw the amount of the settlement, that depends on who registers and is eligible, it looks like the parties have worked very hard to produce an outcome which is going to be good for the claimants in this case.

“I don’t want my various carvings to be taken the wrong way but for the settlement process is properly looked at.”