Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I first say that I very much wanted to be associated with this motion of apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. I do so because I strongly support that apology. I make that statement because there are some, it is said, who believe it is politic to support it. In my view, the support of this motion should be given if one believes it is right to do so.

In the time that I have been in public life I have had an association with Indigenous affairs, but, in a sense, elected as I was to a metropolitan constituency in Sydney, I had few Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander constituents. But, interestingly, I did, perhaps unwittingly, know a separated child in my years at primary school. I visited the Lutanda home, run by the very delightful people of the Open Brethren, as distinct from the Exclusive Brethren. That home was at Pennant Hills, and the students from that home, which was close to where I lived, went to Pennant Hills Primary School. One of them was a lass by the name of Joy Williams. I learnt later, as I met with her again, that she was a child of Aboriginal forebears who had been placed in care and who in fact launched legal proceedings in New South Wales against the New South Wales government enjoining the Open Brethren. Her case was not successful, in much the same way as the case of Gunner and Cubillo in the Northern Territory was not successful. But obviously Joy Williams felt a great deal of hurt. I have met many others who have been separated—some who live with those events today, others who have made adjustments and have been able to contribute as very fine Australians. Some have been people whom I have appointed to various government advisory positions; others have been people whom I have looked to for advice and counsel and regarded as friends.

When I spoke on this matter in the party room of the Liberal and National coalition I said there are others who have felt great hurt. I do not equate them; it would be inappropriate to do so. But there are people in the Australian community who have been hurt because they have been separated from parents or not been able to know of their parents. And they are not Indigenous people; they are people in the Australian community who have been adopted, may never have known their parents and want to know something of their genealogy. There are young people who have been separated from a parent when there have been family disputes and have never had the opportunity to know one of their parents, particularly if they have been moved abroad or interstate, as has sometimes happened.

I raise these matters because I think most Australians understand that hurt when it is expressed, and those who have experienced it understand it. I ask myself: how can you not understand the hurt that Indigenous people who were removed from their parents would feel, regardless of whether or not the care or assistance or help that was given to them was of the very best, although in many circumstances that may not have been the case? This happened lawfully. The behaviour of those who supervised and undertook taking the young people into care may not have always been appropriate but one would expect that if there were evidence about that it would be brought forward. I say that deliberately because we hear the term ‘stolen’ used in relation to these matters, as if it connotes that what was happening was in fact unlawful. I note that all the recommendations of the Bringing them home report refer to separated children. Regardless of that, people have assured us that there would be no compensation arising from these matters. I suggest the wording of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report may have been preferable to some of the other language that has been used. Regardless of that, I am certainly not one who is arguing that the passage of this motion should in the ordinary course of events lead to a compensation claim being more successful than it might otherwise be on its facts.

I want to be associated with this motion because I have spent a great deal of time in public life involved in Indigenous affairs. Again I mention that, not because of the numbers of such people in my own constituency—I think at this stage I have in my constituency 150 people who claim Aboriginal heritage—but, rather, because when I first joined the parliament I had the great opportunity to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I remember serving with some of the great names that the Labor Party would acknowledge within their party who were actively involved in these matters. They were people like the late Gordon Bryant and Les Johnson. On our side of parliament we had William Charles Wentworth. I remember the first inquiries in which I was involved, which took me to northern New South Wales as we on the committee looked at employment opportunities and regional issues and, later, after we were asked to look at alcohol problems in Indigenous communities. I travelled very widely when I later became the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, visiting most parts of Australia. I had the opportunity to participate in the writing of reports on health circumstances, on the Aboriginal legal services and on the outstation movement.

I mention these matters because I had the opportunity of visiting, for instance, Port Keats, as it was then known—Wadeye, as it is known today. That community is very dysfunctional today but at the time when I first visited it, aided very much by the Catholic Church and the brothers who were there, it appeared to be a very functional community. I was there with the late Professor Stanner, who gave us insights as to what was happening in Port Keats. He said the church believed that it had been able to remove all remnants of Indigenous culture from that community but that in fact, notwithstanding all of the activities of the church in that location, it had not occurred. But we did see fit to deal with places like Port Keats—to sever the relationship, to take out the church and its continuing leadership. If we look at many of these locations today, we see in many cases quite dysfunctional communities. It troubles me greatly when I see that level of dysfunction. Regrettably, it cannot all be related to the issue that we are debating—the separation of Indigenous children from their parents. A lot of the difficulties that we have are ones that have been with us over most of the time that I have been involved in public life. It does not matter whether it has been governments of the present Labor persuasion or coalition governments—shifting that disadvantage that we see has proved extraordinarily difficult. There is a great deal of hurt and anguish, I think, within those communities that plays a part in making the delivery of services and the assistance that we would like to offer less effective than it might otherwise be. I think it is quite clear that many different approaches have been taken, but I want to support this motion of apology today because it is my erstwhile hope that, in the spirit of forgiveness and possibly healing, we see circumstances in which our collective efforts can take root and address the disadvantage that we all very much feel ought not to be there.

I have followed very closely the way in which this apology was brought forward. I think many fail to recognise the involvement of an organisation which a former Leader of the Opposition’s father was very much involved in—Moral Rearmament. Its work around the world has been of particular importance in trying to help resolve difficult issues where they impact upon peoples. I have seen some of their work in places like Zimbabwe, where again they tried to play a role in healing between black and white, and in places like Cambodia, where I was first engaged with them, in relation to the Khmer people and the Khmer Rouge. They have been very much involved here. If you go to Colebrook in the Adelaide Hills—the home that Lowitja O’Donoghue, I believe, may well have been at—you will find it a memorial that was very much a project that Moral Rearmament were seeking to see implemented. Of course their rationale, based upon the great religions, is that there is a place for apology. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, an apology should be offered; it should not necessarily seek forgiveness but, if forgiveness is a response, there is an opportunity for healing. It is certainly my desire, in the spirit of those whom I have worked with over a long period of time, those who look for a new environment in which our efforts in relation to assisting our Indigenous people might take root, that this apology play a constructive role. It is for that reason I have been an enthusiastic supporter of it, and that is one of the reasons I want to be associated with it in this debate.

See this speech in context