Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this motion. I congratulate the member for Swan on his work in this area. The motion reminds us that it was five years ago, on 16 November, that we had one of the truly greatest days ever in the Australian parliament. It shows that, at times, despite our differences we can all come together in this parliament and do something that is very good. That day, back in 2009, when former Prime Minister Rudd gave that apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants, was one of the finest days of this parliament.

To his great credit, then Prime Minister Rudd actually gave one of his best speeches on that particular day. I would like to note not only the apology but the words that he used. I would like to quote from his speech:

To say to you, the forgotten Australians, and those who were sent to our shores as children without your consent, that we are sorry.

Sorry, that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused.

The message from this should be that, in the vast majority of cases, government institutions are no substitute for family and no substitute for community.

Following on from that apology, in March 2013, then Prime Minister Gillard gave an apology on forced adoptions. Again, I think that was one of Prime Minister Gillard's finest speeches. I would like to quote from it. She said:

… by speaking truth to power, brought about the Apology we offer today.

This story had its beginnings in a wrongful belief that women could be separated from their babies and it would all be for the best. Instead, these churches and charities, families, medical staff and bureaucrats struck at the most primal and sacred bond there is: the bond between a mother and her baby.

The then Prime Minister continued:

We can promise you all that no generation of Australians will suffer the same pain and trauma that you did …

The spirit of this motion brings me to a recent inquiry in Queensland, undertaken by Tim Carmody, into their child protection system. Although it was a Queensland inquiry, I am sure it is a proxy—there could be an inquiry held in every other state and the factors would be very similar. When commencing the inquiry, the commissioner said:

Removing a child at any age from a loved environment—even if it is inadequate or even risky—can give long term problems to that child.

He then asked a rhetorical question:

If the answer is taking that child away from a loved parent, even if it's a violent home, and putting them with someone they don't know in someone else's home, how is that the right answer?

In his final report he concluded:

… the Commission is convinced by the argument (backed up by evidence) that wherever possible it is better for the child to stay at home – better for the child, better for the family and better for society as a whole.

The evidence from that inquiry is that sometimes our government agencies are engaging in overreach. Rather than actually removing a child from the home, surely it would be better to be supporting that home, to be supporting that family, to be putting our resources there.

That brings me to a most disturbing report that came out last week, by our National Child Commissioner, Megan Mitchell. She noted that here in Australia today one child dies from suicide each week, and 50 to 60 more are hospitalised after trying to kill themselves. This is our country today. The study also noted that one in 15 teenagers in foster care had required medical treatment for attempted suicide in the past year. We need to learn from these mistakes of the past. Governments are limited in what we can do. Yes, we must look after our children. But ultimately that responsibility falls back on the parents. And rather than removing children from their parents, we are far better as a society to give support to those parents first. I commend this motion, and I congratulate the member for Swan.

See this speech in context