Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, I congratulate you on your elevation to the Speaker’s panel. I am sure you will do a very good job.

In my nine years as a member of this parliament, this motion offering an apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples is for me the most memorable and significant. In my first term as a member of this parliament, at the time of the National Sorry Day in October 2000 I addressed the issue of the stolen generations and the importance of an apology as an essential part of the reconciliation process. At the time I predicted, ‘Very shortly there will be a Prime Minister who can say sorry for the wrongs of past governments.’ That prediction proved a little too optimistic, but as we have seen we now have a Prime Minister who can say sorry for the wrongs of past governments.

My comments in October 2000 were made after I met with a wonderful woman named Valerie Linow. Valerie lives in the Fowler electorate. Her story is one of the many thousands that can be told by members of the stolen generation. Those stories of grief and abuse did not occur in some far-off land; they happened here in our country, Australia. These gross abuses of human rights were not carried out under the orders of murderous dictators but under the orders of what our official history regards as democratic and humane governments. The view that these acts were carried out by people who had the best interests of the children at heart fails to explain one important thing—why they were directed against members of one race.

In the motion we refer to these abuses in fairly bland terms as ‘mistreatment’. While the motion does say that we apologise for inflicting ‘profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians’, it is impossible for those of us who were not subject to these human rights abuses to fully appreciate that suffering, grief and loss and to understand how in so many cases that suffering affected the whole of the lives of those of the stolen generations. How can we understand the anguish and grief of a mother whose child is wrenched from her arms, never to be seen again? How can we understand the trauma of an infant torn from her mother and then at later stages of life separated again from brothers and sisters?

It is only when we each consider such a nightmare that we can begin to understand the consequences of this monstrous crime against Aboriginal people in Australia—a crime committed by Labor governments as well as conservative governments, at both the federal and state levels. And those governments were aided and abetted in those crimes by the Christian churches in Australia. We in the Labor Party are justly proud of our history but we accept this black mark on our record and offer an unqualified apology. Those Christian churches have accepted responsibility for their role in this dark past and offered their apologies as well. But from the successors of conservative governments we only get belated, half-hearted and qualified apologies. I can only ask those who have distanced themselves from this apology to think about what they would feel like if it had happened to them. I would ask them to sit down with Valerie Linow, to trace her past and put themselves in her place.

When I first spoke to Valerie she showed me her most treasured possessions—old black-and-white photos of her childhood. One of those photos touched me very deeply. Taken in the early 1940s it shows a neatly dressed young woman wearing a sun hat. Next to her is a young man dressed in the uniform of the 2nd AIF, his slouch hat worn so very proudly. In his arms he holds his baby daughter. If you grew up in the 1950s—I was a young lass still in nappies—you would have noticed similar photographs on mantelpieces in thousands of homes across Australia. That photograph is the only image that Valerie Linow has of her mother and father. The reason that Valerie did not enjoy the love and support of growing up in the family environment that we enjoyed was that she was black.

At the age of two Valerie was removed from her home near Grafton in New South Wales and placed in the Bomaderry Children’s Home. She was later taken to the Cootamundra Girls Home, where her three elder sisters had been taken earlier. Her three brothers had been taken to the Kinchela Boys Home near Kempsey. Attempts from Valerie’s father to see her on two occasions led him to be taken away by police. Can any one of us imagine his heartbreak? His only crime was that he wanted to see his daughter—a daughter he wanted to hold, a daughter he wanted to kiss and a daughter to whom he wanted to say, ‘I love you,’ and, ‘This should never have happened.’ He was a man who served his country in a time of war only to see his children taken away from the family home, separated and subjected to years of abuse and torment in institutions; a man who only saw his daughter again as he lay on his death bed, 16 years after she had been taken away.

Can any one of us imagine the grief of Valerie’s mother, having her children torn from their home while her husband was away at war? She had no-one to turn to; there was no appeal, no justice—that was the white man’s law. And who would defend those laws today? What laws can justify tearing a loving family apart? When I think about what effect the kind of separation that Valerie Linow suffered would have had on my life I can understand the bitterness and sadness that flows from the stolen generations. Valerie has beautifully expressed her understanding of her mother’s sorrow:

No wind or dust could dry my mother’s tears as we were torn apart ...

Yes, I know today if she was here she would say: ‘My daughter we made the rivers you see today

Our tear drops are proof of the flowing waters

No wind and dust can dry my tears.

All my life I have treasured the close relationship that I have had with my parents, Alan and Lois Welsh, my sister Helen, my two beautiful children, Rebecca and Blake, and my adored grandchildren, Liam and James. Along with my husband, they are the most precious things in the whole world to me. I cannot begin to understand the trauma of having those bonds shattered. And yet that trauma has been faced by thousands of Indigenous Australians, Australians who have at the same time suffered great disadvantage.

From Cootamundra Girls Home, Valerie was placed in domestic service, which was the most common prospect for young women. But working life was even harsher than the girls home. Valerie was abused, beaten and raped by her employer and was forced to flee. In the years since, Valerie has tried to reconcile her removal from her home, the tragic consequences for her brothers and sisters, three of whom died while in state care, and her at times brutal upbringing in the institutions responsible for her care. Today, Valerie works with the Origins organisation at Bonnyrigg in my electorate of Fowler. She works with families who have been separated by adoption. Valerie was in Canberra last Wednesday to realise her dream of seeing the Prime Minister of Australia making this historic apology. Her comments were:

This apology means everything to me and my family. It is an acknowledgement of the past and it’s very emotional.

She added:

I do not blame the Australian people of today for what happened to me in the past; all I ask and pray is that history will never repeat itself.

The surest way to ensure Valerie’s hope is realised is through the adoption of this motion of apology. Saying sorry is the very least that we as a nation can do to right the wrongs of the past. If each and every Australian truly seeks to understand the trauma and suffering of the stolen generations then we will never repeat this sad chapter in our history. It must be an individual, as well as a collective, act of apology. We are all individually responsible for the wellbeing of our fellow Australians. I thank and praise Valerie Linow for allowing me to stand up in this chamber today and tell her story.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to give my absolute support to the motion offering an apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. I am of an age that, had I been born in a different place to different parents, I could have been one of the stolen generation. In fact, children were still being removed from their parents some 10 years after I was a toddler. I cannot really imagine what it would be like to have been removed from my parents. When I think of that possibility I imagine my mother, even though she is now 70 years old, still standing beside a road somewhere waiting for her four girls to come back. Sometimes I see her with my father as well, but generally, when I imagine this happening to our family, I see my mother alone, because I cannot even imagine my mother’s marriage surviving 50 years of such incredible grief.

People say this happened in the past, but for people my age who experienced this and for people like my mother, still living, this is very much their present; this is the life they live. Between 1910 and 1970, around 50,000 children of Aboriginal background were taken from their parents, placed in institutions or missions or fostered and largely trained for domestic service. They are shocking figures, and the stories we hear are shocking also, briefly brought into the light in the Bringing them home report some 11 years ago and then buried and denied again for some 11 years. Finally, on Wednesday last week, we as a nation said sorry—sorry to the stolen generation ripped from their families, from their culture and from their lives and placed on a different path filled with grief, sadness and loss. Among those in my community that I have spoken to since, there is overwhelming support for the words spoken in parliament last week, but there are some who still have reservations. To them I would like to speak just briefly. There are some who say that it is in the past and we should not apologise for actions taken in the past. To them I say again: for those who were taken from their families, this is their lives. We apologise for their lives as they are now.

For those who say, ‘I didn’t do it,’ I say that the apology last Wednesday was not from any of us individually, although many of us have said it individually; it was for the nation. We as a nation over 200 years have benefited from the choices we made earlier on when we decided that the welfare of one culture—of the first inhabitants of this country—could be put aside for the development of the nation as a whole. The nation actually made those decisions; governments made those decisions and the government apologised for them on Wednesday. I have also had some people who have also experienced pain in their lives say to me that, for example, their mother was taken from her mother when she was eight years old, that she was not an Indigenous person and therefore we should not be apologising to this group. With all respect to these people—and I understand their pain—this is not a competition for pain, this is not a race where only one group wins and where by recognising the pain of one person we somehow diminish the experiences of others. This is an act which acknowledges the experience of many Australians and recognises our responsibility in it. It does not in any way diminish actions we may have taken or the effect of our actions on other people—not at all.

What happened last week was not a trivial event, although, again, there are a small number of people who think it was. This was not a trivial event. This was about the systematic removal of children from their families. It was a deliberate act taken by not just one government but many governments over 60 years that devastated the oldest continuous living culture in the world, left families ruined and left a generation living now who have not experienced family life and who are struggling to create solid families in their present as well.

I cannot imagine what has been lost by the stolen generation. I cannot imagine what was lost, not just by them but by others of the Indigenous culture who were ripped from their land or whose ancestors were ripped from their land and their culture and who are just finding their way back. I do know that, when I meet a member of my local Indigenous community, I feel grief at what we as a nation have lost. When we decided as a nation to put the development of the nation ahead of this particular culture, we lost an extraordinary cultural history—an extraordinary body of wisdom dating back tens of thousands of years. I know that I can never meet my local Barramatugal clan of the Darug nation in its full strength. I can never do that now. Just 200 years from when they lived free and strong on the land on which I now live, I cannot do that. There are some elders and some families who remain but the language is largely lost; the history is largely lost from my local clan. It is an extraordinary loss for the nation and for the world and I grieve for that. In fact, my grief is still at a stage where I grieve for the loss and I am not yet ready to look at what we still have, to look at the future, because grief sometimes moves in those ways. You deal with what you lose first. I cannot imagine what they must feel; I cannot imagine. My loss is tangential; I have lost what might have been, I have lost people I might have met. The Barramatugal clan of the Darug nation have lost their own history and, while I feel grief when I look at them, many of them must feel grief when they look at themselves in the mirror and that is a much deeper grief than mine. Again, it is not something I can ever fully comprehend and I cannot fully comprehend the pain of the stolen generation but what we did on Wednesday was an act of trust.

We looked at a people; we brought them into the light and we accepted and acknowledged their experience even if we could not fully understand the depth of it. I believe that what they needed was for us to say sorry, to bring them into the light, see them and validate experiences that are theirs and theirs alone which we really cannot ever comprehend without going through that ordeal ourselves. They needed to be seen, they needed to be acknowledged and they told us that. That act of trust on Wednesday, I believe, has moved this nation down the path of healing. I would hope that in the near future we all can look at each other, look each other in the eyes, and see the strength of what we can have in our Indigenous population and feel less real, immediate grief for what we have lost. I am sure as a nation we will always feel that, but I hope in the very near future we will see each other for what we can be and not for what we have been.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to this motion I would firstly like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunawal people, and those of the land in my electorate of Deakin, the Wurundjeri. Many may think that Deakin is just an outer metropolitan seat with little Indigenous history to tell; however, they are mistaken. My electorate falls across the Mullum Mullum Valley, which is Wurundjeri for a place of big birds, a region with an ancient terrestrial link to the Wurundjeri people, and it is to this day a gathering place for Indigenous Australians.

It is an honour and a privilege to take part in this debate today and to strongly support the Prime Minister’s motion for an apology, which has been offered in a real spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation. It was, in the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, a ‘day of open hearts’ for Australians—a day when our country aspired to find one of its golden threads in our national character. It most certainly did that day, and I am extremely proud to have played a part and given my support then as I do now.

Through this apology we have demonstrated that as a country we have matured enough to understand that saying sorry is a critical form of respect for the traditional owners of the land. Apologising is important for healing and for taking reconciliation further. If that was ever in dispute, one simply had to hear the rapturous applause by all who were present here on that proud day. The Prime Minister’s apology last week was a defining moment, not just for a new government as its very first order of business but, without a shadow of a doubt, as a nation-defining moment that will be talked about, debated and reflected upon for generations to come.

I am confident that those future generations will be able to look back with the knowledge that the Prime Minister’s apology last week was the first major step this nation took to turn a new page in our country’s history. I believe those future generations will want to know where and when exactly the healing began and who our leaders were that put us on the road to righting those past wrongs and taking care of the unfinished business.

I am proud to say today that it was this government and this Prime Minister who brought our country together—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, Labor and coalition like—in an expression of sorrow never before seen. I also commend the opposition for offering such immediate bipartisan support for this motion. I think it was so important for many people—people perhaps not previously engaged in the issue of reconciliation—to see that handshake over the dispatch box. And for those who perhaps still struggled with the notion of a formal apology, the Prime Minister made it simple: imagine if this had happened to you. In fact, one need not think much further than that simple thought. While as a parliament we expressed our sorrow on that day, it was not a sorrowful day as such—it was not a dark or mournful day—or one that was designed to make this generation of Australians feel guilty for the acts of previous ones; but it was a day to reflect on dark events in our history that must not and cannot ever be repeated.

Might I say that the idea that saying sorry somehow ascribes guilt to this generation of Australians is completely misguided. However, it is something that we heard many times from the former Howard government. It is instead an extremely positive and healing process. I will never forget the emotion, the excitement and the anticipation that came with it, not only in the House but all around the building and out there in the nation. We can now build on the positive momentum created in this place last week and start building new partnerships with Indigenous Australians, based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

I believe that education is one of the keys to that, not only for the current generation, who are still attending school, but more for people of my generation—people who did attend school and were taught history but were not taught that page of Australia’s history. Whilst we attended high schools, or technical schools, as they were called in my day, there was history but we were taught about English royalty or maybe even about Japanese hierarchy and royalty. We certainly were not taught about what had happened to Indigenous Australians in the near past of our own country’s history. I believe that the sooner a program like that is actually put across to people who may not understand the full implications of the stolen generations the sooner we will get an even greater understanding. When that happens I believe reconciliation will not be in the minds of many. As it should be, it will be in the minds of all. On this basis I strongly commend the motion to the House.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I rise to endorse this motion before the House. I do so with a sense of pride not only from being here as the new member for Lindsay, in my second week in the parliament, but also because I know that this is one of the most significant and momentous periods in the history of this House. What occurred last week—both on Tuesday, 12 February, and on Wednesday, 13 February—were, I think, some of the most significant events in this parliament’s history.

I begin with the events of Tuesday, 12 February. That day will always be remembered by me as my first day sitting in this parliament. On that day I recall, and will continue to recall vividly, the welcome to country delivered by Matilda House-Williams. This was a significant act; it was significant for many reasons. For me one of the most significant aspects of this welcome to country was this: not only was this the first time that such a welcome to country had been delivered in this place but it had taken so long for this to occur. I am someone who has been an elected representative, as a councillor of Penrith City Council, for almost nine years. In that time I have been invited to many gatherings throughout my local community. As I have gone to those gatherings, increasingly over the years there has been a tendency to embrace the welcome to country as a means by which a gathering can be commenced. This is something that has been occurring gradually over that period, but I must say it has been commonplace throughout that eight to nine years that I have been in elected office. I think in years to come people will reflect upon what occurred on Tuesday, 12 February 2008, and they will wonder why it took so long for this great parliament of this nation, with our great democratic traditions, to embrace a welcome to country and to enmesh those democratic traditions with the heritage of our Indigenous people.

I turn to the motion itself. I believe it is something for which our nation has been waiting for many years for the leadership of this country to do. We know that over the last 11 years there has been a reluctance on the part of the previous government, in particular on the part of the previous Prime Minister, to do what this House has now done with a real sense of bipartisanship. It is important that we note that bipartisanship because it goes to the significance of what has occurred here. The apology that was moved in the House last week, on Wednesday, 13 February 2008, was an apology from this parliament, from not just the government but the representatives of the people of this great country.

As someone who brings a legal background to this place, I am all too aware of how the temptation for courts can sometimes be to intervene and to take this nation in a more progressive direction. In doing so, often they can lead out ahead of where the people are. They can lead out ahead of where community sentiment and community views have been able to reach. What I think is most significant about this apology is that it is not the courts that are leading from the front but the representative of the people—the parliament—that is. All of us who were present in the chamber and brought forward those many stories from our local communities helped to ensure that, as a nation, we were able to say sorry and to say sorry not just with a sense of reflecting upon what has occurred in our nation’s history but also with a real, deep and abiding commitment to what can be achieved in the future.

I come here as the member for Lindsay, which is wholly situated within the boundaries of the Penrith City Council. Penrith City Council has the third highest proportion of Indigenous Australians of all councils in New South Wales—third only to Blacktown, which is first, and Lake Macquarie, which is second. Having such a significant proportion of Indigenous people living within my community is something that I relish. I relish the opportunity to continue to engage with them on a whole range of issues that impact upon their lives and the broader life of our local community. And I take this opportunity today to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the traditional owners and custodians of the lands and waters of this country.

On Wednesday, 13 February 2008, there were many people inside the House who were able to witness the apology. But there were also many people right throughout this country who were deeply moved by what occurred and who were actively engaged in the process of the making of that apology. I know in my local community there were many local gatherings. But one in particular that I wish to reflect upon was the gathering at the Penrith City Council, where there were over 200 people gathered for this significant event.

One person who ordinarily would have been at the Penrith City Council but who was not there is a person I take great inspiration from—a person by the name of Maureen Silleri. Maureen is someone personally known to me and someone who was down here in Canberra on that day. She works for the Penrith City Council and is involved with specialist child care. She helps local Indigenous families access childcare services so that they may overcome some of the barriers that prevent them from entering the workforce. Maureen has put pen to paper and has given me the benefit of some of her reflections on some of the issues pertaining to the impact of the stolen generations. I wish to read into the record that short note from Maureen:

My Story—Maureen Silleri—

Maureen’s family name was Clayton—

At the time my brothers and sisters [were] taken I was only two years old. We were a family of 9 children and they (the Welfare Board) came and removed 6 children. There were 4 sisters and 2 brothers. They (The Welfare Board) had said to my mum that she could not look after all these children; the Board never came near us for months. We had our extended family members to support my mum. Dad was a drover and away a lot and we did not go with out anything.

The welfare believed that they were doing the right thing—however both my parents worked and as the children were getting ready for school they (the Board) came and just took the children, my two brothers and I were not taken as we were being minded by Nan and Pop because our parents were at work.

I believe that my parents never recovered from our family being torn apart, people are under the assumption that only one child in one family were taken but I can tell you that we were a family of 9 children and the board took 6 children.

I was in about sixth class ... and I came home from school and there was a young girl sitting on a chair and all I could remember thinking was how much she looked like my mum. Mum said to me to say Hi to your sister. So I was thinking that I had to get to know them all over again. All 6 of my brothers and sisters started to return home to us at different times, and in the end we all were reunited.

Last week I was fortunate enough to be in Canberra at Parliament House and hear the apology from the PM—it was a monumental event which one of my sisters (that was taken) was in the House of Rep ... but it was more significant when my family all came together on the grass area to celebrate the day when an apology was made to my Aboriginal people—a day we thought would never happen.

Maybe now those that were taken can now be at peace with this acknowledgment of the treatment of stolen generation, hopefully this can encourage them to move forward.

Upon reading this statement, I could not help but reflect upon some of my own personal family experiences. I am one of five children, my father was one of five children, my mother was one of 10 children and her mother was one of 11 children. I know that it can be a handful for parents to look after families of this size. But I also know that many families have been able to do it—and to do it well. I also know that, in the case of Maureen Silleri, there was no suggestion that her parents were unable to do that job as well as my grandmother, my mother and my great-grandmother were able to do it.

The sad reality of the stolen generations is that many people were taken away from their families for no other reason than that they were Aborigines. This is the harsh and uncomfortable reality that we need to confront and that we are confronting as part of this motion of apology that the parliament has moved for the nation. I should say that, whilst words are important—and I think it was significant that the Prime Minister referred to the unfinished business of reconciliation as being a ‘stain on the soul of the nation’; I think it is significant that we try to wash away that stain—I think it is also significant to note that, with all of the words in the world and all of the tears shed, irrespective of how significant those outpourings of emotion may be, all those things on their own will not be sufficient for us to achieve what I think we all have reached consensus on: closing the gap between the lack of opportunities that Indigenous Australians face and the opportunities that non-Indigenous Australians currently enjoy.

The most often cited expression of that gap is the 17-year gap between life expectancy of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Seventy-five per cent of males and 65 per cent of female Indigenous Australians die before the age of 65 compared to 26 and 16 per cent respectively in the non-Indigenous population. Ultimately, the success of each and every one of us as legislators and parliamentarians will be measured not merely in the small but significant step that we have taken in moving this motion of apology; the real judgement will be passed on whether we collectively can achieve inroads in these very important measures. That will be the real test for us all.

But I say that while also understanding and knowing how significant the giving of an apology was. In giving an apology, we as a parliament, on behalf of this nation, have moved away one of the important stumbling blocks towards reconciliation. In doing so, we show the respect that Indigenous Australians deserve and that the past mistreatment they have been subjected to demands.

When I saw all of the people throughout this building, throughout Canberra and throughout Australia shedding tears last week on Wednesday, 13 February, it struck me that, regardless of how significant any debate over the subtleties of language could possibly be, deep down beneath the semantics of saying sorry or just simply being regretful there was much suffering and much hurt that had extended to many people. It impacted on many families and Maureen Silleri’s family was but one affected by this great stain on our nation’s soul.

It is not only significant; I think moving this motion of apology is going to prove to be one of the most significant things that this parliament has done. It is a great source of personal pride to me that I have been able to participate in this debate and to add my voice to the chorus of voices in this place that have said that it is time for us to move on. But, before doing so, we need to confront the realities of what has occurred. We need to say sorry and we need to move on with mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was of real interest to me to have the opportunity to speak on this motion on the apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples. I was fairly happy that most of the members were going to talk about the apology and the historic occasion which occurred last week, but I have picked up on a number of media reports and the various reactions and the understandings of the apology from the other side of the House. I know speakers from both sides have many perspectives on it. However, the seat of Forde is a Gold Coast hinterland seat and to the south and to the east are the conservative seats of Fadden, McPherson and Moncrieff. Those seats, like part of the seat of Forde, have media coverage by the Gold Coast Bulletin, a major publication. In fact, its Saturday paper has a circulation of about 76,000 copies. I was very concerned last Saturday about an article written by a young journalist called Robyn Wuth. I am sure that Robyn wrote the piece with good intentions, to raise the level of debate and to cover the reaction from all sides of politics and from the community about the apology. I hope that it was a piece designed to raise a contention and maybe produce more understanding of the debate or at least to articulate what I know a lot of people in the community were saying about the apology.

Many members would have received many emails about the issue, but a chain email that has been circulated is becoming most concerning to me. The email, which I believe derived from an email that was circulated in Canada when they were looking at the indigenous issues of the Canadian Indians some years ago, carries a range of fleeting statements. People can have their say—Australia is a democracy—and this is certainly an opportunity to have a debate, but I was rather concerned when this journalist wrote a feature article in the Gold Coast Bulletin. I seek leave to present the article.

Leave granted.

I ask that all members have a look at this article. It was in a major publication. This is something that you would expect, dare I say, from some of the more conservative areas of western Queensland—and that is not to cast any aspersions on western Queensland, but they certainly do have a different view, for a range of reasons, to those of us in metropolitan seats. I will read a number of paragraphs from the article, and you will see where this is going. I am sure, as I said, that the young journalist was trying to raise the level of debate. It questions the level of freedom of the press in this country. I am quite happy that a story like this has been written. I ask that members on the other side of the House consider their responses, certainly those members from the Gold Coast seats that are covered by this publication. The journalist is asking what this is all about. The headline is ‘What a sorry lot of rot’, which in itself is a bit concerning. She says:

As P.G. Woodhouse said: ‘It is a good rule in this life never to aplologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.’

To be honest, I’m sick of all this namby-pamby boo-hoo-ing about bloody saying sorry.

How much of this is hype and how much of it actually happened?

That is concerning. There is plenty of evidence that a condition or situation occurred.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Holocaust deniers.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is almost holocaust denial, a bit like many other historians who have tried to deny other issues in history. I will not say that our Indigenous issues in this country are anywhere near as extreme as the holocaust but, in terms of people’s understanding and views, carrying this on into perpetuity is concerning. The fact is it was a young journalist writing about this particular stuff. She goes on to say:

I’m much more of your ‘what’s in it for me’ kind of girl—and there’s nothing for me in saying sorry except a giant payout my taxes will fund.

It also says:

But I have to say sorry.

Sorry for giving you free medical care, for giving you money, for building you homes which you vandalised and destroyed and treated with contempt and we paid to fix.

Sorry for developing large farms and properties, which today feed your people.

Sorry for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace the animal skins you used before.

It goes on to talk more about the particular things that so-called white society has given. Further, she says:

… let’s take it international.

…     …         …

Check under every rock, there’s something to apologise for everywhere you look.

The tribal war in Rwanda, the atrocities in Cambodia, the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan.

The Middle East. Uh-oh. For all we know, Mohammed and Jesus played together as kids.

But Jesus would have been the cool kid. Well, it’s true.

This journo may not be aware of what occurred to Salman Rushdie some years ago and the extremes of views which we do not have in this country. I am concerned that this sort of journalism could bring this notion to a point. As I said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to this journalist. In fact, any politician knows it is dangerous to bang the media, but in this case I would be interested to know whether this is the feeling of the general community, certainly in the region I represent. And I would like to know the views of other members.

Look at what happened in Queensland particularly. Only last night in my first speech I mentioned the era of the Bjelke-Petersen government. I was only seven years old when Indigenous people were finally recognised through the referendum in 1967. It was a time that all Australians celebrated through the ballot box and the referendum. There was overwhelming agreement that Indigenous people should be considered part of Australian society and have all the rights we have. Far more justified, people could stand here and talk about what that 1967 referendum meant for everybody. Certainly, it gave the country an understanding. It was probably the first point of reconciliation, and on the Labor side of politics we talk about the processes of reconciliation.

Last night I said that the sorry in this case, the historic apology last week, were really carrying on from the last Labor government in terms of proceeding with the apology. Getting back to the years of the Bjelke-Petersen government: as I said in my first speech, what galvanised me politically in terms of conservatism was the many strange laws made during that Bjelke-Petersen period. We had no upper house in Queensland, so the rule of the day was made in that one chamber. Of course, it was considered a police state. My own personal experiences suggest it may have been, but again people would have different views on that. The outcome was that there were a number of state ministers who ended up in jail—about seven of them—through a range of bad dealings and convictions for fraud.

I remember early in the 1970s a particular Indigenous affairs minister in Queensland talking about the need to work with and support Indigenous communities. His particular idea or initiative was that we should sterilise all 13-year-old Indigenous, or Aboriginal, girls because of unwanted pregnancies. My understanding, from my involvement with the Indigenous community, is that they do not have such things as unwanted pregnancies. That is very much a Western view.

That example shows, I guess, the strange and extreme views of the government at that stage, but I thought certainly by the 1980s and 1990s, even under the previous Howard government, there were sensitivities towards Indigenous people. But something went wrong. After the 1997 report and the notion of saying sorry, we somehow went off the track. Getting caught up in the dialogue, the taxonomy of the word, what ‘sorry’ meant, has stalled the process until now. The other side of politics probably consider that they should have dealt with this much sooner—but they did not. We did it because it was something that had to be done, so we can certainly get on with it.

Getting back to the Gold Coast Bulletin and Robin Wuth’s story: I am hoping that her intention was to raise this sort of debate so that people could get this stuff out in the open. A lot of these degrading comments were made by chain emails. People were talking about it and I have had people show me messages they received on their phones. My intention today, of course, is to bring it into the open to get some debate about it. There have been a number of publications and letters from different groups. Reconciliation Australia wrote to all members of parliament. I have listened to a number of the discussions and arguments in the House and outside the House about what the apology was all about. I wonder why people keep going over the same old ground, saying that it is conditional and it should be somewhat reconsidered.

It is very clear if you have any understanding of Indigenous communities—while I have had some involvement, I am certainly no expert—they are very, very productive, they get on with life and business and they have a very strong and growing community. They talk about sorry business and, interestingly enough, I was aware of sorry business many, many years ago. In our Western culture, if there is a bereavement, if someone dies, then we automatically say sorry. It is about empathy. This was always about empathy. It was not a strange issue or the taxonomy of words; it was about feeling empathy for another group.

I refer to a particular publication that I read many, many years ago. I do not want to submit it, but I can hold it up. It is a book called Liberal Thinking. Many people in the Liberal Party would have read this. It is in fact their bible. Chris Puplick and Robert Southey, I think it was, wrote this particular publication and it is a philosophical journal if nothing else. This is why I cannot understand the arguments on the other side of the House about simply saying sorry. This book talks about liberalism and it says:

Thus, while we discuss the centrality of the concept of freedom in liberalism, we must begin by establishing the ethical basis of freedom.

Further, along with the question of how people should act, there is the question of how they should be treated; or, as it is commonly framed, ‘What rights do people have?’

Our starting point for examining these is the concept of human dignity.

This is what I am here today to say. Irrespective of newspaper articles, irrespective of the arguments that are put up in terms of reconsideration, at the end of the day, this is about human dignity.

I can give my own experiences in life. I said, again in my first speech last night, that I was an adoptee and there are a whole range of other issues there and a lot of pain involved in that. But, interestingly enough, while adoptions were a legal arrangement that governments well managed, there were still a lot of people hurt and there are still a lot of people hurt today from probably bad decisions that were made from the 1930s right through to the 1990s. It is interesting that, in Queensland particularly, prior to those laws being changed there was an outpouring of grief and certainly then sorry business occurred within Western society in Queensland. Everyone had a view that this was a bad thing and everyone apologised to each other. Changes to the laws and legal requirements were made. That is what I cannot understand. Our Indigenous community have clearly had a number of things done to them under inappropriate laws, as we consider them to be now.

This is simply and essentially recognising that the laws were inappropriate. It is a government saying sorry, that governments got it wrong—as has every other state when it came to the adoption legislation in their state. This was about saying: ‘The laws were wrong. We needed to change them. We’re sorry. Let’s get on with it.’ In my closing remarks I would like to consider that, if we look at the publication of that which the other side used as their philosophical tome, really we all should understand that it is about human dignity. I thank you for your indulgence.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to congratulate every member of this House who in some way, large or small, has played some part in this apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. I want to also thank the member for Forde, a new member who has just made his contribution, for his thoughts and for his part in that apology. I want to thank every member of this House for their part because it is important that we do it on behalf of the Australian people and on behalf of the Australian parliament. This is not something that we do individually or personally—although that is important as well. It is very important that the Indigenous people of Australia understand that this is a bipartisan, parliamentary and government apology for things that have happened in the past.

I also want to make a note that, without any doubt in my mind, this is one of the most significant events to have happened in this place for a very long time. I do not know that we truly understand today just how significant that is. Perhaps in 10, 20, 50 or more years time people will reflect and members of parliament will reflect on the words and speeches and on the apology itself and look back at what we did at that historic moment, that time when the Australian parliament officially made an apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. It is very significant and probably one of the most significant things that we will have done in this place.

It seems on the surface so simple, so normal, so natural for it to happen. It certainly was an emotional time for not only members of parliament but the community at large, certainly for Indigenous people, people that were there on the day in the gallery, people that were watching from outside, people that were listening on radio, and people that rang my office, emailed, wrote, texted and in whatever form they could lent their support to what was taking place. It was an outpouring of a national sense of pride in what was happening.

I would like to, for the record, read the words of the apology so they can be associated more directly with my speech. With the indulgence of the Main Committee:

… today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

I wanted to read that into the record because I actually believe in the words. I think they are most profound and most significant and will make a huge difference to this nation.

For many people, arising out of the apology was the question: why apologise? There have been many explanations given as to why we should apologise and I will not give any of them, because I feel that, if you get to the point in a conversation or a debate where you need to explain to anybody why something needs to happen, you have already lost your argument. This needs no further explanation. The words contained in the apology in themselves are sufficient explanation, sufficient reason for this apology to have taken place.

I also want to refer, on the record, to the very significant moment at the opening of the 42nd Parliament in 2008 where we did a welcome to country. Many Australians listening to my words or reading them later would understand that a welcome to country is quite a normal, well-accepted and well-used way of bringing people together at a particular event. I can think of no more natural, normal and significant way for the Australian parliament to begin its proceedings and open a new parliament than to have a welcome to country. The beauty about it was that, as I sat in the Great Hall, not too sure just how the welcome to country would take place, I felt a welling of emotion, a sense of pride. I just felt this was so much part of what an Australian parliament should be. We are an Australian parliament and this was just a very natural thing to have taken place. By the time the hour had elapsed and we had done the welcome to country, I realised just how that welcome to country from Indigenous folk is meant to be. It really is about opening your arms up wide. It really is about saying, ‘The doors are open to all Australians.’ It really is about saying, ‘You’re all welcome.’

We heard many, many stories on that day—and not only from the Prime Minister but also in the speeches that followed—but one in particular that sticks in my mind is of an elderly Aboriginal gentleman in Canberra who came to the opening of parliament in the early seventies and was told to move on. He was basically told that he was not welcome. Reflecting on that, you would think that today that would be impossible—today, how dare we or anyone else take that attitude? We would all rally up with cries of shame. How could we possibly accept that today, in 2008, we would allow an Aboriginal person, an Indigenous person—or any other person, for that matter—who just wanted to witness proceedings and be a part of the opening of an Australian parliament to be turned away because of who they are? But that did happen and it happened not so long ago. It happened 30 years ago, which seems not long ago at all.

The significance of this event—the welcome to country and the apology to Indigenous Australians—I think is the turning of a page, the writing of a new page in history. It is so many significant things. It is a commitment that has been made by this parliament and by this generation of Australians, on behalf of all of us, to Indigenous people. I said at the start and I will say it again: this is not a political matter. This is not an issue of partisan politics because, in the end, it is bigger than each of us individually and, I would say, bigger than all of us collectively. This is a significant event for all Australians, whoever we are and wherever we are from.

Interestingly, from some polls taken since the apology, it seems that about 70 per cent of Australians are in support of the apology. There will always be some who do not support something, but they are very much a small voice. I think with the passage of time they will come to understand and to realise that this was a really good thing to do—just a really good and decent thing to do. Seventy per cent is a good figure, in fact, and I am quite proud that so many Australians are fully supportive of what took place. I also want to say that there is a great sense of pride in my local community—in Ipswich, in Inala and right throughout the western corridor. I know how much this means to a lot of people who are not asking for anything out of this. I think, deep down, they just wanted to have this sense of ‘we’re Australian as well’ and ‘we belong’. It is very, very important.

While I have the opportunity, I also want to make mention of Ipswich City Council, who have spent the past two years working on an agreement with local Indigenous people on land use. It is significant because it is the first of its kind in Australia. It is significant because it demonstrated leadership; it showed the way forward. This document, which the Ipswich City Council spent two years negotiating in partnership with local Indigenous groups, will be used as a template for all other councils around Australia. I would recommend any council to look at it and see what took place. It was the first time that a local government authority sat down genuinely, in equal partnership, with its local Indigenous people and said: ‘We want to have a land use agreement with you. We want to do that because we respect your views and your appreciation of the land and we want to work with you.’ I think that is really important, so I mention on the record the leadership that was shown by Ipswich City Council and its mayor. I mention the leadership of Mayor Paul Pisasale on this and the hard work of Deputy Mayor Victor Atwood to make it happen. It certainly was not easy, but it was worth doing—that was one of the key messages I got out of it.

What is really important, what is maybe more important than a lot of the things that have been said about the apology, is that this really is an opportunity and a point in time where a lot of people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can move on, where the debate can move on and where there is some sort of finality to one chapter so we can write a new one. I think that is very, very important. Now it is about dealing with those other issues. Now it is about dealing with bridging the gap on life expectancy; we have heard details of just how atrocious that is. It is now about trying to deal with the real issue of health care and the gap in terms of healthcare provision for Indigenous Australians and other Australians. It is now about bridging the gap in educational standards, in opportunity, in careers, in quality of life, in all the other things that we just take for granted and in that sense of belonging and feeling that you are at home.

I am sure that migrants to this country would understand exactly what I mean when I say ‘feeling you are at home’, because feeling at home is not so much a case of where you were born. It is like the old saying: home is where you hang your hat. For a lot of Australians—in fact, all Australians that are not originally Australian—the sense of feeling at home is about knowing that you belong; it is about where you hang your hat; it is about having pride in your country; it is about feeling that you are part of your country. To me, the sense of belonging, of empowering people, of giving them the opportunities to move beyond a certain point, is exceptionally significant.

The act of apology that this parliament took is not the first—so we should not kid ourselves that somehow we were the very first—but I would say it is the most significant. While we follow in the footsteps of state governments that have already apologised, there was never going to be a true apology, I felt, until it came from the Commonwealth, from the national parliament, from us, so I am very proud that took place.

I have got to congratulate the Prime Minister, because what he did was a courageous thing. It showed real leadership; it was about nation building and it was about decency. They are the key elements, to me, of what this was about. It was simple enough, yet it took so long to happen. What is truly amazing is that it has taken more than 100 years for us to finally decide to make the hardest decision of all, the decision that just seemed to be impossible. For many years we heard every possible excuse, but that is all they were: excuses from people that were too weak and lacked the courage to make what seemed like such a hard decision. In the end, if we reflect back now, it just seems so easy, so natural, such a part of something that we should all have done a long, long time ago.

I would just like to finish with a couple of thoughts. One is that it took us more than a hundred years to get to this point of making an apology. Let it not take us another 100 years before we bridge the gap on health, education and opportunity. Let us do something significant about those issues as well. What this apology clearly does—and this is why I support it so strongly—is to right the wrongs of the past and to set a path to the future for true reconciliation, for the building of goodwill and for a new beginning for both Indigenous people and all other Australians. Today I want to record my great pleasure in supporting the apology. As I said before, sometimes what seem to be the hardest things in the world to do turn out to be the easiest. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri, the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Chisholm, and their elders past and present. Last Wednesday was a profoundly significant day in the life of this parliament and of this nation, a day on which the parliament finally apologised to the stolen generations. I wish to add to the many expressions of sorrow from both sides of the chamber my own apology.

As an Australian and as a member of parliament—the very institution that passed laws and policies that caused the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents and families—I am sorry. I am sorry for the unspeakable pain and the enormous grief, suffering and loss that these actions inflicted upon the many thousands of members of the stolen generations who continue to live with the impact of these unjust policies every day. The grief and injustice is ongoing and resonates today. I cannot begin to imagine the torment experienced by those who were wrenched from their parents and, in turn, those who had their children torn away from them—terrible acts that were the result of policies generated by the Australian parliament and based on nothing more than race. It is my fervent wish, and the wish of Australians, that the apology delivered by the parliament will, in the words of the Prime Minister, ‘remove a great stain from the nation’s soul’ and truly allow the nation, united in the spirit of reconciliation, to build a new future together.

Many here in the House have mentioned the overwhelming reactions of those present here in the chamber and across the nation to the Prime Minister’s speech. I was deeply moved to be in the presence of those from the stolen generations who made their way here to hear an apology that many had thought would never take place—certainly not in their lifetime. The sense of joy and relief, felt by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike, that finally—finally—the parliament, and hence the nation, had recognised and acknowledged the truth of the suffering of the stolen generation was palpable. It was truly a momentous and moving day, a historic day, and I am proud to be a member of the government that initiated the motion and of a parliament that provided bipartisan support.

This mood in the nation for reconciliation was reflected in my electorate of Chisholm. I was inundated with hundreds of impassioned letters and emails from constituents expressing their wholehearted support for an apology. Many schools throughout my electorate thoughtfully commemorated the morning’s events with their students. Here are just a few I would like to mention: classes at Roberts McCubbin Primary School in Box Hill South and Kerrimuir Primary School in Box Hill North held related activities after watching the broadcast. Mount Scopus Memorial College in Burwood, a very large Jewish school, set up a booth with posters, information and a TV and a DVD replaying the morning’s broadcast. Avila College in Mount Waverley, which has a long relationship with the Indigenous community through Alice Springs, published information in their daily bulletin in the two weeks leading up to the day of the apology. On the day, they began with prayers and watched the broadcast in class, and erected a stand on which they, too, said they were sorry. Last year I actually conducted a reconciliation forum for school captains through to year 12 at Avila, and it was a truly moving occasion to hear our youth also expressing their sorriness.

As the House is aware, the nation was confronted with those shocking practices through the Bringing them home report, which outlined the devastating stories of thousands of Indigenous families being torn apart by forced removal up until as recently as 1970. Let no-one forget that these practices occurred not in the distant past but as recently as 1970; there are many Indigenous people, now in their late 20s and early 30s, who were removed from their families under these policies. In enacting these policies, different states had separate laws which governed their implementation. Children could be put into an institution or mission dormitory. Some were fostered or adopted, often after spending time in a children’s home. Many spent time in more than one institution or foster family. Many were sent out to work. Others were moved from institutions or foster families to detention centres or psychiatric hospitals.

Today I want to tell the story of Kutcha Edwards, a member of the stolen generation who grew up in children’s homes in my electorate of Chisholm and who is a member of the Whitehorse Friends for Reconciliation group. Kutcha is an acclaimed singer-songwriter, and I have Kutcha’s permission to tell his story. I am also happy to say that Kutcha was here at Parliament House to watch the apology last Wednesday, along with seven of his siblings. It was a very important day for Kutcha and his family. Kutcha was 18 months old when he was taken from his parents in Balranald, in south-west New South Wales, along with five of his brothers and sisters. Kutcha and his siblings were eventually reunited at the Orana Children’s Home, in Burwood in my electorate, where they remained for years. Kutcha also spent part of his early childhood at the Allambie children’s home in Elgar Road.

We can only try to imagine the grief, pain and suffering Kutcha and his siblings went through growing up without their family in institutions—taken from their parents because of unjust government policies. I knew many children who lived in Allambie, Orana, the Burwood Boys Home and the Burwood children’s home as my family was involved in church camps where we took children from these institutions for outings. These were predominantly foster children from white Australian families. I did not meet any Indigenous children, but I knew of their suffering from having been separated from their families and living in these homes. These homes have now been shut down, which in one way is a very good thing. But I knew of the pain and suffering of the children I met. They had been removed from their families and placed within fairly similar cultures—I cannot begin to imagine how hard it would have been for Kutcha and his siblings to undergo this transition.

Although he met his mother at the age of seven, Kutcha was not reunited with her until he was 14. Because of their separation, he says he found it hard to recognise a bond with his mother when they were together again. Kutcha says he was at parliament last Wednesday as part of a family collective to accept the apology on behalf of his mother and father, who he says tragically ‘went to their grave’ wondering what they had done wrong to have their children taken from them.

Kutcha is passionate about his music because he sees it as a way of letting people know that the stolen generation was not a myth—‘it did really happen to real people’. Kutcha has also used his experiences to help others. For the last 19 years, he has worked in the community at various organisations in Melbourne such as the Aboriginal Community Elders Services, the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, the Fitzroy Stars Youth Club Gymnasium and the Koorie Open Door Education school at Glenroy. He is particularly interested in working with Koori youth to empower them with a strong sense of self-worth, self-expression, self-belief and self-determination.

Kutcha’s trip to Canberra was supported by the Whitehorse Friends for Reconciliation. I want to make mention of the great work that the Whitehorse group does in my electorate to further the progress of reconciliation, and to thank them for supporting Kutcha to make it to that very special day. I also want to pay tribute to the tireless work that the Wurundjeri elder Professor Joy Murphy does for her people in the name of reconciliation. Joy is a tremendous advocate for her people but more importantly for the broader community in bringing these two cultures together. I had the honour and pleasure of Joy conducting a welcome to country ceremony in my electorate office not long after I was elected in 1998. It was truly one of the most moving experiences I have had. A group of Aboriginal elders squashed into my tiny office in Box Hill. We decided that a smoking ceremony probably could not be conducted there; we would probably get in trouble. But passing the gum leaf around was a magnificent occasion and I would encourage others to enjoy that wonderful experience we all had the other day when parliament was opened.

In his speech the Prime Minister left no doubt that it was the laws enacted by parliament that brought about the stolen generation, and that it was the deliberate policies of the state in the years 1910 to 1970 that led to between one in 10 and one in three young Aboriginal children being removed from their families. The Prime Minister provided the example—one of many on the historical record—of the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, whose words make clear that the practice of Indigenous child removal in this country was predicated solely on the basis of race.

The shameful goal was that children of ‘mixed descent’, particularly those with fairer skin, would be absorbed into the wider community so that their unique cultural values and identities would disappear. The goal of assimilation was vigorously pursued. Children and their families were discouraged or prevented from keeping in contact; lies were told that parents did not want to speak to their children or were dead; children’s names were changed or children were raised to hate their Aboriginality and to not speak the language; mission schools that were misleadingly put forth as providing a sound education provided nothing more than preparation for a life of menial labour; sexual abuse in foster homes and institutions was prevalent.

There is no question that against the odds some did find happiness in their new homes and were cared for by loving foster families or, less frequently, a conscientiously run institution. That is not in doubt, but this outcome is not the intention of the policy. As the Prime Minister and former Prime Minister Keating asked: imagine if this had happened to you. The effect upon Indigenous children and parents has proved devastating. As the Bringing them home report points out, every Indigenous family has been impacted by the forced removal of children. By saying sorry, we acknowledge the pain of the stolen generation and the truth of what has occurred—that it did take place—and we wish to make amends for the harm caused. It is by our facing up to the past that true reconciliation can take effect and the nation can, united, address the injustices that face Indigenous Australia today. As Sir William Deane, the former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, stated:

It should, I think be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous people is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgement by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples.

However, this necessary apology is only a start. As we commit in this apology to never again allow injustice to be inflicted upon Australia’s Indigenous people, we must do all we can to tackle the overwhelming disadvantage they face. The statistics are stark and shocking. Whether it is in educational achievement, employment or life expectancy, Indigenous people lag far behind the rest of the population. We must use the goodwill generated by the apology as a springboard to close the gap. The resolve is there. The Prime Minister has put up real targets that the government can be judged on and measured by. And it is in the spirit of a new beginning that the Leader of the Opposition has also grasped this challenge by agreeing to head, with the Prime Minister, a joint policy commission to develop and implement an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years.

With the goodwill generated by the apology, the nation can, in the spirit of reconciliation, put behind itself the failings of past parliaments and move forward together, making real inroads in fighting these inadequacies. It is now my wish, the wish of the parliament and the wish of this country that, through acknowledging these past injustices and asking forgiveness, and through the generosity of Indigenous Australia accepting that apology, a spirit of healing can take place in which we can confront present-day Indigenous disadvantage. I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the Prime Minister. I commend the motion to the House.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge the Kulin Nation, the traditional owners of the land in the area which I represent, and pay my respects to the elders. According to David Horton’s encyclopedia, it was these people I have just referred to with whom John Batman dealt in 1835, when he believed that he had bought the site of Melbourne. Last week, in fact, we saw a momentous and long overdue event take place in the House when the Prime Minister apologised to the stolen generations. As the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, said:

We acknowledged the past and laid claim to a new future of shared opportunity for all Australians. We did it to go some way towards righting past wrongs, to complete ... unfinished business. We did it to build a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians based on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility.

I add my wholehearted support to that apology. It was long overdue and a credit to our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, that he made it a priority on the first sitting of the 42nd Parliament.

In fact, it is just over 40 years since the referendum of 1967 that asked for a repeal of section 127 of the Constitution, which stated that Australian natives shall not be counted in the reckoning of the numbers of the Commonwealth. Before this there was a 10-year campaign by the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Then the referendum was held in Australia. That referendum was overwhelmingly endorsed, by 90.8 per cent of the voting public. The 1967 referendum deleted section 127 of the Constitution. But, 41 years later, Indigenous people die 17 years earlier than other Australians. Forty-one years from our acknowledgement that no longer were Indigenous Australians to be numbered amongst the fauna, they are still disadvantaged.

Could there be a starker reminder of inequality in Australia than the massive gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? They suffer more diabetes, heart disease, the ravages of Third World diseases like rheumatic fever and trachoma, more infantile deaths and hospitalisation, more violence, more accidents, more mental health problems, more substance abuse, more unsanitary living conditions and more years in jail.

The Productivity Commission report Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage showed that there is still an overwhelming and unacceptable gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in health, education and employment and income. Nearly 20 years after the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended prison as a last resort, between 2000 and 2006 there was a 32 per cent jump in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders locked up. Indigenous students are only half as likely as other Australians to complete year 12 in education. The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is still three times higher than for other Australians, and the yawning income gap between us is a disgrace. I think it is a disgrace that we spent so much of the last 10 years clarifying policies to an electorate that does not understand some topics, yet we found it so hard to utter those two syllables: ‘sorry’.

I believe that the issue of the apology has enlarged the hearts, the hopes and the pride of Aboriginal people beyond any measure that I as a non-Aboriginal Australian could have imagined. I believe we were all surprised at the outpouring of interest and the almost sense of relief that the deed had finally been conducted. I do not believe that saying sorry is window dressing; I believe it is a circuit-breaker. By acknowledging wrongs and assessing honestly and rigorously what needs to be done, we move forward. I believe it is the first mile post of a spiritual highway, the way back home for thousands of broken egos and brutalised childhoods, of people so long accustomed to being treated as second class. I believe that saying sorry begins the reconciliation, the building of trust, the mutual respect and the acceptance that can address the underlying discrimination which is a key impediment to the employment opportunities of Indigenous people.

Until recently I was a union leader, so employment and workplaces were my business. At the end of last year I looked at what was happening work wise to Indigenous people 40 years on from the referendum. I know that people were happy to boast about Australia’s record low unemployment, but it is not low for everyone. Indigenous people are three times more likely to be unemployed than other Australians and their participation rate only ranks at three-quarters of the average. Of those in work, they are most likely to be employed in low-paid public sector jobs or in low-skilled jobs in the private sector, with Work for the Dole schemes accounting for an ever-increasing share of Indigenous employment. But, surely, if this is a lucky country Indigenous people would be earning the same as the rest of us. The answer should be yes, but in the year 2004-05 Indigenous people on average earned $278 a week less than the rest of us.

I believe that the employment policies of the last 11 years have failed Indigenous Australians, especially if we judge them on what is a pretty fundamental indicator: how much you earn and how that flows on correspondingly to a reduction in poverty. When over half of the pay packets of Indigenous Australians in fact comes from government pensions and allowances we have a problem. The Productivity Commission revealed that in the 10 years to 2004 Indigenous workers had no measurable real increase in income. If you are an adult in Australia aged 45 to 54 and you are not Indigenous, you are likely to earn nearly 2½ times what your Indigenous counterpart of the same age earns. How could this be happening in the golden years of prosperity? It defies belief. I believe we need to inquire into the pay inequities and the factors at work here. Surely this will be a role for the new government. Labor knows that a mark of a fair and just society is how it treats its most disadvantaged citizens. Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin have committed Labor to closing the 17-year life expectancy gap, starting with Indigenous children being born today.

The Labor government’s initiatives are about making sure that every Indigenous mother and her child have access to comprehensive child and maternal health, home visits, early childhood development, universal preschool for four-year-olds, intensive literacy and numeracy intervention, health care, parenting support and education initiatives in cooperation with state governments and local communities. It is all vital but, to me, education is the key. It is certainly key to creating projects and employment opportunities and to laying the groundwork for a brighter future based on equality and partnership. There are many mistakes to rectify, but I believe that the apology was an enormous step. I believe the healing has already begun.

I would like to mention a good friend of mine, Colleen Marion, who once said:

Having been brought up in a large family in remote Queensland, living in a tin hut, I loved the fact that our family spoke our language, hunted our own food and lived traditionally. All aboriginal kids should experience that lifestyle.

Colleen, who lives in my electorate, now runs a wonderful place called the Gathering Place in the suburb of Maribyrnong, just outside my electorate in my colleague the Hon. Nicola Roxon’s electorate of Gellibrand. Official estimates are that the Indigenous population in the western suburbs of Melbourne number around 3,000, although the Gathering Place thinks it is closer to 4,000. The Gathering Place provides a very good model of intervention which actively assists in practical ways the lives of Indigenous Australians. This place provides accessible services, including a family support unit; a GP clinic, home and community care programs; playgroups; justice and youth workers; and many more.

The service has been growing rapidly. For instance, in the last 12 months there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of clients accessing the Gathering Place services. A year ago, 70 to 80 clients were attending the clinic every month and now it is 140 to 150. Many of them have complex chronic diseases and social circumstances which require referral to services and also support to attend these services. An intake worker assesses every new client to ensure the issues are identified so that appropriate services can be offered. The demand has grown so much that they are expanding from their current premises and have set up a satellite service in Werribee in the Hon. Julia Gillard’s electorate.

I was honoured to invite and host Colleen Marion here in Canberra for Sorry Day. She is a magnificent and caring woman who opens her heart for all. The joy and solemnity of Sorry Day touched us all and I think the repercussions are beginning to ripple across the waters of our community immediately. According to Colleen’s Gathering Place:

Since the Australian Government’s apology to the stolen generations the gathering place has had an increased number of people from stolen generations approaching the service for support. The apology has been an important step for these people in acknowledging their history to improve their well being.

I heartily support the motion of the Prime Minister in making an apology to the stolen generations. I commit myself wholeheartedly to this new and more hopeful chapter in Australia in celebrating our ongoing story of reconciliation with Indigenous Australia.

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

As he is a new member, I did not interrupt him, but the member should refer to ministers either simply by their electorates or by their ministerial responsibilities and not by name.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome and strongly support this motion of an apology to our Indigenous Australians, especially those who were forcibly removed from their mothers, their families, their communities and their land. Firstly, I offer my respects to the traditional owners of this land in Canberra, the Ngunawal people, and also the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Hughes, the Dharawal of the coastal regions of Sutherland Shire and the Cabrogal people of the Liverpool area, who archaeologists suggest inhabited the land for over 40,000 years.

I know there are many of my constituents who will heartily approve of my support for this motion but, as is to be expected in the healthy, robust democracy that is Australia today, there will be those who will not understand and so I seek to explain to them my reasons. To those who say that this generation, our current generation of Australians, have no share in the responsibility of the actions of generations past, I point out that the policy of removal was a government policy and it was carried out under the orders of Commonwealth and state parliaments over several decades.

Parliaments, unlike human beings, command an inherent timeless sovereignty. For example, authorised agreements or contracts, treaties or memorandums of understanding of a parliament, as well as legislation, continue from one government to another and are honoured as existing formal instruments of the parliament. Indeed, parliaments could not be effective as the ultimate authority of our nation if it were otherwise. Therefore, it is right and fitting for this parliament, as the appropriate legal entity, to publicly and humbly express sorrow and contrition for this shameful blot on our national escutcheon. I am grateful that I am actually here as one of the federal members of this parliament to add my name to the names of those who support this motion. I agree with the comments of the member for Oxley, who said that he felt that this was perhaps one of the most significant events in this parliament.

Whether the children were stolen or rescued, whether the cause was either fear of or actual abuse, neglect or outright danger of harm, the permanent separation of children from their mothers and communities is not the way to correct any perceived social concern. Whatever the good intentions our forefathers may have had to save these children—and we all know that the road to hell is indeed paved by good intentions—the forced removal of children on a permanent basis from their mothers is a gross act of inhumanity and emotional cruelty.

The well-documented stories of the subsequent periods of many of the lives of these children reveal too many who were neglected, abused and violated by the separation. While, no doubt, there were many who were educated and who lived in caring environments, we now also know that far too many experienced a living hell on earth. There are many who have lived in constant fear of physical danger. However, because of their forced separation from their mothers and families, we now know that they all, even those who were properly cared for, suffered severe emotional and psychological scarring that continued for the rest of their lives and, for many, continues to this day.

What of the mothers? How did they live any kind of life after their children were taken? How could they have found any kind of peace or respite from their distress and their anguish? I would have gone mad if any of my children were taken from me. The good intentions of the parliament, the government of the day and the welfare officers or other officials would have been utterly and totally irrelevant to a grieving and distraught mother. All she would know is that inexplicably and without just cause her babies were taken by strangers and she may never see them again.

The very least this parliament can do is say a very public and humble sorry to these children, to these mothers and indeed to all of our nation’s first people. I am grateful to have been in this parliament when this was done. Hopefully, there will now be many Indigenous Australians who will know in their hearts that we here in this place have listened to their voices and have come to understand the terrible sufferings many have endured, although through seriously misguided intentions of good.

Hopefully, with this powerful, symbolic expression of sorrow, expressed in the national parliament by the national parliament, the healing can now really begin. There are those who have said that this is simply a grand, symbolic gesture. But symbols have a real role to play in human relationships. They can represent a great promise of a new dawn in such relationships and this one carries with it great portents for our future together. This is a new beginning and this new dawn demands that we do not allow this sorry motion to be just all there is. We as a parliament must ensure that it is a symbol that carries with it great substance in delivering equality and equity for all Australians, and that means addressing the disadvantage we know is grossly suffered by many of our Indigenous Australians today. The Prime Minister is quite right when he says:

It is not a sentiment that makes history; but it is our actions that make history.

Now is the time to change the history of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I welcome the announcement from the Prime Minister that he will establish a joint policy commission to be led by him and the Leader of the Opposition to develop and implement, to begin with, an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years. This is an excellent next step because, while housing is vital for the proper care of families, individual homeownership is a greater leverage for true equality and equity for Indigenous Australians.

The community title system of landownership in remote communities where all land is actually owned by the community itself or by a land council is nothing other than a communist collective. Indeed, I am concerned about an article in today’s Australian by Patricia Karvelas which talks about the 99-year lease system instigated by the previous Prime Minister and the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. In the article Karvelas says:

The 99-year lease system was designed to give Aborigines the opportunity to buy and look after their own homes rather than return to the communal title—the system under which all land is jointly owned by the local community.

This indeed is a communist style collective and it is something that we do not impose on other Australians. We should not bear inequality and inequity and impose it on our Indigenous Australians. There is something dignified about being able to own one’s home, and our Indigenous Australians have that right alongside non-Indigenous Australians. I strongly supported the measures by the previous Prime Minister in this regard and I commend the value of individual homeownership to the current Prime Minister.

The conditions and living standards of Australians in remote communities have challenged governments now for some decades. In more recent times we have heard the stories of horror and violence against women and children in many of those remote communities—stories that make us realise that many of them are at the point where they live their lives in constant fear and hunger. Back in 1998 I actually spoke on a report by Professor Boni Robertson from Griffith University in Queensland where she and a panel of Indigenous women elders went and investigated the violence in remote Indigenous communities in North Queensland. I was concerned that for about two years after that report was handed down it was met with silence. Nothing, however, is quite as powerful as an idea whose time has come and it is now clear that the concept that we have to address the violence and neglect in remote Indigenous communities is right before us. Many of the children and women who have been subjected to violence in these remote communities have experienced neglect induced by the unlimited alcohol, and have been debased by the pornographic material, available in those communities. In a way, this was a result of further misguided good intentions of the government of the day, but also the debilitating corrosive impact of welfare. I note many of the comments that have been articulated by leaders of Indigenous communities today regarding how welfare kills softly. I commend again the previous minister for Indigenous affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough, for his work in addressing this serious issue in many of our remote communities of Australia. But again I agree with the current Prime Minister when he said:

The old approaches are not working. We need a new beginning ... a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation.

I would like to make a contribution to this new beginning and it is appropriate that we make a start with housing and with the education of children, as he has indeed suggested; but this must be done in a culturally sensitive manner. At this point I make the observation that abused and neglected children are found not just in remote Indigenous communities but also in non-Indigenous Australia. Indeed, it is a regular and genuine cause for wondering whether or not we actually like children in our country anymore when we see the constant news reports of abuse and violence against Australian children. Last year most Australians were shocked and horrified to hear of a little girl who was starved to death, and only yesterday I was disturbed to hear news of two young children who died in mysterious circumstances in their home in a suburb close to Liverpool in my electorate. It is clear that the agencies that various Australian governments have put in place for the protection of Australian children are not working. It is impossible for a DoCS officer to live permanently in the homes of troubled families. If ever there was an urgent call for a new beginning it is certainly here in the protection of young Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Imagine if we could provide safe accommodation for these children that included a structured learning environment where meals and supervised play were provided with care and a genuine commitment to their progress. Imagine if these centres had world-class facilities, state-of-the-art classrooms and swimming pools, tennis courts, playing fields, fully equipped gyms, craft and music rooms. Why not?

Why could the centres not boast the very best teachers and special educators that money could buy? Not only can I imagine such a place but I know of such a place. It is Boys Town in my electorate at Engadine. Boys Town provides such a structured learning environment for boys who come from troubled families. The boys generally arrive on Sunday evenings and return to their homes on Friday evenings for the weekend. Such learning facilities as Boys Town could easily be provided across the nation by the federal government. We are wealthy enough to provide for our children. Teachers could ideally be on rotation from the mainstream educational system of each state, with specialist teachers and educators appointed as required. Such centres could offer first-class facilities and maintain the highest educational standards. They would provide a real circuit-breaker for a child existing in neglected or traumatic circumstances who is identified as needing interim protection from a troubled family or community. However, the children would not be permanently separated from their parents or families or those communities because they would be able to return home on weekends or on a basis that is practical and suitable to each individual child. The children would be able to maintain—indeed, would be encouraged to maintain—those vital links with culture, family and community.

The provision of appropriate housing and education for children are only two areas of concern that require our immediate attention and action if we are to implement important actual indicators of our genuine expression of reconciliation. It will, indeed, be a new page in our shared history that will allow us to write a vision for a bright future together as fellow Australians, as one people. I wholeheartedly welcome and support this motion to say sorry and I commend the motion to the House.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week this parliament said what was true and did what was just. When we seek to reconcile ourselves with those to whom great wrongs have been done, we must first tell the truth. We must first acknowledge what was done, because if we fail to recognise the truth there can be no reconciliation. The parliament last week collectively did just that. We recognised that great wrongs had been done, wrong policies of past parliaments and past governments, some of which intended and all of which assumed the gradual disappearance of the Aboriginal people of Australia. They were said to be a dying race. It was said that the kindest thing, the only thing, that could be done was to smooth the pillow of their passing. The stories told in the Bringing them home report are horrible to recall, horrible to relate and have traumatised many people when they have read them.

I first heard about the stolen generation long before that, some years before when I was working closely with Lowitja O’Donoghue. She told me her own story, which was new to me. I had never imagined that policies in the 20th century had been as racially based or that programs of removal of children for reasons that were racially based had been so widespread over such a long period of time. When we recognise the error of those ways, we should not be mealy-mouthed about stating them to be wrong. We did that. Wednesday last week was a very proud day to be a member of the Australian parliament. So much of what we say here is lost in the fury of partisan debate and political points scored, but last week this parliament spoke from the heart. I believe we spoke for the vast majority of Australians. We were right to say sorry and I was very proud to stand together with members of the House of Representatives from both sides in saying sorry on behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the people we represent.

Some Australians have been concerned about taking on guilt. ‘Intergenerational guilt’ is the phrase that has been used. We cannot take on the guilt of wrongs that were done by other people. Nobody can take on the guilt of a wrong done by another person. If guilt is to be imputed to the actions of others, then that guilt stands with them. What we can do is open our hearts and recognise those wrongs and recognise the errors that were made and express our empathy and compassion from the bottom of our heart. When we do that we are engaged in what Pope John Paul II once described as the purification of memory. Memory has to be respected. It has to be true. We have to recognise what was done, then we have to recognise the facts and then we have to recognise the character of what was done and provide our own moral response to it. In doing that and in saying sorry, making that apology for wrongs that were done in previous times, we build a bridge towards true reconciliation. It enables us to move on.

Just as the apology, the statement of ‘sorry’, was so meaningful, symbolic, so generous and so much from the heart, so too was the way in which it was accepted. I was as moved by the Aboriginal people in the parliament with the T-shirts carrying the word ‘Thanks’ as I was by any of the oratory from the members of parliament who spoke so eloquently on the day. That acceptance of the apology was an act of grace, and it provided the completion of that purification of memory of which the Pope spoke.

When I left the chamber and walked out into the Great Hall and the surrounds I saw so many people, but I was looking for one. I was looking for Lowitja O’Donoghue. And there she was, the woman who had told me first about the stolen generation, told me her own personal story, told me about the hurt and the sense of betrayal and the yearning for reconciliation. And there she was, at the moment when ‘sorry’ was said, when the apology was given. I will never forget that moment. I do not think any of us who were here last week will ever forget it.

In this parliament of course we represent all Australia. We represent our own constituents, but we represent all Australia. When we rise together we represent the nation that elected us. But we also come here as representatives of our own community, and I just want to record the commitment of so many people in my electorate of Wentworth, Indigenous Australians and many non-Indigenous Australians, who wrote to me and called me and urged me to support the motion. Of course, most of them knew that I did support the motion—I have been on the record about this for some time. They lent their support to the apology and told me that I had their support in saying sorry. I feel that day brought Australians together. I do not believe it carried guilt from one generation to another. I do not think that is possible. What I think it did do was carry an act of grace from our generation to the generations that were so cruelly wronged.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution on the motion of apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets. I want to thank Matilda House and the Ngunawal elders for their welcome to country which was performed at the opening of parliament last Tuesday. I would also like to pay my respects to the Darumbal people, who are the traditional owners of Rockhampton and much of the land which is included within my electorate of Capricornia.

For me the act of apologising to the members of the stolen generations and their families who have followed them, and who today carry the hurt that was done to their mums and dads and aunties and uncles, is easy. I have always believed that to follow our very fundamental human instincts when faced with the suffering and pain of another human being and to say sorry—to say sorry when we feel sorry—is the right thing to do. Last week’s apology by the parliament to the stolen generation of Indigenous children, to their descendants and to the families they left behind felt right. It felt right for me standing in the chamber and it felt right for the countless Australians who stopped to watch and listen to the apology and who cried, cheered and embraced at the sound of that word ‘sorry’. It felt right because it was the right thing to do, and it should have been done many years ago. There has been a gap, a chasm, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia for too long over this failure to be very honest with each other and to feel empathy for what has happened in the past.

A lot of speakers—and the preceding speaker, the member for Wentworth, raised it in his comments—have talked about the notion of apologising for something that we individually did not do, that we do not have individual responsibility for and that has not been done by this parliament or by any of us within the parliament. I have had to give an explanation for that to my son. I have a son who is almost five and he put that very basic question to me in the week leading up to the apology in parliament, saying, ‘But why would you say sorry for something that you didn’t do?’ Children often put those things in pretty blunt terms. I explained to him that when you come across someone who is hurting, feels bad and needs comfort surely it is a natural reaction to say, ‘I’m sorry—not sorry that I did something to you, not sorry because it’s my fault that you feel that way, but sorry that you are feeling that way. I am sorry for the hurt that has been done to you and I am sorry for how it has left you feeling.’ My son had no difficulty understanding that when I explained to him how I felt about it—and that is certainly how I do feel about it. These people are hurting, and I am sorry for their hurt.

So there is no question for me about the act of saying sorry and all that it symbolises. I guess what I have struggled with are the words to use. What do I say to those Indigenous people in Central Queensland who have been carrying the pain of separation from their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, the injustice of discrimination and the indignity of their treatment, carried out in the name of past governments? What do I say to them? I have grappled with that task ever since it was announced that, living up to the commitment that we gave to all Australians at the election, there would be an apology given by the parliament to the members of the stolen generation as the first act of a Rudd Labor government in the new parliament. But, after being part of the apology in the parliament last Wednesday and seeing the reaction across the country, I am reassured that when it comes to starting the healing process for the stolen generation and our Indigenous peoples—and, indeed, for our nation as a whole—that one word is strong enough to carry the weight of our expectations, our expectations that that word can right past wrongs and our expectations that it can lead to a better future. So I say ‘Sorry’.

In the words of the motion moved in the parliament last week, I am sorry for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on my fellow Australians. I am sorry especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. I am sorry for the pain, suffering and hurt of those stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind. I say sorry to the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities. And I say sorry for the indignity and degradation that was thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture.

I think all of us would hope that last week’s apology represents the turning of a new page in Australia’s history and all of us welcome that opportunity. It has been too long coming and we are pleased that it is now here. In turning that page, however, we should not forget the actions of the past that have done so much damage and that have caused Indigenous people so much pain. We must pay our Indigenous peoples the respect of honouring their history, even those parts that may be uncomfortable for non-Indigenous Australians to face.

Turning the page on this chapter should not be read as sweeping this part of our history under the rug. Indigenous people and especially those members of the stolen generations and their families have had to live with the reality of the past for decades—the reality of the past and the legacy of the past that carries on through subsequent generations of those families and communities that were affected by these policies.

The Bringing them home report of 1997 brought that history to life and meant that none of us could continue to shelter behind the excuse that we did not know what had happened. Page after page of that report tells us that it happened. It tells us in absolutely heart-rending detail that it happened. Page after page of that report tells us that children were taken away, that abuse happened, that mothers and fathers were left heartbroken and, indeed, many lives were completely broken. Many families, not surprisingly, never, ever recovered from what happened to them. Communities were destroyed and we see the results of these policies in Indigenous communities today. In that report so many brave people told their stories of loss, grief and pain. We owe it to them to face up to what happened, accept that its legacy lives on in present-day disadvantage and take the steps, both practical and symbolic, to make amends.

Having said sorry—having said that powerful word ‘sorry’—I feel that I have said enough for now. Now it is time to listen to the Indigenous people in Central Queensland to learn how we can best work together to achieve our shared goal of reducing Indigenous disadvantage in all its forms. When it comes to listening I was given the chance to reflect on what that means in a poem that one of our local Indigenous leaders Margaret Holdagorn sent to me last week after hearing the apology. It is a piece written by a woman called Miriam Rose Ungunmerr. It is called Dadirri: listening to one another. I will be reflecting on this as I go back to my electorate with the aim of working closely with the Indigenous people of Central Queensland and listening to them. The piece says:

Dadirri. A special quality, a unique gift of the Aboriginal people, is inner deep listening and quiet still awareness … It is something like what you call contemplation.

Miriam Ungunmerr goes on to say:

Our people are used to the struggle and the long waiting. We still wait for the white people to understand us better. We ourselves have spent many years learning about the white man’s ways; we have learnt to speak the white man’s language; we have listened to what he had to say. This learning and listening should go both ways. We would like people in Australia to take time and listen to us. We are hoping people will come closer. We keep on longing for the things that we have always hoped for, respect and understanding.

We know that our white brothers and sisters carry their own particular burdens. We believe that if they let us come to them, if they open up their minds and hearts to us, we may lighten their burdens. There is a struggle for us, but we have not lost our spirit of Dadirri.

I want to thank Margaret Hornagold for sending that to me, because it has given me a lot to think about as I go about working with her and other Indigenous people in my electorate on the very big task we have ahead of us in bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As Miriam Rose Ungunmerr says in this piece, it has taken a long time, and I hope we are now at that point. I hope we have moved on as a country to a place where we can put aside the unfinished business that has stood between us, that we can now listen to each other in an honest way, where we can truly work together to make this country as good for Indigenous people as it has been for the non-Indigenous people, and that we will have a truly shared future together.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for a large electorate, the largest electorate in New South Wales, which also has a very large Aboriginal population, I am obviously aware of the issues surrounding the apology last week and also very aware of the issues surrounding my electorate of Calare and the issues surrounding the Aboriginal people who live in it. Let me tell you that they are a very, very welcome and very, very wanted part of that part of Australia. They play a very important role, as do all people in the electorate of Calare and in fact in western New South Wales.

Nobody wants to help Aboriginal Australians move forward—or, more correctly, help them move themselves forward—more than I do, but an apology that does not have the resolve to act, to let the past go, means nothing at all. That really means that everybody on both sides, if there are sides in this debate, has to be able to move forward from the past, from the blame game—as is a popular thing to say these days—and get on with life. There are two sides to every equation or two sides to the game, and both sides have to be able to let go and move forward.

I think almost all people in the past—I say ‘almost all’; not everyone, obviously—be they government or whoever, have acted or have thought they acted with the right intentions. But unfortunately there were some who acted under racist misconceptions. We are talking about children who were removed from their families. Obviously, the child’s welfare is much more important than the feelings of the parents involved. It does not matter what the background of the parents is—if a child is in danger then it has to be removed, whether it is 100 years ago or today. But where a child has been removed because of the culture of the parents then obviously there is no question that it was wrong and should not have happened, and let us hope it never happens again.

The one thing that I am very disappointed about in the current debate and the talk that has certainly—and I am very pleased that it has—come to the surface since the events of last week is in the events surrounding what has been happening in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. People are forgetting—I am not, and western New South Wales and New South Wales as a whole are not—that the issues that exist there also exist in New South Wales. In my electorate and in western New South Wales, these issues are also there.

I very much urge the new government to work with the New South Wales government to get it to look at its own report, which I will mention in a moment. I take this opportunity to stray away from the straight issue of the apology to look at the issues which are so current around Australia, be they in the Northern Territory, be they in western New South Wales or wherever they might be. I think that in what the Prime Minister calls the new spirit of cooperation or getting rid of the blame game it is incumbent upon the current government to deal with New South Wales and to take action, or to get the New South Wales government, because we are not talking about the Northern Territory here, to take action to make life better for my constituents, particularly my Aboriginal constituents, in the electorate of Calare and western New South Wales—and what affects one really affects the lot, so we are talking about the whole population.

I have been very vocal about Indigenous issues in western New South Wales. What really pains me is that the New South Wales government has all but ignored a report first commissioned by the current federal Minister for Home Affairs when he was a minister in the New South Wales government. The report, which is called Breaking the silence: creating the future, addressed child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities in New South Wales, painting a horrific picture of abuse within Indigenous communities in our state, yet it has basically been ignored. In fact, take the report which provided the basis on which the previous government moved to intervene in the Northern Territory, Little children are sacred. Well, the New South Wales report Breaking the silence, which was commissioned a long time before that federal one, having been handed down almost two years before Little children are sacred was, pretty much says exactly what the report on Northern Territory matters, Little children are sacred, said—yet it is being ignored. For those of us who live in New South Wales that is a terrible thing. That is an indictment of the New South Wales government. Most importantly, that is a terrible thing for those little Aboriginal children in New South Wales who are still suffering what is addressed in that report.

As a minister, I was very fortunate to have on my staff Peter ‘Chika’ Gibbs. Many of those from the last parliament who are still here, being those on both sides of the chamber who are members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship Group, will remember Peter’s very powerful speeches, in the committee room and in the Great Hall last year, which left quite a few of you in tears. Peter is a product of the back country of New South Wales. He grew up Weilmoringle, a very small village which is actually in my electorate of Calare. It is north of Brewarrina. He is very proud to be an Aboriginal and of his Indigenous heritage, and it is fair to say that his life has not always been an easy one. He had a simple mantra that he wanted people, particularly Aboriginal people or those of that descent, to know: ‘No matter how difficult one’s life, there is only one person responsible for your own actions, and that is you. Without making changes in your own life then nothing will get better.’

I read with interest an article in the Australian newspaper by its editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, earlier in the week. I believe that it is worth quoting in this forum as it speaks eloquently of the dilemma facing all of us in this place. It does not matter what our political persuasion is as it faces all of us. As the member for Wentworth said earlier, we all represent all Australians. This is what Kelly says:

The apology is demanded by our humanity and respect for fellow human beings in a shared community. But Rudd rejects the 1997 demand for compensation, rejects the report’s accusation of genocide and repudiates the false trail of intergenerational guilt.

He then goes on to say:

This amounts to a devastating critique of the current and past generation of Liberal and Labor governments. At this point Rudd confronts a new denialism. Just as John Howard was wrong to deny the confessional value of the apology, many Laborites are wrong to deny the abject failures of past generation policies.

When it comes to Indigenous affairs, many Australians have firm, entrenched views on the subject. The verbal apology which was expressed in parliament last week and was endorsed by all parties is going to please many Aboriginals and many non-Aboriginals. While this might be a symbolic but sincere gesture, I hope it is not used by some people to fuel ongoing divisiveness.

It is now incumbent upon all of us to move forward with programs of support and inclusion for our Indigenous communities and to not allow the clock to wind back and raise further resentment and conflict. I think the whole point is that this is a wasted exercise if people cannot move forward from it. Actions always speak louder than words. It is imperative that the actions of this government support an ongoing collaboration between federal government and the Aboriginal communities and people of Australia and that the government shows no fear in taking action where action must be taken—as we did in the Northern Territory last year, backed up at that time by the current Territory government. I am not a Territorian but I have been up there a bit and I know a lot of people, such as Nigel Scullion, with vast experience up there. I think it will be a great pity if the current government brings back the permit system. We really must look upon this as helping the Northern Territory, because the one thing I do know is that, when Aboriginal women of the Northern Territory feel safe to talk about these things, they are themselves very supportive of the actions taken by the Commonwealth government up there last year.

I strongly believe that action needs to be taken in western New South Wales too. I think that, while our issues are not as widespread, people in western New South Wales are probably more exposed to the general media. Already people in the Calare electorate are talking about a ‘lost generation’. We cannot move forward from this without leadership from the Aboriginal community. It is important that it continues to grow, as it has with people such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine—he comes from Dubbo and is someone I know quite well. And there is the person I mentioned a while ago, Peter Gibbs. They are all demanding reform by Aboriginal groups themselves. They are demanding reforms not just by us, the parliament and the people of Australia, but by the Aboriginal community itself. They know that their attitudes have to change to help themselves; we cannot do it if they are not part of it, quite obviously.

While no-one can be proud of some aspects of our history, it is very telling that most of the events of the last 100 years were done in good faith; although not all, obviously. I am well aware that many in our community will not agree with the apology. However, given our understanding that this is not and cannot be about recompense, financial or otherwise, we all have to move on from here. Let us take this opportunity to do that. The acceptance of the Australian community that it is time to actively move forward and support all sectors of the community will go a long way to assisting our reconciliation process. All of us need to be a part of assisting the Aboriginal community to help themselves, just as with any other disadvantaged section of our community.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land we are gathered on and thanking them for their continuing stewardship. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion of apology to Australia’s Indigenous people.

The then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, made the following comment in his famous Redfern speech on 10 December 1992—on the eve of the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. Think of that—it was 10 December 1992 and the Prime Minister had only recently taken office. It was not long after the Mabo decision of that year. He said:

It will be a year of great significance for Australia.

It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed.

Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.

Paul Keating made that famous speech at Redfern on 10 December 1992 only six months after Chief Justice Brennan of the High Court had handed down the Mabo decision. Cast your mind back to the atmosphere of that time, of 1992 after the Mabo decision. There were headlines saying that our backyards were going to be taken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The farmers were up in arms saying that all their land was going to be taken. There was fear being cultivated by a lot of people out in the community about how Australia was going to change. Yet, six short months later, Paul Keating, the newly appointed Prime Minister, stood up and made that Redfern speech. He was a new Prime Minister and that is what he said. He wanted to move the Australian people to a greater understanding.

How adventurous and brave was the Prime Minister to make that speech? What sort of vision was that for a new Prime Minister in the light of the atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding in the community? In that demonstration of true leadership Prime Minister Keating then commissioned the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. This inquiry handed down the Bringing them home report to the Howard government in April 1997. Think of that flow of events and the significant players in those events—Paul Keating and then the new Prime Minister, John Howard.

In 10 years of having that report, the coalition government did nothing. If you think back to the coalition governments before then, Malcolm Fraser brought in the Racial Discrimination Act. He was a great man of vision in reaching out to the Aboriginal people. Obviously, Malcolm Fraser’s experience in dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was quite different. Maybe it was because Malcolm Fraser had a different attitude. My understanding is that he had an Aboriginal nanny who helped raise and educate him about the significant beliefs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Flick back from Malcolm Fraser, that Liberal Prime Minister, to the next Liberal Prime Minister, his former Treasurer, and look at how he responded to the Bringing them home report handed to him in April 1997. Prime Minister Howard had all those years—10 years—to do something to respond to that report, to make a gesture, to make even a symbolic gesture, but he stands condemned as someone who did nothing.

Last Wednesday, my first Wednesday in this House, there was quite a lot of emotion in the House. On the floor, I saw tears in the eyes of many people. Indigenous elders from the stolen generation were here; there were tears from Anglo-Saxons; there were tears from everyone in terms of the emotion that was in that House as the nation gathered to hear that historic apology. Not that we saw it in the chamber, obviously, but apparently some people turned their backs on the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand that kind of emotion because the coalition government had turned their backs on the stolen generations for more than 10 years. So I can understand that people might act in a way that I would consider to be poor manners. The feelings that people had ran high and had festered for 10 years—festered for the 70 years, some might say, from when these policies were first carried out. Feelings festered to the extent that people felt compelled to turn their backs. As I said, my good manners would prevent me from so doing, but I can understand how people might feel compelled to do something.

In my dealings as a union organiser, I organised in independent schools. People might think that independent schools are only grammar schools and the like, but a lot of Aboriginal schools are independent. I had the pleasure of being a union organiser out at Wadja Wadja High School, west of Rockhampton. I was also fortunate enough to have a school with a high Aboriginal population in the middle of Moreton, at Sunnybank, and right on the border in Oxley I had the Murri School, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school. I think there is even an Aboriginal kindergarten in the Prime Minister’s electorate, just a couple of blocks down from my electorate. In my visits to those schools as a union organiser and in meetings in the lead-up to the elections over the last couple of years, so many times Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have said: ‘How come we can’t even get a sorry—one word? How come we can’t get a sorry out of the coalition government? How come Prime Minister Howard uses his weasel words to avoid saying a simple word like sorry? Shameful, shameful, shameful.’

I would like to return once more to Prime Minister Keating’s Redfern speech. It is significant that he chose Redfern to make one of his most significant speeches—a fine piece of oratory, a fine piece of poetry treasured by many people throughout Australia. He chose Redfern rather than an Aboriginal settlement in the Northern Territory or North Queensland, I guess, because it is symbolic of the urban reality for so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and because of the socioeconomic challenges that are often exhibited in this community. He also chose Redfern because it was a speech about hope. I will return to his speech and quote further. He said, and remember that this is on 10 December 1992:

There is one thing today we cannot imagine. We cannot imagine that the descendants of people whose genius and resilience maintained a culture here through 50 000 years or more, through cataclysmic changes to the climate and environment, and who then survived two centuries of dispossession and abuse, will be denied their place in the modern Australian nation.

We cannot imagine that.

We cannot imagine that we will fail.

And with the spirit that is here today I am confident that we won’t.

I am confident that we will succeed in this decade.

Then, on 2 March 1996, that advancement towards reconciliation and a greater hope for Australia came to a screaming halt, when John Howard and the Howard government ensured that nothing else happened. We did not go forward as a nation in the late nineties. Instead, things stopped.

I certainly commend all the representatives in the House of Representatives last Wednesday who took part in that apology and were heartfelt in their apology. But, unfortunately, obviously not everyone from the other side of the chamber was prepared to participate in that apology. From my recollection, there were at least seven or eight people who either walked out or were missing and were not prepared to stay committed to what I assume was a collective coalition decision to participate in the apology. Maybe people were absent for other reasons. Maybe they had meetings planned—I am not sure. But I think it is shameful that people did not stay united and speak from the chamber as one in saying sorry to the stolen generations and to the representatives who were there in the chamber.

It is interesting. There was the sorry last Wednesday, a great day in this nation’s history, and then we move forward to Four Corners on Monday night, where the new coalition members were trying to rewrite history. Apparently it was John Howard who called the shots on everything. No-one was able to speak up with such a voice to actually move him in any way. Any bad decision that was made was all John Howard’s. No voice at that cabinet table was able to pass comment on Work Choices and obviously no voice at that table was able to speak on behalf of the stolen generations or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people generally. It is almost as though the current opposition are trying to rewrite history. It is not really a ‘black armband’ view of history, which was John Howard’s favourite phrase for condemning the Labor Party for trying to present the facts; I guess you could call it a ‘slack armband’ version of history: ‘It wasn’t me—no, it was all John Howard. John Howard did everything bad.’

I was fortunate enough to grow up in a country town where about one-quarter of the population, or a bit more than that probably, were Murris, were Aborigines. I do not go out to St George all that often—I am going out at Easter for a school reunion—but it is amazing the number of Murri friends who have phoned me up to comment on the apology and what it meant to them. These are not children of the stolen generation at all; these are people who did not have that experience. But it is amazing the number of them who have phoned up to say how great that was, how much it meant to them. It has really changed their view of government and what it can do.

By refusing to say sorry, by refusing to take the Bringing them home report recommendations and do something with them, the Howard government betrayed the real roots of Australia. It was almost like it was trying to erase the Mabo decision and say: ‘No, no—terra nullius really did exist. There were no people here before Captain Cook and the First Fleet came to Australia.’ That is what the Howard government was saying.

So many of my friends in St George and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have made comment about how wonderful that gesture was from the Prime Minister and Jenny Macklin. That is why I am very proud, after my first speech, to be affirming the apology.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say, with the indulgence of the chamber, that I have very little voice left, but I am quite determined to use what I have left to put on the record of this place my support for the extension of the apology to the stolen generation that occurred last Wednesday on behalf of the parliament.

I cannot help but feel that last Wednesday was a moment in my parliamentary career that will never be surpassed. It was certainly a wonderful feeling to win government and to be able to implement the programs that I know so many of my colleagues and the general public had been hoping would become the story of this nation. But, despite the level of pleasure I felt in that, it still did not come close to the feeling that was in the chamber on Wednesday when finally, more than 10 years after the tabling of the Bringing them home report, the parliament of this nation extended an apology to the stolen generation. I think what was so profound about it was the fact that there are very few things more powerful in life than to say sorry. Sometimes we do it glibly and sometimes we devalue the word ‘sorry’, but saying sorry is one of the most powerful things we can do as one individual to another or as a government to a people.

By saying sorry, you do not ask yourself the question: how does this affect me? You ask yourself the question: how does doing this affect you? By saying sorry, you do not ask yourself: what does this cost me? You ask yourself: what will not doing this cost you? I think the story of our Indigenous people has made it very, very clear to us that the power of extending that sorry to them cost us very little and meant a terribly great deal to them. The faces in the chamber and those that we saw on the evening news in tears or with smiles of joy demonstrated visibly how powerfully important the extension of that apology was.

I speak mainly as a mother in this chamber. As the member for Cunningham, I am going to use my time to put forward the words of my own constituents on the extension of the apology. But I would just like to briefly talk about my feelings as a mother. I do this because I cannot understand people who extend a justification for the removal of Aboriginal children with an argument that says: but look what they achieved in their life, look at the improvements they made, look at the education or training they got.

There is no doubt that many Aboriginal people who were removed from their families and placed into other forms of care may indeed have experienced an education or an opportunity that gave them new avenues in their life. But to say that the price of losing your family is worth that, I find incomprehensible—absolutely incomprehensible. I have a 23-year-old son who is in London and I am missing him terribly and I had the great privilege of 22 years of his life, having him there every day. I cannot begin to imagine how I would have felt if a truck had rolled into my town when he was four, five, six or seven to take him away and I was never to see him again. I cannot imagine the incomprehensible damage that would have done to my life and the grief and suffering that would have been inflicted on our family—and yet this is what happened to 10 to 30 per cent of Aboriginal young people and children, up to 50,000 of them. It is wrong to say that that was purely an intervention to provide protection. There is no way that number of children needed to be removed purely on those grounds.

These were hard times; some of it was during the Depression. There were many working families who were out of work, who were having trouble maintaining their families and providing for their children. Indeed, in some cases they did have their children removed. But let us be clear: there was nowhere near the extent of removals that occurred in Aboriginal communities and there was no attempt to put the blame purely on their race. Clearly, these policies were about extinguishing the Aboriginal people. Because they were targeted at mixed blood children, that made the policies’ intentions very clear.

My former husband discovered that he was a direct descendant of Bill Ferguson, one of the original Aboriginal activists in New South Wales. I did not know that until he was in his thirties. The other thing that was stolen from generations of people by these policies was their heritage, because what they did was force many people of mixed race, of both Aboriginal and white heritage, to hide their Aboriginal heritage, to deny it for generations for fear that because of that simple mixed blood they would lose their children. So there is so much that was stolen because of these policies and it is so important we reach out. We do it through the apology and we do it through an ongoing commitment to make sure that Aboriginal people’s opportunities in our country are improved.

As I said, in the run-up to the extension of the apology in the parliament in the week since, I had at last count 122 emails from local constituents, one of which opposed the extension of the apology. The other 121 supported it. As their representative in this House, I want to place on the record some of the comments that I received from my local constituents. This is from James at North Wollongong:

Hi. I’m a Cunningham constituent and I’m writing to congratulate you on your re-election and to discuss the apology to the Stolen Generations that is in the news right now.

I’m glad to see the new Rudd government getting to work so quickly, particularly on this divisive issue that has been festering for so long.

However, I’m concerned that this apology will be purely symbolic. I agree that it is important to take the symbolic action of apologising to the Stolen Generations and reestablishing respectful relations. But I believe an authentic apology must be accompanied by good faith efforts at reparations.

In short Ms Bird, I’m asking you to push your party to adopt all of the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report, not just the symbolic ones.

Thanks for your time.

Carolyn at Figtree wrote:

Just like to say thanks for yours and the Labor party’s support of the apology to the Stolen Generation of Indigenous Australians but as you are aware this is only the first step and we want full implementation of the Bringing Them Home Report.

Chris at Thirroul wrote:

I am just writing you a short note to express my support for the apology to the stolen generation and the indigenous people of Australia that the government is proposing to make. Indeed, I think, speaking as someone who migrated from England 10 years ago (and is now an Australian citizen) that we should apologise for the wider devastation caused to indigenous peoples for the whole colonial adventure. Certainly I hope that the apology represents the start of a more sustained attempt by the government to address the inequalities and suffering experienced by indigenous peoples expressed for example in the report ‘Bringing Them Home’.

Joy from Corrimal wrote:

I’m sure you support this bill as well as I do. I just believe you need to know how many of us are behind you. As an adopted non-aboriginal child I know the emotional issues of what it is like to grow up with more questions than answers. To have been removed forcibly and put into a different ethnic family, no matter how well-meaning an advantage, would not compensate for the wrench from one’s own roots.

I urge you to urge other MPs to support this ground breaking apology. I also wonder if we are pressuring Britain to apologise for having treated Australian settlement and indigenous relations so differently from their treaties with the First Nation’s aboriginal people of Canada.

Colin at Figtree wrote:

I applaud the government’s decision to proceed with reconciliation with aboriginal people by agreeing to say ‘sorry’ for past atrocities and neglect. I look forward to seeing this process move on from ‘sorry’ and will be interested in your input and leadership at this time.

Justin at Austinmer wrote:

I heartily congratulate your party and leader for taking this important first step. I truly hope it’s the beginning of some momentous leadership on this cause and that you’ll be part of this. As we’ve all seen too recently, governments set the tone for leadership. Kevin Rudd is making a great start & I hope he rewards the faith shown in Labor’s fresh approach to government so well reflected at the last election.

Lucas from North Wollongong wrote:

I would just like to send a quick congratulations to your Government for ticking off my boxes so early in your term of Government. One of the biggest wishes I had for this country is for its people to recognise the position successive generations have put Indigenous Australians into so they can start to understand their plight.

Sorry is a big catalyst for this. I am proud that this Government has been strong enough to start the healing process. Well done.

This is from Robert of Woonona:

Well done for finally having the guts, and decency, to say sorry. As Elton John once sang, ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word’!

Catherine at Mangerton wrote:

Congratulations on being in government. I wanted to express my respect and thanks for the apology that the Labor government has made on behalf of the people of Australia for the treatment of Aboriginal people documented in the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report.

However, this is only the first step. To show sincerity, that your government is one of substance, not just rhetoric, you must have full implementation of the recommendations outlined in the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report.

Andrew at Otford wrote:

I strongly support the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home Report, as well as the Deaths in Custody reports ...

I supported Labour knowing that you have a more progressive and sympathetic policy to Aboriginal Australians and I am greatly encouraged by your enthusiasm for an apology.

Amanda of Figtree wrote:

I am so thrilled that the stolen generation of Aboriginal people are finally going to have a formal apology from our federal government. Well done! I hope and pray this is only the beginning of doing all that is possible to compensate these people and deal with the issues of health and justice and reconciliation for all Australian Aboriginal people. Thanks again.

Greer from Figtree wrote:

It is with great relief that I realize that our government is taking the first steps to acknowledge the injustices done to Aboriginal people in the past. The action of saying sorry is a wonderful and powerful first step. I urge you to ensure that it is just the first of many steps of a powerful and healing journey for all Australians! We will be a greater place for making this journey.

Sarah of Austinmer wrote:

It’s really great the new government has finally taken on board the fundamental importance of an apology to members of the Stolen Generation.

I really want to congratulate you and your government for taking this important first step. I would hope, however, that this is just the beginning and that the government will seriously and comprehensively address the recommendations from the Bringing Them Home Report.

…            …            …

Very best wishes for the year of the rat. Let’s make it a truly great one!

Rosemary of Wollongong wrote:

Thank you that the Labor Party through Kevin Rudd’s leadership has decided to formally apologise to the Stolen Generation. This is an important first step in the official reconciliation process. With full implementation of the ‘Bringing Them Home’ Report, the future of Indigenous Australians will be much brighter. There are so many inequities to be addressed between white and Indigenous Australians—health, education, mortality, etc. Let it be borne out in our history that the Labor Party was the government who turned things around for the better!

Regina of Thirroul wrote:

Thank you for representing myself and my family when you apologise to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Peter of Wollongong wrote:

I believe you are a person of principle. Think how history will judge us in 100 years time, when all the current preoccupation about neo-conservative economics is just a peculiar footnote in a textbook. Think about how our simple acknowledgement of a simple moral tenet, to say we are sorry for the sins of an earlier generation, no matter how well intentioned that may have been, and that we acknowledge they were wrong. We will just be telling the truth, our nation’s leaders were wrong, and we are big enough and honest enough to say so. Please thank Mr Rudd for actually being a leader, and not just being a poll driven pollie. This really makes me proud, especially after the last 11 years.

That is only a small sample of the 121 emails. I apologise to the rest of my constituents, who I was not able to put on the record, but I assure you the expressions were reflected in that sample. They all make the point, and I think it is profoundly important, that this is a bridge to a longer term commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous Australians and white Australians. There is no doubt that each of us in this place will be particularly keenly endorsing and supporting the current government’s commitments to closing that gap so that the apology issued last Wednesday will actually be the beginning of a whole new period for Indigenous Australians and an opportunity for them to take some of the many privileges that are their rights as citizens of this nation.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, congratulations on your appointment to this important position. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on the apology that was executed in the chamber last week. I have always been in awe of the fact that I have even had a parliamentary career, and I am very fortunate to have been for the past four terms in this parliament. But I have to say that in all of those years I never quite imagined that an occasion within the parliament—and we have been through a few—would bring quite the level of emotion to everybody involved that last week’s apology did. I have to be honest and say that I, along with lot of my colleagues—on both sides of the House, to be fair—found it a bit overwhelming. I do not think any of us quite imagined the extent this groundswell of reaction within the community would reach.

I am very fortunate, as the member for Canberra, to have had a very local connection in many different respects to the proceedings of last week. I want to first of all thank the community of Canberra at large for their obvious support of the occurrences of last week. That support came from not just getting in touch with offices like mine and thoroughly encouraging us to be part of this apology—and I have to say I did not need encouragement to do that, but I welcomed people’s input—but also the turnout of members of the local community who came out to be in or around this building. It was also reflected in those who in their workplaces—and some I know had the encouragement of their employers; even the ACT government allowed their employees to do this—watched the proceedings on television as a community at work and participated in that way.

Many Canberrans opened their homes. There was a very widespread email connection and other connections made through this community to say people are coming from everywhere and some of them are going to need some accommodation. Many Canberrans opened their homes and billeted people from all sorts of places. Those stories of those experiences are now just beginning to emerge. Some of them are wonderful in terms of the relationships that were formed and the friendships that I believe will, as a result, exist for a long time.

The other connection of course is that this has all happened on the Ngunawal land, which is the land upon which we stand here today, which is my local community as well. I put on the record my absolute admiration for Matilda House and her family and the role that they took, particularly in the welcome to country on the Tuesday morning, which I thought was on par with the occurrence of the next day and its impact and emotional connection. Matilda, in fact, is a very dear friend of mine and I was so pleased to see her, her son Paul and the little ones from their family take part in that very moving service that was done in the Members Hall on the Tuesday morning. I am very proud to see that particular role from our local community.

In saying that, I must congratulate and thank those participants, dancers and performers who came, I understand, from other parts of the country to be part of that ceremony as well. I am sure that all members of the House who were present would say that it was a pretty impressive event. The call went out to say that this should now be a part of the beginning of every new parliament—I have no doubt that is in fact what will happen in one form or another. I really want to endorse that and I look forward to seeing it in the future.

The other comment that I would like to make is to pay my respects in this delivery today to a couple of very prominent Indigenous community services within my electorate who have carried out wonderful work over the years and continue to do so in a fairly nationally leading way. Down here at Narrabundah we have the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service. That is a service that used to exist in Ainslie which has moved to larger premises in Narrabundah in more recent years. When I was involved in the Health is life report, which was tabled in May 2000—to which I will refer in a moment—it was a pleasure for me to introduce members of the committee at the time to the work that was being undertaken by Winnunga, their connection to their community and the breadth of services that they offer. It is a health service, but they actually offer an enormously broad selection of services to their community. I want to pay respect to Julie Tongs, the director down there, and all of the people involved in the work that they have done and continue to do.

I also want to make very brief mention, if I can, of Gugan Gulwan, which is a youth Aboriginal corporation down in the southern end of this town. It is a youth service specifically providing culturally appropriate services for young Indigenous people in my electorate, and the services include a drop-in centre, family support and support services for young Aboriginal people. Importantly, they also offer outreach services for young Indigenous people affected by drugs and alcohol. They take a very positive role in the way that they reflect their culture, promote their culture and the retention of it and run a service or a variety of services that help to ensure a future for their young people.

To those in the parliament particularly—and to a lesser but equally important degree to those out in the community—who for some reason, private to them, do not quite understand or accept the significance, the relevance and the importance of this apology, I need to say that I respect their view. I disagree with it, but I respect the fact that they can hold that view. I noticed—and this is not a critical comment; it is an observation—that there were a small number of members who made a point of not being in the chamber on the Wednesday and I am sorry that that happened. While I respect their views, I am really hopeful that, through the future months and years, they will begin to see and understand the ramifications of the apology and come along with us on this journey that I believe we are now all taking.

In particular, I want to speak today about the Bringing them home report and about the report Health is life: report on the inquiry into Indigenous health. Both of these reports provided me as a member of this parliament with an opportunity that I really needed to grow and learn about the experiences of Indigenous Australians. As a member of the Australian Labor Party—you do not have to be to have this view—I always thought I understood a lot about Indigenous issues in this country. If anybody had said to me, ‘Do you know much about this?’ I would say, ‘Yes, I’m pretty much on top of it,’ but going through both of those experiences really helped me to understand the depth of the issues, the extent to which we need to look at these issues more seriously and the absolute requirement that we work hand in hand with Indigenous communities to attend to the issues of relevance to them.

The Bringing them home report, which came out of the national inquiry into the stolen generation conducted by HREOC, was tabled in parliament in May 1997. What followed the tabling of the report was an extraordinary period of time when Labor members of parliament—and I was one of them—took the opportunity to read parts of the report into the Hansard during our daily adjournment debates. We did that because it was very important for us to have a debate of some kind in the parliament. My recollection is that the debate was not facilitated by the government at the time. So this was our way of putting on the record the importance we saw of the Bringing them home report.

As I said, in May 2000 I was part of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which completed and tabled the report Health is life after an inquiry requested by the Minister for Health and Aged Care at the time to look into the status of Indigenous health in our country. That report and the work involved in it took almost two years. It began in one parliament, the committee produced an interim discussion paper and then, after the election and the committee being reconstituted, we successfully sought a re-reference to continue the work. So there was almost two years of a lot of hard slog and hard work to complete the report.

During that inquiry, I was privileged enough to visit an enormous number of places and communities around this country, some of them the most remote places you could ever wish to go. We went to Mutitjulu, Broome, Kimberley, Tennant Creek, Badu Island, the Torres Strait, Docker River, the Maralinga homelands—to all sorts of places—and all sorts of amazing experiences were gained by the committee. This was all happening about 10 years ago. The people we met were very gentle and very welcoming. They took the opportunity to say, ‘You know, we really have been inquired into quite a lot.’ There are libraries in this country stocked full of reports of one sort or another on the status of Indigenous people. It should be said that this particular inquiry was, I think, the first of its kind in about 20 years to be done by the federal parliament. As members of the committee, we felt we needed to explain ourselves when we entered Indigenous country, when they took us in and sat down and had frank discussions with us about their lot. The point was made, ‘How many times do we have to have this experience for people to understand where we are, who we are, what we are and what is required?’

One gentleman who was more or less seconded to our committee for most of that time was a person called Puggy Hunter. I do not know whether Mr Ruddock, who is at the table, knew Puggy through his work. He was an Indigenous gentleman from Broome who accompanied us to an enormous number of those outback, middle-of-nowhere places. He was a conduit for us in approaching Indigenous communities. He passed away a few short years ago, much to our great sadness. He taught us a great deal about understanding health issues, about understanding diversity within Indigenous communities in Australia, and about how we needed to talk with those people to clearly understand the difference they experienced among their own community before we tried to write some prescriptions for them. I use that term very carefully because sadly, up until now, that has been the approach of many of us in trying to deal with some of these issues.

At the end of the day, I really think that the best words that I could possibly use would be the words of Pat Dodson, who in a National Press Club address only last week encouraged us to use this apology as an opportunity to move forward and to work together in true partnership with one another. He said the following:

I agree with the Prime Minister that we have turned a page on the book of our national journey.

We have on the table before us a clean page on which great things may be written.

I do not think there would be, in all honesty—and this includes even those who absented themselves from the House last week—a member who could not endorse that comment to some point. We really do now have an opportunity, given the leadership that Prime Minister Rudd has shown and the determination that we have had as a party to fulfil a very longstanding commitment of policy that we have held very dear, to draw a line. We did see and we do see the relevance and the importance of that apology. It really gives not just this parliament but the whole country an opportunity to draw the line, as Pat Dodson has indicated, to start with that clean sheet, to put all of that other baggage and business behind us and to collectively work towards a far better future for the people of our Indigenous communities in Australia.

When we started the Health is life report in 1997 or 1998—roughly, from memory—we had all of these horrendous statistics about infant mortality, about the age difference in death rates, about the terrible state of health. I think it is fair for me to say that the most distressing thing for me in the 10 years from the beginning of that inquiry until now has been the repeating of those statistics. Front-page stories in the newspapers and speeches in this House have continually given the same statistics. It is about time to now dream of and work towards seeing those statistics change. We can no longer have them repeated; we must see them change. We must have a short-, a medium- and a long-term view on this and realistically work with our Indigenous communities to see the difference that they deserve more than anyone.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to. To signify their support, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Committee.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.