Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would be hypocritical if I were a person who said that, in the last parliament, he had supported an apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. I do not believe in the concept of intergenerational guilt. I do believe that we ought to judge the actions of those people who took children away from their Indigenous families by the values of those times and not by the values of today. Most of those people were well intentioned and it is a little bit unfortunate when we impose today’s standards on yesterday’s actions.

I have to also say that I do applaud the fact that the government has, as an election promise, as a first item of business brought this apology before the parliament. For a long time I was undecided on the position that I would take on this apology, but I believe very strongly that governments ought to deliver on their promises and I was pleased to see the Prime Minister and the government deliver so promptly on this particular promise. That was one of the reasons that I supported the motion through the House—because I believe that elected governments ought to deliver on what, prior to an election, they say they will do for the Australian people.

When one looks at the actions that were taken so many years ago, one has to ask oneself whether the Australian parliament is the appropriate vehicle for an apology, given the fact that most of the laws that were used to remove Indigenous children from their families would have been laws from other levels of government, more particularly the colonial governments before statehood was achieved at Federation. No-one is proud of the fact that Indigenous children were removed from their families and I think all of us sincerely regret that such things occurred.

When you look even at today, however, you do have situations where children are removed, regardless of race, from their families where their families are not perceived to be providing a suitable environment in which to bring up those children. In fact, many of those children are actually removed for their own benefit and their own welfare. I would think that all levels of government and members of parliament, regardless of political party, would continue to support a situation where children on occasion are removed from their parents in circumstances where such an action is in the interests of the child. I do, however, recognise the difference between what happens today and what happened to those people who have been designated as the ‘stolen generation’.

I will not be detaining the House for long but I want to say that I personally get offended when the well-intentioned motives of many of those churches and those people who looked after Indigenous children removed from their families are impugned. Those people, although their actions would not be acceptable today, were in many cases acting in what they perceived to be the interests of the children and, in many respects, the people who fostered and looked after those children in fact did so making substantial financial sacrifices to enable them to give children an upbringing. There have also been circumstances where Indigenous children have been brought up by foster families, have been given a good education and, in some cases, have become Indigenous leaders and role models for Indigenous Australians. I think some of them even recognise the fact that their removal, while certainly regrettable, did give them an education and opportunities in life which would not otherwise have been achievable.

We can also become too involved in tokenism. While, as a nation, we certainly regret the past treatment of Indigenous people, it is more important to look forward—and the practical reconciliation policies of the former government are what this government should be embracing. In fact, quite a long time ago, when I was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I sought a reference from then Minister Wooldridge into areas of Indigenous health. Personally, I believe it is an absolute scandal that, on average, Indigenous men live for 17 years less than non-Indigenous men. I think the current extent of infant mortality among Indigenous children is outrageous. What we ought to be seeking is a situation where health outcomes for Indigenous people, including Indigenous children, are the same as for those in the general community. I think it is appalling that we have so few Indigenous people in tertiary institutions. What we really want is to give Indigenous people a leg-up so that they are able to take their place, along with their fellow Australians, as equal partners in Australian society.

I do not want my speech to be misinterpreted as criticising the intent of the apology given by the parliament, but we have to look at these things in perspective. Firstly, we have to recognise that the people who took those actions, however unacceptable those actions are today, were largely well motivated. It is important to recognise that our Indigenous Australians have a whole lot of needs, and what we ought to be doing is facilitating the improvement of the lot of those Indigenous Australians up to the standard of the general community. I was pleased to be able to support the government on its delivery of its election promise. Now that we have that particular matter out of the way, it is important that we focus on the genuine and real needs of Indigenous Australians. It is important that we look at what their needs are and at what the Australian parliament can do to improve the situation of Australia’s first people. This debate has been healthy because we have been able to talk about a whole lot of issues in relation to Indigenous people. We have been able to highlight the needs of Indigenous members of Australian society. Hopefully, having made the apology, the government will get on with the real nitty-gritty of improving the lot of Indigenous Australians.

I also have a concern about the issue of compensation. I accept what the Prime Minister says—that compensation will not flow as a result of this apology—but my understanding is that certain claims have been lodged, and they could ultimately be matters to be determined by the courts of this nation. I would hate for this whole issue to become bogged down in the courts because, let’s face it, the Prime Minister said the apology was to be a symbol of the nation’s collective regret, not the vehicle for payouts of huge amounts of money by way of compensation.

We have sought to salve our nation’s collective guilt for too long by throwing money at Indigenous people without looking at the outcomes achieved as a result of the payment of those funds. On occasion, we have become too focused on process and self-determination, not outcomes. It is completely appalling that in 2008 we have a situation where the health prognosis for so many Indigenous Australians is so much worse than for the general community. I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate and I hope that the result will be an improvement in outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

See this speech in context