Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, congratulations on your appointment to the Speaker’s panel. I look forward to sharing it with you.

The word ‘apology’ is defined by the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary as ‘a regretful acknowledgment of an offence or failure’. The word ‘sorry’ is defined by the same dictionary as ‘to be pained or regretful or penitent’. In the lead-up to this House’s historic motion of apology, I thought a lot about these two words and what they mean to me. ‘Sorry’ is such a small word, but the sentiment and psychology that complement it are more powerful than any other word I can think of, except perhaps the word ‘love’. ‘Sorry’ is more powerful than regretfulness; ‘sorry’ is more powerful than remorse. These words are all components of what it means to be sorry, but they cannot replace that one five-letter word. Forgiveness is so much easier when someone has looked you in the eye and said, ‘I’m sorry.’ That is exactly what our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, did in this place last week. Feelings of injustice, anger and hurt are nearly impossible to overcome without expressing that word. ‘I apologise. I’m sorry’—there is nothing more powerful. That is why I want to record my apology in this parliament for what happened to the stolen generations.

Contrary to what some historians such as Keith Windschuttle try to argue, along with a coterie of right-wing ideologues associated with Quadrant, fed by the former Prime Minister’s obsession to identify and promote cultural wars in what he divisively labelled ‘a black armband view of history’, about the alleged historical accuracy of the description ‘the stolen generations’, let there be no doubt that policies existed that forcefully removed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their homes and families on the basis of race. I reiterate: children were forcefully removed from their homes and families on the basis of race.

There are those who would argue, notwithstanding the hurt of the forceful removal of children in crisis at any time, regardless of race, that such practices preclude a specific apology to the stolen generations because they were part of a practice that included all races. This is in fact not true. Racist policies existed, no matter what the intention of the framers, administrators or receiving individuals or institutions—policies and practices that were based on racial identification above and beyond more generic criteria to determine state intervention to protect children at risk.

Sadly, some of the key findings of the inquiry which resulted in the Bringing them home report, released on 22 May 1997, included some very disturbing conclusions. Nationally, between one in three and one in 10 Indigenous children were forcefully removed from their families and communities between 1910 and 1970. Indigenous children were placed in institutions or church missions, were adopted or fostered and were at risk of physical and sexual abuse. Many never received wages for their labour. Welfare officials failed in their duty to protect Indigenous wards from abuse. Under international law from approximately 1946, the policies of forceful removal amounted to genocide. From 1950, the continuation of distinct laws for Indigenous children was racially discriminatory.

Forceful removal began in the mid-1800s and continued until 1970, only some 38 years ago. The governments at the time believed their official laws and policies to assimilate Indigenous Australians into the wider community were warranted. We know that they were not warranted and that other options existed. The 1997 inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, entitled Bringing them home, conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 children were removed from their families—that is, 100,000 children were directly affected; 100,000 children were taken involuntarily from their parents. I think about the flow-on effect from this: parents, grandparents and siblings, and the generations of descendants directly affected. No-one can put a definitive number on that. Descendants have felt the effect of their loved ones’ anguish and pain for many years, so more people continue to be affected.

Close to one-quarter of removed children who were fostered or adopted and were questioned in the Bringing them home inquiry also reported being physically abused. One in five reported being sexually abused. One in six children sent to institutions reported physical abuse and one in 10 reported sexual abuse. The figures in books are statistics, but the thought of each and every one of these children being physically beaten, sexually violated or psychologically abused is devastating.

Along with thousands of Australians, over many years of contemplating the sad events surrounding the forceful removal of Aboriginal children from their families, I can only try to imagine the pain and suffering associated with this policy. I can barely comprehend the gut-wrenching devastation each and every mother would have endured, for instance, upon having a child or children taken from her in such dramatic and sudden circumstances. I cannot imagine how I would feel if authorities who forcefully removed a child of mine told me my child was dead or if I subsequently found out that this was not true. I can only try to understand the plight of a child being taken and thrown into a foster home or institution where it is forbidden to speak their native language. Nothing could be more frightening. In one swift move, these children lost their family, their culture, their connection to traditional land and their entire sense of identity. It has also been reported that many Aboriginal women were bullied into signing blank ‘assent to removal’ forms.

Personally, I have always struggled to understand why there has ever been an argument over whether a federal government apology to the stolen generations was necessary. Each and every state and territory issued a formal apology to the stolen generations more than a decade ago. Our country has held a National Sorry Day for almost a decade. We have also had a National Sorry Book for the same period of time. The first and foremost recommendation derived from the Bringing them home inquiry was that we acknowledge the truth of what happened. The delivery of an apology was the first step in healing for the stolen generations. A federal government apology is clearly and obviously was needed if we want our country to move forward. Along with many others in this parliament and this country, I believe this apology is well overdue.

Critics have argued, on the basis of former Prime Minister Howard’s argument, that the current parliament should not apologise for the failings of previous governments. But I disagree. We as a government must recognise and acknowledge our collective past as a nation in order to move forward together into our future. We are very quick to acknowledge and acclaim the virtues and successes of our ancestors. It is historically indefensible to argue, as Liberal Senator Herron did on 4 March 1998, that:

An apology could imply that present generations are in some way responsible and accountable for the actions of earlier generations, actions that were sanctioned by the laws of the time, and that were believed to be in the best interests of the children concerned.

To be clear, and contrary to what some commentators would have us believe: the Commonwealth government was actively involved in the practice of removing children through both its support of such resolutions as the 1937 Commonwealth-State Native Welfare Conference and its early administration of the Northern Territory. Despite protestations to the contrary by Douglas Meagher QC, there is clear evidence that the Commonwealth did embrace Dr Cook’s assimilationist policies. For example, on 22 February 1933, JA Carrodus, who was Secretary of the Department of Interior of the Commonwealth, said: ‘The policy of mixing half-castes with whites for the purpose of breeding out their colour is that adopted by the Commonwealth government.’

Under Paul Hasluck’s administration, policy was regularised so that removals had to be approved by the Director of Native Affairs and be in the best interests of the child. But, when administrator FJ Wised recommended that no child under the age of four be removed except where the question of danger arose, Hasluck is recorded as insisting: ‘No age limit need be stated. The younger the child is at the time of removal, the better for the child.’

The Commonwealth’s much later opposition to special laws for Indigenous children did not constitute opposition to the practice of removal of children, as it was clear the courts were prepared to equate Indigenous poverty with ‘neglect’ and an Indigenous lifestyle with ‘uncontrollable’. But it was not true until the mid-1970s—when Indigenous legal services, not initially funded by the Commonwealth, started to represent children and families involved in separation orders and Indigenous childcare groups started to offer alternatives to the removal of children from their families—that the number of forced separations started to drop dramatically. In other words, there were alternatives.

Further, it has been noted that, in most jurisdictions, removals were taking place without court orders, thus infringing the legal principle, derived from the common law, that children should not be removed from their parents unless a court, on evidence proving removal is in the best interests of the child, decides otherwise. Indeed, in the 1950s, in the Commonwealth-administered Northern Territory, thousands of children were removed without any court or legal process involved. The Commonwealth was involved. We are liable.

I raised the semantics of the wording of the actual apology at the beginning of my speech but I would like to touch on it again. I think back to times when I have been seriously hurt or have felt an injustice has been inflicted upon me, and I think about how I felt when those who hurt me refused to say sorry. Then I think about the relief I felt when someone hurt me but later told me that they were sorry, and the member for New England eloquently gave examples of that. Obviously, I have never experienced anything of the same gravity as the stolen generations. I cannot imagine it. But from my own experience I can say this: sorry. There is nothing to misinterpret about that word. It means one thing and one thing only. ‘Sorry’ is the word that had to be said, and I am so proud that our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, stood in this parliament and said it. I am also pleased that the Leader of the Opposition also said sorry and that this our parliament is saying sorry.

In contemporary Australia, there is still much to be done to improve the conditions of our Indigenous people. There remains a 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is scandalous. We now need to work together as a country to improve the quality of life of our Indigenous population. Poor health and poor education continue to take a huge toll on Indigenous Australians. We need to work hard together as a nation to change these things. And, like many here, I was very proud when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stood together and received the thanks of our Indigenous elders after giving the apology. Together they have created a working force to try and tackle some of these problems in a very practical way.

When thinking about the future generations of Indigenous Australians, I consider the words used by Reconciliation Australia CEO Barbara Livesey in a letter she recently sent to all federal parliamentarians:

Success is built on people working together and respecting each other. If Indigenous children grow up believing that their views, culture and history are respected, then they will be more likely to have the confidence to achieve and succeed in all areas of life.

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Last week’s apology is the first step towards achieving this success for future generations of Indigenous Australians. This apology is about moving forward into the future together as a country. This apology means acknowledgement. It means regret. It means remorse. But, most importantly, it means we will work together to ensure these terrible events and individual and family experiences never ever happen again. I am proud to say ‘I am sorry’ and to be part of the parliament that has finally said, ‘We are sorry.’

See this speech in context