Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of Senator Evans’s motion on the national apology to the stolen generations—an apology I unequivocally and wholeheartedly support. I and my party have long advocated such an apology. I have waited a long time for this national apology by the full federal parliament and the government of the Australian Commonwealth. Although it is long overdue, it is surely welcome. Importantly, it is also unanimous. The great speech of former Prime Minister Paul Keating at Redfern still rings in my ears. His complete acknowledgement of harm done to the Indigenous people of Australia is now rightly followed up by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, both with the apology and the promise of much more remedial action to come. I listened carefully to every word of his address. It was a fine speech, fitting both to the occasion and to the importance of this statement.

I come to this debate with some understanding of my own of what the stolen generations experienced, although each individual’s experience is different. I was taken at the age of two. I, too, was taken from my country, but I was reclaimed in later years. As a senator, I have been heavily involved with the problems of children taken from their families. I have read hundreds of submissions, books and articles on these matters. I have spoken all over the country in this cause. After the Bringing them home report, in this Senate I lobbied for and initiated further inquiries into the harm done to children who were taken from their families and institutionalised or put in care. As a result we now have a trifecta of national inquiries that attest to this reality. The reports are: HREOC’s 1997 Bringing them home report; the Senate community affairs 2001 report into child migration, Lost innocents: righting the record; and the two reports of the Senate community affairs inquiry into children raised in institutional and other forms of care, the 2004 Forgotten Australians report and the 2005 Protecting vulnerable children: a national challenge report.

The Forgotten Australians report conservatively estimates that, taken together, there are some 500,000 people in Australia who experienced life in orphanages, children’s homes or other forms of out-of-home care last century. They are the 7,000 to 10,000 child migrants, the 30,000 to 50,000 Aboriginal stolen generations children and the 450,000-plus Australian-born, non-Indigenous children raised in orphanages and other forms of out-of-home care. These three cohorts exhibit the intergenerational effects of harming children, whereby, if you hurt a child, a harmed adult will often result. The abuse, neglect and assault of children should never be tolerated, not only because it is wrong but also because of the huge aggregated long-term social and economic effects. Although some survived care relatively intact, far too many live ruined and marginalised adult lives with the painful memories and scars of childhoods lived in fear. Over the last century, thousands are believed to have committed suicide. As adults, people harmed in care have endured lives tarnished by welfare dependency, substance abuse, mental and other health disorders, relationship and parenting problems and endless searches for identity. To this very day, many continue to suffer from the loss of identity and family, from feelings of abandonment, from a fear of authority and from a lack of trust and security.

The upshot is that this policy of forcible removal directly contributed to the alienation of Aboriginal society today. Its effects have been profound, not only for the survivors but also for subsequent generations, who continue to suffer the enduring effects of the removal of parents and grandparents. It is indisputable that the contemporary problems facing Aboriginal society cannot be understood without reference to this shameful history. To my mind there are two main aspects to apologising for the sin of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families: one is to apologise for the policy and the other is to apologise for the execution of the policy. The evidence is irrefutable. The stolen generations policy was racist in intent. It was not a welfare policy of removing neglected children who were at risk in dysfunctional families. It was designed to get so-called ‘half-caste’ children out of black families and to begin a process of assimilation into the white community. There were already federal and state welfare laws allowing for the removal of children at risk in dysfunctional families. No other legislation was necessary. But racially based legislation and regulation was introduced for the specific purpose of removing Indigenous children from their families, their communities and their country. Yes, there were Indigenous neglected children who were at risk in dysfunctional families and who were removed for welfare reasons. But most children were removed regardless of their specific home circumstances. If the execution of the policy had resulted in high standards of care then that would have been a mitigating factor in the children’s removal. But the execution of the policy was mostly bad, and churches, agencies, state and federal governments all failed in their duty of care.

If we compensate victims of crime and trauma, we should also compensate those who experienced childhoods of fear, neglect and criminal acts. Evidence to all three inquiries revealed children experiencing severe physical pain, fear and terror resulting from beatings and floggings. The Bringing them home report says at page 161:

I’ve seen girls naked, strapped to chairs and whipped. We’ve all been through the locking up period, locked in dark rooms ...

…            …            …

They used to lock us in a little room like a cell and keep us on bread and water for a week ...

Countless stories are told of the sexual and physical assault of Indigenous children—of neglect, abuse and mental torture. I wish journalists and politicians would stop euphemising rape as ‘abuse’. It is criminal sexual assault. I wish they would stop their easy belief that nuns and priests acted with the best intentions. Yes, some did, but most seemed to just stand by, while others were just satanic. Let me give you an example of the abhorrent behaviour across all institutions that shows why ‘abuse’ is so weak a word for what too many Indigenous and non-Indigenous children endured at the hands of those who preyed on them. The vile crime of sexual assault was summed up in the child migrant report at page 75:

Boys and girls were subjected to sexual assault in a variety of forms while in the care ... The Committee heard stories of boys being subjected to explicit sexual acts such as fondling and genital touching, of being forced to perform oral sex, of being repeatedly sodomised, and of girls being assaulted and raped.

Evidence was also given of boys being pressured into bestial acts—that is, acts with animals, for those who do not know what that means.

The failure to exercise the duty of care demands restitution, it demands reparations, it demands compensation. In my view, a compensation or redress scheme should not be solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth when various governments, churches, charities and agencies were proportionately responsible. Redress was an important and unanimous recommendation of the Forgotten Australians report. Recommendation 6 of that report stated:

That the Commonwealth Government establish and manage a national reparations fund for victims of institutional abuse in institutions and out-of-home care settings and that:

• the scheme be funded by contributions from the Commonwealth and State Governments and the Churches and agencies proportionately;
• the Commonwealth have regard to the schemes already in operation in Canada, Ireland and Tasmania—

and I can add since in Queensland and Western Australia—

in the design and implementation of the above scheme;

• a board be established to administer the scheme, consider claims and award monetary compensation;
• the board, in determining claims, be satisfied that there was a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the abuse occurred;
• the board should have regard to whether legal redress has been pursued;
• the processes established in assessing claims be non-adversarial and informal; and
• compensation be provided for individuals who have suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse while residing in these institutions or out-of-home care settings.

Although the Senate committee acknowledged that the Commonwealth generally did not have a direct role in administering institutional care arrangements, it did consider that the Commonwealth should contribute to a national reparations scheme as an act of recompense on behalf of the nation. The opportunity is there for the Rudd government to take the necessary steps to right the wrongs of the past. The opportunity is there for Labor members of the government, particularly in the Senate, to advocate that in their own forums. It is neither too hard nor unaffordable, as evidenced by the international redress schemes in Canada, in Ireland and here in Australia by Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia. The Western Australian scheme which has been most recently announced amounts to $114 million and applies to all adults who were harmed as children in institutions.

The amount of money outlaid by the Commonwealth would be expended over a number of years—based on the Irish experience, at least six years, I would have thought—taking into account the application and decision-making process. In sum, it would not be too hard to add to the three states’ efforts so far with a national reparations fund that also picks up contributions by those who have not yet accepted their proportional responsibility.

In concluding, I want to again state how warmly and strongly I welcome the actions of the Labor government today. I hope that they can do much more in future, including the establishment of a national reparations fund.