Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Last week, the first sitting week of the 42nd federal parliament, was a historic week in the life of our parliament, in the life of our nation, in the lives of millions of individual Australians and, more profoundly, in the lives of the Indigenous people of our great country. It was historic because the Australian parliament, as a body of men and women elected to represent their constituencies, made peace with another body of men and women, the Indigenous peoples of our country, in a way that is essential for our country to move forward together and in a way that is essential to fundamentally advance the cause and wellbeing of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. It was historic because, however uncomfortable it is for some members and senators, the national parliament confronted a dark side of our history. It was historic because we agreed to accept that a specific dark chapter of our history had to be met head-on and challenged in this first decade of the 21st century. It was historic because we said a policy adopted and embraced by former governments of Labor and Liberal persuasions made mistakes based on the issue of race which, in our time, is unacceptable and reprehensible.

As the elected representative for the people of Ryan, it was a very special moment to be sitting in the House of Representatives being a part of history but even more so as a witness to greater history. Indeed, it will be an occasion that I will remember for a very long time to come. As a citizen of our country, as the federal member for Ryan and as a member of the opposition, I wish to formally place on record my deep regret and my deep sorrow to individual members of the stolen generation and to them as members collectively of the stolen generation for the terrible loss, pain and suffering which they endured due to the actions and conduct of white Australians.

I do not claim to be well briefed or well informed or to be an expert in Indigenous issues. I do not claim to be well read in the history of the relationship between our Indigenous peoples and our first settlers, but I do not think one has to be an expert or a so-called expert to know the terrible pain and loss which must have been felt by the young children in particular who were forcibly removed, who were, to put it bluntly, stolen from their parents, their loved ones and their community. As other colleagues have said, and as the Prime Minister indicated in the chamber when he spoke on this motion, I personally could not imagine my 19-month-old son, who is everything to me, who is the whole world to me, being taken from me in similar circumstances because of his ethnic make-up. Therefore, this reason alone is sufficient for us to extend this apology.

I want to speak very briefly on the question of intergenerational responsibility. The primary reason I understand for not giving an apology by those who seek not to do so or have great difficulty in extending an apology is that our generation is not responsible for the conduct which harmed the spirit and soul of those who were removed against their will. With all due respect to those who hold this view—and there are some on my side of parliament—surely we can give an apology or say sorry for something that was fundamentally wrong, without feeling any guilt whatsoever for that conduct. We do not have to be personally involved in the actions, deeds or conduct to be sorry that they happened.

Last month, my wife’s father died suddenly and unexpectedly. So many of our family friends and my wife’s family’s friends and so many people who did not know me, my wife or my wife’s father expressed their sadness at the sorrow that my wife felt. They used the word ‘sorry’ to us both and to my wife in particular because they felt her personal loss and pain. They expressed their humanity and the emotion of sadness at the sorrow which another human being felt. It is for this reason as well that I find no difficulty whatsoever in supporting this motion. How can it be that our migrants, for instance, should feel any personal guilt for the deeds of white Australians? How can it be, for instance, that today’s young Australians should feel personal guilt or responsibility for the terrible pain inflicted on the first Australians? Of course they cannot. They were not citizens at the time we talk about. I personally feel no guilt or responsibility whatsoever. However, that is not inconsistent with the sentiment I now express in this presentation to the parliament. I was not of that generation, but that does not prevent me from feeling sadness and sorrow for those hurt by the policies of the time.

I think Greg Craven put it well in his piece in last Friday’s Australian Financial Review. I do not agree with everything that Mr Craven writes, nor do I support the claim for compensation which—if I read his piece accurately—he seeks to argue for. But in terms of his comment on intergenerational discomfort, he does put it well, and I wish to read into Hansard for the benefit of my constituents what he wrote on 15 February in relation to the notion that ‘people cannot be sorry for something done in the past and in which they themselves played no part’:

There are two obvious answers to this. First, I surely can be sorry over something that I did not personally do but out of which I reap continuing benefit. It was Arthur Phillip, not me, who took possession of this continent and displaced its original inhabitants, but I owe my present comfortable plot of dirt directly to his act.

Second, how is it that we can feel immense pride in historical actions in which we had no part, but apparently cannot feel sorrow or regret? If I am proud of the founding fathers at federation, the diggers at Gallipoli, and Carlton in the 1945 premiership, then I similarly can feel sorry for Australian acts of brutality and discrimination occurring before I was born.

I should say for the record that I am not necessarily a supporter of Carlton and know nothing or very little about Australian Rules football, but as an Australian I am very proud of the founding fathers and the way in which they put together our country in its present form. I am also very proud of those who have worn the uniform and served in the name of our country in many, many parts of the world and so many of whom ultimately gave the greatest sacrifice—namely, their lives. I am proud of this because my father wore the uniform, and my grandfather also wore the uniform and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Having tabled this motion in the House, the Rudd government now faces the challenge of proving it is serious about the cause of reconciliation in a very meaningful way. We all know there is a vast gap between the health and social wellbeing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Productivity Commission chairman, Mr Gary Banks, summed it up aptly in his 2007 report, Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, when he said that the report revealed:

… that many Indigenous people have shared in Australia’s recent economic prosperity, with improved employment outcomes and higher incomes. There have also been welcome improvements in some education and health outcomes for Indigenous children. Yet, even where improvements have occurred, Indigenous people continue to do worse than other Australians.

That Productivity Commission report showed that there are still large gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in virtually every social area.

In the area of health the report concluded that the life expectancy of Indigenous people is estimated to be around 17 years lower than that for the total Australian population. The most recent estimates indicate that life expectancy at birth is 59 years for Indigenous males compared with 77 years for males in the total population, and 65 years for Indigenous females compared with 82 years for females in the total population. Infant mortality rates, though they have improved in recent years, are still two to three times as high as those for the total population of infants. The Indigenous rates of kidney disease are 10 times as high as the non-Indigenous rates.

In the area of education, Indigenous students are half as likely as non-Indigenous students to continue to year 12. In 2006, 21 per cent, nearly a quarter, of 15-year-old Indigenous people were not participating in school education, compared to only five per cent of non-Indigenous 15-year-olds in our communities. In the area of employment, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people is approximately three times the rate for non-Indigenous people. Indeed, in 2004-05, over half of Indigenous people still received most of their individual income from government pensions and allowances.

In a wealthy country such as Australia, there is no reason why our first Australians should be denied access to the 21st century opportunities and services that the rest of Australia can enjoy. It is only by empowering today’s generation of Indigenous Australians with vital skills and qualifications that they will be able to fully engage in the benefits that our wonderful country has to deliver. Yet that kind of comprehensive education is only possible once the fundamentals of individual safety, family security, good health and shelter are met.

It must now be the absolute policy focus of the new Rudd Labor government, and its ministers, to turn its election rhetoric and criticism of the Howard government into real, measurable achievements to fix the equality gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Now the hard part starts. On this front—the practical, as opposed to the symbolic—the Rudd government has already acted in a way which surely must leave questions in the minds of the public about the extent to which it is able to find practical solutions. Going against the Little children are sacred report, against the views of so many Indigenous leaders, against prominent individuals in the Labor Party itself, against overwhelming case evidence and, seemingly, against common sense and rational thought, the Rudd government has acted to resurrect the permit system which restricts access to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.

I hope that I am not saying sorry and apologising again in a decade’s time because the new Labor government failed to deliver outcomes when it had the absolute power, circumstance and goodwill of the Australian people to deliver real change. I hope that I am not saying sorry that the government focused on the symbolism and words but ignored the profound problems of the health deficit, the education deficit and the opportunity deficit. The permit system served only to protect child abusers and shelter rampant alcoholism within these communities. Indigenous leader and former National President of the Labor Party, Warren Mundine, recognised this and made public comments to that effect in the Australian. Just as important, he also recognised that, to see real improvement in the social wellbeing of remote communities, it is important to promote free trade and commerce, which, at their most basic, require the free flow of people and ideas to create commercial activities. Noel Pearson has enormous respect in the wider Australian community and is far more in touch with the Indigenous community and its challenges than probably any member of the Australian parliament sitting on the Labor benches and the coalition benches. He has long advocated a move from passive welfare to conditional welfare and the need for substantial and meaningful reform.

I congratulate the Prime Minister for his leadership on this motion. I commend his initiative and much of the way in which he has handled the apology motion. However, I was most disappointed that the Prime Minister did not release the full text of his motion well before the time he did so. Especially, I am terribly disappointed that he has elected not to release the legal advice that the Commonwealth government has received in relation to the apology motion. I cannot understand why he would not want to release this legal advice. Indeed, as an Australian taxpayer, as an Australian citizen and as the federal member for Ryan, I should have a right to know what that legal advice says in relation to compensation.

I also commend very warmly the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he responded and the way in which he conducted himself. All those of us on the Liberal side of politics know that he is a great admirer of Senator Neville Bonner. I am proud to say that Senator Neville Bonner, Australia’s first Indigenous member of parliament, was also a member of the party that I am a member of.

When black and white Australians can live together in the suburbs, towns and cities of Australia and look each other in the eye with mutual admiration and respect then we really will have compensated the stolen generation and the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Australia is a great country and Australians are a great people. Whilst every country has its dark side—chapters and moments which, in hindsight, successive generations would prefer it had not had—there also comes a time when we can move on. The history of nation states and sovereignty is replete with such examples. But, for all that, we can look forward with anticipation, confidence, faith and optimism that Australia’s sunniest days are still ahead of us.

See this speech in context