Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I begin by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, the traditional owners of the land where we meet today, and by paying my respects to them and their elders. The apology the parliament made to the stolen generations last week, on 13 February 2008, was a seminal moment in Australian history. At the outset, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on their leadership in this matter.

The Australian Labor Party can be proud of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and Minister Macklin in the past few months, as we can be proud of the respective contributions of previous Labor prime ministers. Gough Whitlam, during an emotional ceremony in 1975, poured sand into Vincent Lingiari’s hands and handed the Wave Hill station back to the Gurindji people. The Hawke government took steps towards reconciliation with Indigenous Australians by establishing the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in September 1991. I was proud to be a member of that council for a number of years.

In May 1995, the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families was established by the Keating government. During the period from December 1995 to October 1996, the inquiry heard evidence across the country in cities, towns and regions. According to the Parliamentary Library, the inquiry received 777 submissions, including 535 from Indigenous individuals and organisations, 49 from church organisations and seven from government. On 26 May 1997 the inquiry’s report Bringing them home was tabled in the national parliament. On 28 May 1997, as shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, I seconded a motion by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, and I want to read parts of that motion:

... this House—

(1)

affirms that the tabling of “Bringing them Home”, the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, presents the nation with an unprecedented historical opportunity to render justice and restitution to Indigenous Australians, for the good of all Australians;

(2)

acknowledges the immense trauma inflicted upon the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia as a result of the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families under past government policies in place from before the time of Federation until the early 1970s;

(3)

affirms that these racially discriminatory policies and their continuing consequences are a matter of national shame;

(4)

affirms that current future and Federal and State governments are responsible for assisting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to rectify the ongoing effects of those policies;

(5)

affirms its commitment to a just and proper settlement of the grievances of people adversely affected by those policies; andon behalf of the nation—

(6)

unreservedly apologises to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians for the separation policies;

(7)

calls upon Federal and State governments to establish, in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, appropriate processes to provide compensation and restitution, including assistance for the reunification of families and counselling services ...

There are other parts to the motion. I clearly recall the vote on that day. There were 46 ayes and 83 noes; that is what Hansard records. Eighteen of those ayes who were present when Labor first proposed an apology in May 1997 were actually present on the floor of the chamber last week to finally hear that apology.

In seconding the motion I commented that the nation was watching—indeed, the world was watching—for leadership from the then Prime Minister. This is what I had to say:

Normally, prime ministers grow in office, they do not diminish in office. What is required in response to this report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families is generosity of spirit, not mean-spiritedness.

And further on I said of the Prime Minister:

He not only diminishes his office but also diminishes the nation. The nation is watching. The world is watching. Prime Minister, leadership is required—leadership from the highest office. You shame your office by your conduct. You shame the nation by your conduct. In 1967 this parliament was given the power to protect Aboriginal people, to act to their benefit, not to continue the discrimination against them. They are entitled to equality before the law, to respect before the law and to respect in all matters that others are entitled to.

That was part of what I had to say then. We as a nation entered a period of almost 12 years of profound shame. However, times change and leaders change. I would like to note the contribution made by Malcolm Fraser. It was his government that introduced the land rights act giving land rights to Northern Territory Aboriginal people. Mr Fraser has continued to support the issue of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as well as actively pursue an apology.

One of the most satisfying aspects of the recent process of moving towards a formal apology has been the bipartisanship demonstrated between government and opposition, and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his work in bringing his party to the table. The Leader of the Opposition established a position and, given the divisions within the conservative side of politics, he did quite well. It is obvious that there are some who did not agree, but there was no formal vote against the apology, and for that the Leader of the Opposition does deserve congratulations. He was in a difficult position. I did not agree with parts of the contents of his speech, but what he did from his point of view and from the conservative point of view was enormous. That should be acknowledged; it should be recognised by people on all sides of the parliament. It is very hard to bring some people along, but he did bring his party along, as well the National Party. The National Party, in many respects, has a lot of knowledge and understanding of Indigenous people. I know one of the former leaders, John Anderson, had an understanding in relation to Indigenous people and an empathy with them.

What I have learnt over my years of contact with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal people is that at the most fundamental level we must work with the communities in question and not impose solutions. My mate Tracker Tilmouth always tells me, ‘We don’t want to be saved by you, Mels.’ What they want are people to sit down with and work with them and have them as part of the solution. I would object to outsiders coming in and telling me what was best for my community. Why would it be any different for Indigenous communities? I know that members on all sides of the House would object to having solutions imposed on them by others.

I congratulate the minister for Indigenous affairs on her work with Indigenous communities from their many perspectives to achieve this result, which has been delivered in the form of an apology. The thing I like about her approach is that she actually goes out and consults with Indigenous people. She does not go out and lecture and hector them or in effect try and take a missionary approach, which is to impose whitefella solutions on them. I think we all need to understand that. One of the reasons that mistakes have been made in the past is that people have wanted to do the right thing and good things, but Indigenous people are not like us. The way to solutions in those communities is to give them ownership and to help train the children. You can give them houses but if you do not train them in how to fix the problems with those houses and maintain them and a whole lot of other things then all that stuff is going to go to waste over time. That would be true of our communities as well.

There needs to be a stepping back in terms of the approach, and I want to see Indigenous people involved in their own solutions. It is self-determination. That self-determination comes from helping them—not from haranguing them, not from harassing them and not from saying, ‘This is the way you are going to do it.’ I have had some quite vigorous discussions and arguments with my friends who are well-intentioned, but the thing that I learnt in the 4½ years I enjoyed being the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs—and it was a pretty momentous time when I was there—was never to go in there to save them from themselves. I was their advocate. I actually listened to them. That is what I also did when I was practising as a solicitor and barrister. You took instructions. You were the advocate; you used your professional expertise to help people. You did not in effect substitute your views for their views and say, ‘That is the way it is going to happen.’

Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, in responding to the apology, said of the role of the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister, can I thank you for your leadership on this issue ...

It is far more difficult to try and unite people than to divide them.

Your efforts should be praised universally for attempting to create a bridge between the many diverse elements of our society.

I applaud the leadership of the Prime Minister on this matter and the respect he has so rightly earned from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. People would know of my relationship with this Prime Minister over the years in relation to these matters. We have not necessarily seen eye to eye but I believe he has grown in the job, firstly as Leader of the Opposition and now as Prime Minister. I have seen the change in him and his advocacy, especially in relation to this matter—and I have to say I am surprised but I am overjoyed. I am joyous because in terms of Indigenous issues it is the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, who needs to be there driving it—hopefully with the support of the Leader of the Opposition.

Ministers have no chance in selling this stuff to the community. We need to use the office, as Bill Deane has done. It was wonderful to see him there the other day. I had an opportunity to talk to him and spend a little time with him before the apology. As Governor-General he was inspirational and showed leadership at a time when there was much misinformation in the community. I think it was significant that this was the parliament’s first item of business.

My worry is that, over the last 11½ years, I do not believe there has necessarily been progress. I think there has been regression—not necessarily intentional regression, but it goes very much to the heart of attitudes. I think it would not have been appropriate for the previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to be present last week. His heart was not in it; his soul was not in it. He is entitled to his view—I know that his view is honestly held—but I think his presence in the chamber on that day would have cast a pall over the joy and tears that we all experienced, and I think he was right not to attend. I think it meant that imagery that would otherwise have occurred but would have not been sincere did not occur. I am not critical of him for that. I know he holds his view honestly; I just have a different view.

Many of my colleagues have already articulated their emotions. I am not ashamed to say that I was moved to tears several times over those historic two days—on 12 February, with the welcome to country, and on the 13th, which was the apology. On Tuesday, 12 February we experienced a welcome to country for the first time since the inception of the Commonwealth parliament. For the first time in over 80 years the land on which we meet as a parliament resonated with the voice and the dance of the people whose ancestors have lived here for at least 40,000 years—and how joyous it was! For me it was actually the highlight of the opening of the parliament. It added; it enriched us. It is the first time, in fact, that the name of this place, Canberra, has fully justified its European name, believed to mean ‘a meeting place’. The word ‘Canberra’ seems to have been derived from the Anglicisation of the name of one of the local Indigenous groups, the Ngambri, into ‘Canberry’ as the geographical area where the group met. The name of the tribe became the European reference to the physical place. The welcome to country should now become a permanent feature of the opening of parliament.

I have said all along, and I do not resile from it, that there should be reparations or what you would call compensation. This has happened in Canada and in other places. It was a recommendation in the Bringing them home report; it was part of the motion that Kim Beazley moved and I seconded back in May 1997—and I do not apologise for that. As I said, it was recommendation 3 of the Bringing them home report. That is something we should get to gradually. What does the reparation involve? It does not necessarily involve money. What we need is a non-litigious process. In the civil law—in other parts of the law in this country—we have non-adversarial options which people can pursue and there is a ceiling on the amount of money that is paid. It is done by mediation and conciliation. Why should Indigenous people have to go to court to necessarily prove their case when for other Australians that is not necessarily a requirement? That is something that I think we can evolve over time.

This is a source of pride that I have. Basically, the reason I recontested my seat was Indigenous people—to see this happen. (Time expired)

See this speech in context