Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the Senate committee report into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008—which, as a number of speakers have mentioned, is one that I put forward, and I thank people for their kind remarks. I congratulate the secretariat and the committee on what I think is actually a positive report. Whilst it does not recommend the passage of my bill and it says that the bill should not be proceeded with, I would state that I do not think the bill should be proceeded with either. Where I depart from the majority view of the committee is that I think an amended version of the bill should be proceeded with, particularly the version put forward by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who have been working on this issue for 10 years or so, since the Bringing them home report was brought down.

I think both that the information provided in the report, which reflects the material provided to the inquiry, is valuable and that the recommendations, particularly the one that seeks to give a role to representatives of the stolen generations in their capacity as an advisory group to the government, where they would advise the government on the unimplemented recommendations from the Bringing them home report, are positive. To me that is the key issue. That recommendation, which I support, is a vital one, and I urge the government and Minister Macklin to adopt it, to give representatives of the stolen generations a clear role of advising the government and the minister on that whole area of unfinished business from the Bringing them home report, which includes but is certainly not limited to compensation. That has really been my core goal in introducing this legislation, which I first did last year on behalf of the Democrats, following on from the work of many Democrats, including former Senator Aden Ridgeway, in this area. I did that in the lead-up to the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report because the issues kept being repeated to me, by Indigenous Australians in particular, that this was still unfinished business and it needed to be put back on the political agenda so that people realised that the unaddressed issues from the Bringing them home report were not just about the apology. Indeed, the apology itself and the recommendation regarding that were integrally intertwined with the broader notion of reparations and with the notion of compensation. So it is important to have that back on the political agenda.

I appreciate the difficultly of the members of the committee from the major parties. The situation is quite clear: the Prime Minister has categorically ruled out any form of compensation. Clearly, the coalition in their period in government categorically ruled it out. I think the committee has taken a good approach in seeking to, if you like, go around that and seek to get the existing processes that have now being put up by the new government to consider all of the outstanding areas, which include compensation. But it does need to be emphasised that compensation can be applied. It should be provided. In that area I certainly differ from the committee and take a view similar to Senator Siewert and the Greens. It is pleasing that the Greens will continue to pursue this issue. I believe this report will provide a valuable mechanism for them to credibly maintain that pursuit.

That is not to say that there should not be a role for the states. In most cases, stolen generation practices were carried out by state governments, apart from in the Northern Territory, where the federal government then had responsibility. The Tasmanian parliament has shown that a compensation scheme can be applied, that it can operate effectively and indeed that the very process of considering those types of monetary reparations in itself can be valuable over and above the monetary outcome—or, in some cases, as occurred in Tasmania, the non-monetary outcomes, where some people’s claims were knocked back; but, nonetheless, by virtue of being heard, of having their situations examined, they have a feeling at least that they have not been ignored. That has provided a valuable process.

I would like to say in conclusion that I do not take the view that the Bringing them home report and all of its recommendations should be taken as holy writ, that they have got it 100 per cent right in every capacity, particularly that 10 or 11 years later nothing has changed that could therefore vary from what they recommended, but I do think their recommendations should be treated effectively and with respect and should not be dismissed without due consideration and explanation. That has not happened to date. All we have had is the federal government and the Prime Minister just ruling it out and saying it is not going to happen. And none of the evidence provided to this inquiry by the department, in my view, went anywhere near providing an adequate explanation of why those recommendations should be dismissed. That is why keeping the issue alive, as the recommendations of this report propose, and having stolen generations representatives themselves playing that role, is crucial. I urge the minister to take on board all of the recommendations and I urge those in the community who support this, as I do, to continue to campaign on the matter. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.