Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week the parliament and the nation marked the 10-year anniversary of Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivering the apology to the stolen generations—a historic and unifying moment for our country, because it acknowledged the horror, pain, humiliation and injustice of the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families and communities. The meaningfulness of the apology was that, for the first time, pain, hurt and the consequences of the stolen generation transcended generations and can still be felt today—that they were believed, and their reality was legitimised and recognised. It was an exercise in truth-telling. The apology was meaningful in that it marked the beginning of the great national effort to close the gap in quality-of-life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. For the apology to be fully realised, we as a nation must work to ensure that we don't repeat past injustices, because 'sorry' means you don't do it again.

On Monday night, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of this historic apology, I attended a screening of a film titled After the Apology, screened here in the parliament. The film shone a light on the alarming and truly incredible rates of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. The number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care has almost doubled in the past decade. The percentage of children in out-of-home care who are Indigenous rose from 20 per cent to 35 per cent. And the number has risen from 9,000 or so to over 17,000. It is inexplicable that this figure has doubled, and the principle of the Aboriginal child placement seems to have been meaningless.

We heard stories of hurt and pain. We heard stories of humiliation. We heard stories of frustration and a lack of cultural understanding of Aboriginal culture and communities and child-rearing practices—our policy, our policymakers and the people responsible for enforcing these policies. We heard stories of young Indigenous children being removed from their families, their communities, their country and their culture. We heard stories all too reminiscent of the stories from the Bringing them home report—stories from survivors of the stolen generation. At the existing rate, by 2025 the increase in the number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care will surpass the total of number of Aboriginal children removed as part of the stolen generation. In fact, on the night, one woman at the screening said, 'This is not a new stolen generation, but the stolen generation is never finished.'

The apology will be meaningful only if we as a nation work to ensure that there is no repeat of past injustices, because 'sorry' means you don't do it again. Of course, there are some cases where children need to be removed We recognise that. But the film made it clear that, in cases where children did need to be removed, little effort was made to have the child appropriately placed. I thank the writer and the producer of the film, Larissa Behrendt and Michaela Perske, for this very insightful and moving film. And I thank all those who were involved and brave enough to share their painful stories as well as their hope and optimism for a better future for Aboriginal children.

I strongly recommend that members of this House make the time to watch the film. It not only gave the opportunity for all of us here in the parliament to listen to these stories. It also gave those who have been removed and those who had children taken from them the opportunity to share their stories, their experience and their pain. This week Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government will host a summit on first-nations children. We have committed to a national justice target to reduce the disproportionately high numbers of Aboriginal people in incarceration.

I also want to use this time to briefly respond to the Prime Minister's comments about an Indigenous voice to the parliament. I am concerned that the description by many of this voice has been as a third chamber for the parliament. This is simply not true. The body would be advisory and would also have no veto powers. I'm concerned by the Prime Minister's threat to turn this into an election issue. I caution the Prime Minister—and therefore the government—to be very careful in using these kinds of threats. We are committed to bipartisanship, but the highest bar needs to be set. It is not a race to the bottom.