Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion regarding an apology to those Indigenous Australians who were forcibly removed from their families and communities under the laws of past state and federal governments. The Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, has spoken eloquently on this matter today on behalf of the coalition. There has been, as we all know, a longstanding debate on the appropriateness of one generation apologising for another. At least as far as this parliament is concerned, this debate is now over. Nevertheless, there will be a continuing debate in the community on the appropriateness of what the parliament has done today.

Just 11 years ago, in moving a motion of reconciliation, John Howard said the treatment of Indigenous peoples was ‘without any doubt, the greatest blemish and stain on the Australian national story’. That motion recognised the mistreatment of many Indigenous Australians over a significant period and expressed deep and sincere regret that Indigenous Australians had suffered injustices under the practices of past generations and for the hurt and trauma that many Indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices. The parliament today has reinforced that statement, in a sense, with the use of the word ‘sorry’.

This is a complex issue. As the Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson said in an extensive article in the Australian yesterday:

The truth is the removal of Aboriginal children and the breaking up of Aboriginal families is a history of complexity and great variety. People were stolen; people were rescued; people were brought in chains; people were brought by their parents; mixed-blood children were in danger from their tribal stepfathers, while others were loved and treated as their own; people were in danger from whites, and people were protected by whites. The motivations and actions of those whites involved in this history—governments and missions—ranged from cruel to caring, malign to loving, well-intentioned to evil.

Some of the examples of the removal of Aboriginal children that have been stated before this parliament are simply horrific. They demonstrate that bureaucracies, as well as having the potential for good, also have the potential for great evil.

It is appropriate to say sorry to people who have suffered so dreadfully from the actions of government and its officers. But it would also be wrong not to acknowledge that there were children who were rescued from dreadful circumstances. And there were white missionaries who had the interests of Indigenous people at heart. Noel Pearson refers to a Bavarian missionary who, in his view, will always be a hero.

An apology can have both positive and negative aspects. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks and months whether the government, having taken this step, reverts to the failed policies of the past or whether, as so many speakers have indicated, this will be the springboard for moving on and addressing the real causes of Aboriginal disadvantage.

Today’s apology is a very specific apology relating to the harm caused by the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. It should not and cannot obscure the fact that the policies which were put into effect by governments prior to the Northern Territory intervention have damaged Aboriginal people over the last 30 years and more. The lives of many thousands of Aboriginal people have been blighted by these failed policies. They are as worthy of an apology as the policy for which we are apologising today.

The road to hell, as the old saying goes, is paved by good intentions. And there is no doubt that the Indigenous policy makers in the post-war period have, in my view, a lot to answer for. Like many parliamentarians, I have visited Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. One cannot but be struck by the examples of overriding poverty and despair in some of these communities. Indeed, I believe it is a scandal that such circumstances could exist in Australia today. By every measure—life expectancy, child mortality, unemployment, literacy and violence—the policies of the last 30 years have failed. Indeed, some future parliament may well be apologising for our failure.

The Northern Territory government’s Little children are sacred report showed the shocking conditions in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It summarised:

A number of underlying causes are said to explain the present state of both town and remote communities.

Excessive consumption of alcohol is variously described as the cause or result of poverty, unemployment, lack of education, boredom and overcrowded and inadequate housing.

The use of other drugs and petrol sniffing can be added to these.

Together, they lead to excessive violence. In the worst case scenario it leads to sexual abuse of children.

It is inexcusable that the Northern Territory government had allowed this situation to develop.

What are the policies that have led to this result? Let me summarise some of these policies: unrestricted welfare; reverse apartheid through the permit system; absence of proper policing in many Indigenous communities; failure to control drugs, alcohol and pornography; concealing of abuse by welfare agencies; and almost complete neglect of needs in education, health and housing in remote communities.

My brother, Dr David Kemp, by establishing national standards for numeracy and literacy, exposed, possibly for the first time, the shocking neglect of education for Indigenous children in remote communities in the Northern Territory and elsewhere. These policies, let us not forget, remained in place because of misguided symbolism and political correctness, and stayed in place until John Howard and Mal Brough had the courage to act to save the children. The Howard government, to its enormous credit, broke from the failed policies of the last 30 years when former minister Mal Brough announced the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007. Mr Brough said in the second reading speech:

When confronted with a failed society where basic standards of law and order and behaviour have broken down and where women and children are unsafe, how should we respond? Do we respond with more of what we have done in the past? Or do we radically change direction with an intervention strategy matched to the magnitude of the problem?

He went on:

We are providing extra police. We will stem the flow of alcohol, drugs and pornography, assess the health situation of children, engage local people in improving living conditions, and offer more employment opportunities and activities for young people. We aim to limit the amount of cash available for alcohol, drugs and gambling during the emergency period and make a strong link between welfare payments and school attendance.

Now that the apology has been said, it is time to approach again the pressing issues of the safety of children and the wellbeing of Aboriginal communities. A great deal of work remains to be done.