Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I understand that informal arrangements have been made to limit the time in today’s debate to 10 minutes per speaker. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek your indulgence. One of the matters that I think is worth while putting on the record is this: I do thank the Senate for agreeing to the way the debate proceeded today. It is important to have the Senate support the process that has been undertaken today. This motion gives the Senate the ability to speak on the national apology to the stolen generations. This motion ensures that today the stolen generations receive an apology from both houses of parliament. I do thank the Senate for agreeing to the procedures to ensure that people can speak on the debate today. It is the right thing to have the motion moved and passed today by both the House and the Senate. The Australian people do want this parliament to collectively apologise. Senators who want to speak on this motion, like me, will be able to do so and can be assured that the time will be available to them. To prevent myself from falling into the difficulty of having to speak twice on the motion, I wanted to take the opportunity—and I thank Senator Kirk for allowing me to undertake this today—to ensure that the motion did receive its proper place and could be debated today.

It is with great privilege that I speak in this chamber on this historic day, when the Australian government and the Australian parliament formally apologise to the stolen generations and to Indigenous Australians for the wrongs of the past. We are sorry for the pain and suffering that past policies brought to Indigenous Australians. We are sorry for the forced separation of children from their families and communities. We are sorry for the indignity and harm that this brought to those forcibly taken and to those left behind to grieve. I do not pretend to understand the pain and suffering inflicted on tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians who were forcibly removed from their families, their communities and their culture. I do not pretend to know the pain of those who were forced to live their lives in these unjustifiable circumstances. But, as a parent, I do know the importance of a family and of living a life filled with love and support within that family. I am proud that the Australian parliament is now apologising for the forced separation of Indigenous families and the significant and ongoing challenges that have resulted. To the individuals, families and communities that have been affected by the past policies, I can only commend the apology articulated by the Prime Minister this morning. I add my voice to that genuine and unreserved apology in the nature of reconciliation in which it was offered. The apology today provides a unique opportunity for the Australian people and the Australian government to move forward with a sense of common purpose. The parliament should not allow this moment to pass as a missed opportunity.

The importance of today needs to be backed up with meaningful, practical and effective action from the government. The Department of Human Services, for which I am responsible, can participate in a very real way in addressing the practical challenges still facing our community. The department can play an important role as the key service provider in the national effort to address the serious issues still facing many Indigenous communities. I would like to take a moment to commend the hard work and genuine effort of staff members of Centrelink and the Department of Human Services. They are dedicated public servants who are tasked with the front-line effort to work with Indigenous communities to address the serious challenges we still face. I hope that today’s apology will help the department to further our mutual respect for Indigenous Australians. This is an important day for the Australian parliament, and it is an important step that we have taken today. It has been a long hard road to get here and there is more work to be done. Let us work together in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect to meet the challenges that continue to face our community. Let us harness the great spirit of today to work for real improvement in the lives and conditions of Indigenous Australians. We owe it to those who have suffered in the past. We owe nothing less to the generations to come.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the national apology to the stolen generation delivered this morning by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives and moved in this place by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today, as the Australian parliament acknowledges the past mistreatment of Indigenous Australians and in particular offers a formal apology to members of the stolen generation, their descendants and families, we formally recognise, reflect and acknowledge the experiences and repercussions that past policies and laws have had on these people—the first Australians. In particular, today we recognise the many thousands of Indigenous children who were forcibly removed from their families, communities and country during the mid-1800s right through to 1970. We say to them that we are deeply sorry.

These children, known to us now as members of the stolen generation, were taken from their families often solely on the basis of race and placed into institutional care or with non-Indigenous families and have suffered profound grief and loss. In the words of former Prime Minister Keating:

... we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

We now know, and today acknowledge, that this practice inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on many of our fellow Australians, and for this we, the Australian parliament, are sorry.

The apology given today is offered in recognition of and in response to the policies, laws and decisions of past parliaments and governments. Whilst it does not attribute guilt to the current generation of Australian people, in the words of former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, in his Redfern speech in 1992:

We simply cannot sweep injustice aside. Even if our own conscience allowed us to ...

The word ‘sorry’, as I understand it, holds a special meaning in Indigenous culture in that it is used to describe rituals regarding death—known as ‘sorry business’. In this sense it is used to express empathy, sympathy, compassion and understanding as opposed to responsibility, guilt or liability. It is my hope that today’s apology acts as a powerful symbol to restore respect to Indigenous Australians, not only on a personal level but also in sending a message to the rest of the country and to the world that Indigenous Australians and Indigenous culture are valued in this country.

Removing children from their families solely on the basis of race and attempting to assimilate them with children of mixed ancestry into the non-Indigenous community has impacted the lives of many Indigenous Australians. Not only did children have to contend with the great loss of being removed from their parents; they also lost their connection with their extended family, their traditional land,  their culture and their language. In many cases, as we have now learned, Indigenous children were placed in vulnerable situations, at risk of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. We now understand that the experience of many of the children who were forcibly removed from their families has had long-term disabling consequences.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate the example of one South Australian woman—someone from my home state: the late Doris Kartinyeri. She was a woman who was forcibly removed from her parents when she was just four weeks old. Her mother passed away and the United Aborigines Mission came and took her from her father and her siblings in Port McLeay to be raised at the Colebrook Home in Eden Hills, a suburb of Adelaide.

Colebrook housed a number of Aboriginal children, including the former chair of ATSIC, Lowitja O’Donoghue, who is known to many. The children were given a strict religious upbringing in the home, which was run by the United Aborigines Mission. In a book that Doris published entitled Kick the Tin, she wrote about her experiences in coming to terms with what it meant to be a stolen child. She said:

The saddest thing is that I really didn’t have a mum or family to guide me.

In a poem written by her expressing her feelings, she wrote:

Walking through a blue dream,

Reality calls but it’s not what it seems.

Living while the subconscious screams.

Living to find out what it all means.

Doris was a brave ambassador and campaigner for members of the stolen generation through her openness and candour about her experiences. I am sorry that she is not here with us today to hear this national apology, which would have meant so much to her. To those who grew up at Colebrook in South Australia and to the many thousands of Indigenous Australians who had experiences similar to Doris’s across this country, we, the Australian parliament, say sorry.

The Bringing them home report, which reported on the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, was tabled in this parliament in 1997. The committee, of course, was chaired by the late Sir Ronald Wilson. The report brought to the forefront of the national conscience the impact which past governments’ policies and laws had on Indigenous Australians. In particular, the report brought to our attention that nationally between one in three and one in 10 Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families during the period that I referred to earlier.

It has been 11 years since the Bringing them home report was tabled, and during this time all state and territory governments have apologised to the stolen generation. But, as we know, unfortunately this parliament has never given a formal apology. The Howard government offered an expression of deep and sincere regret in a motion of reconciliation in 1999, but there has never been a formal apology until today.

I want to make brief mention of Labor’s track record in this area, beginning with my state of South Australia. When Labor came to office in South Australia in 1965, the then minister for Aboriginal affairs, Mr Dunstan, introduced three pieces of legislation which granted greater autonomy to Indigenous people. Most significant of these was the introduction of the Land Trust Bill, which was the first step by any Australian state government to grant Aboriginal title to land. In 1972, when Labor was elected to government at the federal level, then Prime Minister Whitlam set about altering Australia’s treatment of Indigenous people through a raft of positive and progressive policy initiatives. The most notable of these was when the Prime Minister granted 2,000 square metres of tribal land back to the Gurindji people. I am proud today to be a member of the Rudd Labor government, which has initiated and negotiated today’s apology with Indigenous people.

I fondly refer to the inspirational speech of former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating at the launch of Australia’s celebration of the 1993 International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. This speech is commonly known as ‘the Redfern speech’. He made the point that the:

... fundamental test of our social goals and our national will: our ability to say to ourselves and the rest of the world that Australia is a first rate social democracy ...

rests in how we treat and care for our Indigenous people.

I hope that this apology represents a significant step along the road to reconciliation with Indigenous Australians. It is offered with sincerity, sympathy, compassion, hope and now a greater sense of understanding. Whilst we understand that reconciliation is a journey that remains incomplete, we are keen for the opportunity to build a new relationship with Indigenous Australians and to work together, in particular, to close the 17-year life expectancy gap between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians by maintaining long-term action and support in the areas of health, education, housing and employment. I look forward to closing this dark chapter in Australian history and to working together with Indigenous people for a brighter future.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I join with others in supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The purpose of the motion is to say sorry to Indigenous Australians for past misdeeds, an apology. It is to advance reconciliation—laudable, worthy and noble objectives deserving the support of every senator in this chamber. Previously, this parliament has resolved a similar sentiment in its expression of regret in 1999. The dislocation white settlement had on our Indigenous brothers and sisters is hard to imagine. The differences were phenomenal, be it in traditions, beliefs, technology, resistance to certain diseases and tolerance to alcohol, to name a few. Another is the understanding—or, should I say, lack of understanding—of how our Indigenous population operated in the sense of a genuine extended family in the nurture of children, which was often misunderstood as child neglect.

I commend the statesmanlike speech that the alternative prime minister, Dr Nelson, delivered earlier today. It was sincere, genuine and visionary. In 1996, I had the honour and privilege to serve as the chair of this parliament’s native title committee, and saw first hand the unacceptable disadvantage of our Indigenous communities, visiting them from Coober Pedy to Kununurra and from the Torres Strait to my home state of Tasmania. In discussing native title, in discussing apologies, a number of themes did emerge. One was the Indigenous community’s understandable desire to enjoy mainstream health and wealth, something which native title promised to deliver. Another was the need for local leadership and responsibility. The difference between communities only half-an-hour drive apart was sometimes very stark, the differences being in the local leadership. The other theme was the scourge of white lawyers inflicting their ideology in the name of looking after the Indigenous communities.

Not surprisingly, Indigenous aspirations are largely the same as ours. They want a house, they want good health, they want a car, they want security and they want a future for their children. So, when former Labor senator Graham Richardson promised all Indigenous communities flowing water, it was welcomed. That practical help, if carried out, would have been a massive step forward, as is the intervention in the Northern Territory, restoring law and order and protecting women and children. But, in the ‘group think’ we currently have, it seems you are socially aware to be angry about not apologising for past deeds whilst condemning those who feel anger about the abuse and misdeeds that currently occur within these communities. I suspect children in danger of being raped would prefer protection to an apology. I trust we will have both. We can have both, and we must have both—the practical and the symbolic.

I do not mind admitting that I am more of a practical person, or a person in support of substance over the symbolic. But I accept symbolism is important, and it is a journey that I have travelled and accepted. Words of apology are important circuit breakers if accepted and acknowledged with a reciprocation of forgiveness. Apologies will not provide the healing unless the words are accepted and forgiveness is reciprocated. In my home state of Tasmania, there was an official apology a decade ago followed by compensation. Regrettably, I do not detect any change. Indeed, the same activists who called for the apology and compensation condoned the burning of the Australian flag just a few weeks ago. I hope today’s apology does not travel the same path.

We need to recognise that many Australians are questioning of today’s apology. Are they all mean-spirited? Absolutely not. Similarly, not all those advocating an apology are politically correct flunkies. Both views come from genuine, sincere Australians. But I must say the Prime Minister’s approach is causing some division and cynicism. The refusal by the Prime Minister to share the wording with the Australian people until a few hours ago suggests other imperatives were at work, as is his absolute refusal to share the legal advice on the issue of compensation. Sure, the Prime Minister had the media, the audience, the screens—which, might I add, only showed Mr Rudd—and even the day and hour finely choreographed, but he had all that done before he even had the words in place. The parliament was denied the opportunity to fully discuss the issue, to keep the self-promotion timetable for the Prime Minister.

This is an issue which was developed over 10 years ago and is now brought into this place with indecent haste, lack of consultation and breach of accepted parliamentary practices. We had the vote before the debate finished. That is fine if you are into the slick media timetable, but not so if you are truly genuine about bringing as many Australians as possible with you. The apology, I believe, has been demeaned as a result. Indeed, the rush and lack of consultation is highlighted by the reported bungle over which group were the traditional owners for the purposes of yesterday’s delightful welcome to country and the different representatives for today’s activities.

I can understand the cynicism of many in the community. I also understand the doubts by many over the term ‘stolen generation’. As someone who has read the report cover to cover including its appendices, and discussed some misgivings I had with one of the authors, Sir Ronald Wilson, in my office, I empathise with those doubts. To assert that people who took vows of poverty and devoted their life’s work to serving the Aboriginal community were complicit in genocide is unsustainable and offensive, and even more so after the findings in the Gunner and Cubillo cases.

I understand how people feel when a person gets compensation because of their race and for being ‘stolen’ by welfare authorities when their mother was doing time in jail for neglect of children. But we do not compensate capable, loving, young unmarried mothers who were defrauded by the same welfare authorities by being told their child had died at birth and given empty coffins to bury. It seems we are allowed to feel sorry for the first but not the second.

When you hear the Labor member for Bass pronounce the apology as a first step and then laugh hysterically when asked what the next step might be, it shows the shallowness of some. To all those people who have those doubts, see an inequity or express cynicism, I simply say: I understand those reservations, but nevertheless I plead with you to give this apology a go. Many people have asked for it for many years. Many say it will make a material difference for a group in our society that have been undeniably mistreated, so why not give it a go?

Some time ago, a group of Christian Aboriginal women that I spoke with apologised for their hatred of the white people. Racism in this country has been a two-way street but I think most of the traffic has been on the white side. If these Aboriginal women had found it within themselves to seek forgiveness from the white community why can we not find it within ourselves to also offer an apology for past misdeeds? That is what this apology is about and that is why I fully support it, and I trust that reconciliation will be enhanced as a result of this unanimous decision of this place. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the Ngunawal, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay respect to their elders, their culture and their law. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land. I also wish to acknowledge the people who have come to Canberra this week from all over this country as this issue is being discussed in parliament. That includes people from the Kimberleys, Alice Springs, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland.

To the new Rudd government, I say thank you for this day. It has been so important to so many people. I was very pleased to finally hear an Australian Prime Minister say sorry on behalf of the parliament and his government. It means a great deal to many, many Australians. I would also like to say thank you for the opening of the 42nd Parliament yesterday with the magnificent welcome to country ceremony.

I am sure every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate today saw all the people streaming up to this place to bear witness and look at and take part in the ceremony either on the lawns or in the Great Hall or who went to all the places around Australia where the apology was being televised. In my home state of Western Australia I understand that at seven o’clock this morning there were nearly 2,000 people on the foreshore of the Swan River listening to the apology. I understand that the feeling there was just as it was here. If you were standing in the Great Hall you share in this moment with the stolen generations. I do not think there has ever been a greater moment for me to actually hear that apology and be with the people feeling the emotion of that apology.

It is significant that the apology is seen to be the very first action of this new government, but we will be watching to see that after that first step of apology and acknowledgement the government continues to take the second, third, fourth and fifth steps that are needed to address the health, education, housing, representation and opportunities of life of the Aboriginal people of Australia. We welcome the commitment of the new government to close the gap on life expectancy, community health, education and economic opportunity. We also welcome the government’s stated commitment to evidence based policy, and I will come to that again later.

We are very hopeful that they will assess and respond to the evidence about the problems with the intervention in the Northern Territory by maintaining or increasing the commitment of resources, but also by making sure that those resources are being used properly, constructively and effectively. Unfortunately, the evidence that we are seeing come in is not reflecting that. The Greens again reiterate our support for a full, sincere and unreserved apology for stolen land, stolen children, stolen wages, stolen rights and stolen opportunities. We are sorry for the appalling way that we, non-Indigenous Australians, have treated the first peoples of this land. We are sorry for the way that the removal of children has ripped the hearts out of families and created a legacy of intergenerational suffering and trauma and contributed to the wider exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the social, cultural and economic life of the nation. We desperately hope that this will be a new beginning.

The Bringing them home report, the report on the national inquiry into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, was brought down on 26 May 1997. The Greens, through Senator Bob Brown, gave our heartfelt and unreserved apology in the Senate in 1997. My very first action as a new senator was to speak on this very issue. In my first words to the Senate, I acknowledged the traditional owners of this country, the Ngunawal. I also went on to say sorry to our Indigenous peoples. I said that I looked forward to a day ‘when we will acknowledge their voices and do them justice by enabling their true representation in the governance of this country’. I also felt that it was to our shame that we were the only developed nation which has failed to achieve this and that the plight of our Indigenous peoples continued to worsen. The Greens believe that there is a need for a full audit of the Bringing them home report and its 54 recommendations. We need to measure the progress that has been made on these recommendations and to identify targets and timelines, and monetary resources, to deliver on each and every one of them. To date, our audit indicates that most have in fact not been implemented.

I also want to acknowledge, remember and pay my respects to Rob Riley, who kicked off the very first inquiry into the removal of children in Western Australia, which then went on to become a model for the national inquiry. I have told Rob’s story in this place before—in fact, on Sorry Day in 2006. Rob was a pillar of strength for the local Nyungah community in Perth. For many years, he headed up the Aboriginal Legal Service. But he was also one who night after night went down to the lockup when one of the Nyungah street kids was taken down there and needed help. When Rob released the first WA report, he came out and told the story of being taken from his mother at the age of 18 months, of being brought up being told that his mother was dead and of not learning any different until it was too late and she had passed on. Rob, unfortunately, took his own life when it got too much for him.

Rob’s story gives us a very clear example of the way that removal has very stark impacts on the health and wellbeing of both the children removed and their families. These ongoing, tangible impacts are the reason that a heartfelt apology on behalf of the nation, backed up by a commitment to address the wrongs of the past, is so important. This clearly includes reparations, which are so clearly and strongly recommended in the Bringing them home report.

For concrete evidence for, and an understanding of, the intergenerational impacts of removal on the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal Australians and the stolen generations, I draw your attention to the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey and remind you of the speech given by then Australian of the Year Dr Fiona Stanley in parliament in May 2005. I also acknowledge the work of Dr Helen Milroy and others on this issue. This survey quantified the relationship between the removal of parents and grandparents who are now the carers of the current generations of Aboriginal kids and the health and wellbeing of those children. One in six Aboriginal children in WA were surveyed—that is over 5,000 kids, the biggest and most comprehensive survey of this kind. Of those zero- to 17-year olds, nearly 13 per cent had carers who had been removed. Those carers who had been removed as children had higher rates of alcohol consumption, were more likely to have been arrested or charged and were half as likely to have someone with whom they felt they could share their problems. They were also more likely to have contact with mental health services. The children for whom they cared were twice as likely to have behavioural and emotional problems, twice as likely to have a high risk of hyperactivity and emotional conduct disorders and twice as likely to be already abusing drugs and alcohol. As you can see, there are very clear links between the stolen generations and the impact on the children of the current generation.

Children growing up hearing the stories of officially sanctioned mistreatment of their parents, their mothers and their grandmothers in an environment in which these injustices are not acknowledged, or are even denied, can easily be led to despair, particularly when they are growing up in disadvantage, experiencing firsthand the impacts of social exclusion and living in a community with a high rate of unemployment and in which they face an uncertain future. This is why a full and unconditional apology from the government to the stolen generations on behalf of the parliament is important to not just the children who were removed but also their children and grandchildren. The health and wellbeing burden carried by Aboriginal Australia and Aboriginal communities is huge. But, compared to the population, their numbers are relatively small. So how can we justify not being able to address their social exclusion and their disadvantage? How can we justify not being able to fix the 17-year gap in life expectancy?

It was very disappointing to hear that the issue of reparations and compensation was dismissed out of hand when the delivery of the apology was being discussed. We believe that this business will not be resolved or finished until the stolen generations are properly compensated and have full reparation. We Greens are absolutely committed to following that issue and ensuring that the stolen generations are fully compensated and that just reparation is delivered.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and to the traditional owners of all the lands that make up our nation of Australia. In the long history of the land that we now call Australia, the period of non-Indigenous occupation has been very short—less than 300 years. In that short time, much damage has been done to our Indigenous Australians. Some people still try and delude themselves that everything that was done was done with the best intentions. But if everything was so well intentioned, why do our Indigenous Australians still have a higher mortality rate, poorer education outcomes, poorer health, lower homeownership rates, higher unemployment rates and higher incarceration rates than the rest of us? White settlement of this nation brought with it the view that nothing else mattered but the advancement of the new—white—colony, and that was coupled with the belief that white people were somehow superior. It was an attitude that led to abuse and dispossession of our Indigenous Australians, a beginning from which the nation has yet to recover.

As we focus today on the forced removal of children from their families—the stolen generation—there will persist those self-satisfying remarks from some who continue to say that things were not really so bad and that the ‘stolen generations’ is a misnomer. An extreme view is that there is nothing at all to apologise for if the actions were seen by the perpetrators to be for the advancement of Aboriginal Australians. Put aside for the moment that our Indigenous Australians were not even regarded as equal Australians, because they did not have the vote. The families who had their children taken away were not consulted. They were not engaged in any discussion about the matter at all, about whether or not this action would be better for them and their children. They were not engaged and not consulted because they were not considered worthy of such engagement.

Some people do not like the word ‘stolen’, yet it is very appropriate to use this term when anything is taken without permission and when it is hidden away. The fact that human beings were involved, with force and secrecy used to sever ties with family and culture, makes it the most offensive and cruel form of theft. The fact that governments condoned this happening, indeed legislated for it to happen, makes it even more regrettable. Let us not fool ourselves. While the nation’s short white history is rich in achievements, some of our past is shameful and what happened was hurtful—and the hurt of the past continues to the present. If there is hurt we must apologise and we must say sorry. This is an Aboriginal as well as a non-Aboriginal custom. To deny an apology when it has been asked for does nothing to help us move on as a nation from a past that allowed racism and discrimination to be sanctioned by governments.

Systematic discrimination swept across our country, beginning in Victoria in 1869 when the Aborigines Protection Act (Victoria) gave the Governor power to order the removal of any Aboriginal child from their family to a reformatory or an industrial school. In 1897 Queensland introduced the Aboriginal Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act, which allowed the chief protector to hold children in dormitories. Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania followed suit, giving bureaucrats the power of guardianship over Indigenous children. These laws stripped mothers and fathers of their right to be their child’s guardian and principal caregiver.

In 1937 there was nowhere for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to escape from these bigoted policies as the first Commonwealth-state conference on ‘native welfare’ adopted assimilation as the national policy. That policy meant that children could be taken away from their parents, not because the parents were bad parents but because the children were a different colour, because the children had a mixed parentage and needed to be ‘saved’ from their traditional culture—that is, the black part of their culture. Indigenous children were placed in institutions or church missions, adopted or fostered. Often their new living conditions meant they not only lost contact with their family and friends but with their culture. The vast majority of the stolen children had every connection severed as they were taken away from their land, their language and their loved ones. Some were able to reconnect later in life, but for many, by the time they were able to find the strength to seek out their mothers and siblings, it was too late because their loved ones had already died or because they could not reconcile the culture they had been taken from. Of course, experience varied from person to person and it is ridiculous to say that all of the people affected by government policies shared the same feelings and the same fate.

In the 1997 Bringing them home report, one confidential submission from a victim summed up the systematic discrimination of the policies well when the victim said: ‘Lots of white kids do get taken away, but that’s for a reason—not like us. We just got taken away because we was black kids, I suppose—half-caste kids. If they wouldn’t like it, they shouldn’t do it to Aboriginal families.’ It has been argued by some that the children who were taken away were better off in the hands of white people than with their own families. How on earth can you define ‘better off’, let alone use it as some justification for wrenching families apart? Who can say that kids who were sent to a ‘home for half-castes’ or to places like Colebrook House in South Australia were better off because they were taught how to cook and clean for non-Indigenous Australians? Only the children and the families of the children who were removed can decide whether or not they were better off. While some Indigenous children may have been removed on genuine welfare grounds during this time, those children are not considered the stolen generation. The stolen generation is the children who were removed solely because of their race, and their forced removal did not leave them better off.

Many reports from victims of the stolen generation speak of incredible mistreatment, extending from inadequate clothing to outright abuse. Almost a quarter of witnesses to one inquiry who were fostered or adopted reported being physically abused. One in five reported sexual abuse. One in six children who were sent to institutions reported physical abuse and one in 10 reported sexual abuse. Claims that the state and federal governments of the day had the best of intentions are hard to swallow. The various legislation that led to the stolen generation was racist and should never have been written. The Bringing them home report followed the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. That report made 54 recommendations. A key recommendation was that reparation be made to Indigenous people affected by policies of forced removal and that this reparation should include an acknowledgement of responsibility and an apology from all Australian governments. Since then, apologies have been forthcoming. All state and territory governments, whether conservative or Labor, have apologised, but, until now, not the Commonwealth. The Bringing them home report recommended that the first step in healing is the acknowledgement of truth and the delivery of an apology. It is the responsibility of the Australian government, on behalf of previous Australian governments that administered this wrongful policy, to acknowledge what was done and to say that we are sorry.

There is another excuse used for not supporting an apology, and that is that today’s Australians are not responsible for what happened. The motion that was passed in this chamber today makes it clear that it is this parliament and this Commonwealth government providing the apology in recognition of the wrongs perpetrated by past parliaments and governments. The apology is not an expression of personal responsibility or guilt by individual Australians. Those individuals who do believe or who know they had a part to play in what happened to the stolen generations are still at liberty to apologise or not, as they see fit. Government cannot and will not do it for us.

I am very pleased that today we have shown the world that we are prepared to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and move to the future. There was some discussion from those initially opposed to, or quibbling about, supporting a motion such as the one we passed today, along the lines that there are more important things for the government to be addressing. I do not think there is anything more important than making an effort to redress the wrongs of the past and to plan for and bring to fruition a better future for all Australians. Is that not what we try and do here, every day, in this parliament? Whatever motion we are debating, whatever legislation we are considering, a better future for everyone is surely the goal.

I also would like to thank everyone who travelled here to Canberra today to witness the national apology. To those of the stolen generation: I am just sorry you had to wait so long for it. Now that the acknowledgement has been made, I look forward to building a better future for all Australians, especially our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a relatively new Australian, the debate on the apology is a difficult debate for me to be involved in. As I said in my first speech in the Senate, I chose to become an Australian, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I love my adopted country. I admire the Australian spirit. I admire what has been achieved by successive generations of Australians, initially in very difficult conditions, in a relatively short period of time. I am grateful for the opportunities that the efforts and sacrifices of past generations have created for Australians today. I became involved in the political process because I wanted to play a part in helping to make Australia a better place for future generations.

In taking note of the apology, though, I rise to express my reservations and give a voice to the reservations of many Australians on how our government has handled this issue which has divided our nation for the whole period I have been an Australian citizen. With great empathy and sincere regret for the personal hurt and suffering of those who were unjustifiably removed from their families, I remain concerned about the way we have passed this apology today. I am concerned about the use of the term ‘stolen generations’. I am concerned about us, representing this generation of Australians, sitting in judgement over the actions and motivations of past generations of Australians.

More than anything I am concerned about the process—the divisive way our government has handled this sensitive and emotive issue. I am concerned that the government was not prepared to take all of the Australian people into its confidence before last night. I am concerned about the secrecy and lack of transparency. I am concerned that the wording of the apology when finally released, with less than 16 hours to go, went well beyond an apology to those who were unjustifiably removed from their families. I am concerned that the government has refused to release the legal advice it says it has that this apology will not lead to a requirement for compensation. I am concerned that two weeks ago we were told by the chair of the Northern Territory intervention task force that our new government had still not given any direction to them on how to proceed with the intervention aimed at the protection of Aboriginal children from abuse and neglect today.

In short, in my view, the government’s handling of this difficult issue has been arrogant, it has been divisive and it has been insincere. Where Dr Nelson demonstrated true leadership by directly engaging in the difficult debate with those of us in our party room who quite legitimately held different views, the Prime Minister in contrast arrogantly railroaded this parliament and, through this parliament, the Australian people. He railroaded this parliament with a partisan political approach. It is Dr Nelson who demonstrated true leadership. Without Dr Nelson’s leadership today it would not have happened.

All Australians should be concerned if the approach to this issue sets the tone for the government’s approach to other difficult issues for our nation. To be meaningful, an apology has to be sincere. To be sincere, this apology should have the support of the Australian people. The apology was given by the parliament as representatives of the Australian people. The government are aware that the Australian people have been divided on this issue; the government are aware that Australians remain divided on this issue today; and the government must have been concerned about the views of the Australian people. Why else did the government make a deliberate decision to keep the wording of the apology secret until the last possible moment? Why did they, on this first opportunity to be open and transparent—to listen to and be up-front with the Australian people—exclude the Australian people from their consideration of what was their first important priority in parliament? Why did they not engage with the Australian people in a genuine attempt to bring the Australian people together? We will not get healing and reconciliation if we exclude the Australian people from this process. I hope sincerely that, moving forward, the government will be engaging in a genuine fashion with all Australians on this and other issues.

The parliament today has apologised. It was an apology that had bipartisan support. Now that it has happened we should, and need to, move on. We all need to focus on helping to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal people. The Little children are sacred report confronted us all with our responsibility to focus on the safety and protection of Aboriginal children who are subject to abuse and neglect today. It continues to confront us and should confront our government every waking hour of every single day. In the spirit of both the motion for reconciliation passed by the parliament in August 1999 and the motion passed by the parliament today, we all need to commit as a nation to the cause of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—to work together to strengthen the bonds that unite us, to respect and appreciate our differences, and to build a fair and prosperous future we can all share.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am extremely privileged to be part of a federal parliament that took a giant leap of faith today that will go down in the annals of Australian history. When we reflect on the significance of today—when we not only look back on it tomorrow but think about it next week and in the years to come—it will go down as a momentous day in the history of this nation.

When I first stood in the Senate I offered my personal apologies to the people of the stolen generation. Having lived and worked with people in the Northern Territory for more than 25 years, I have heard many stories. I have got to know many of these people at a personal level and at the level of deep friendship. I know that for decades they have waited for some acknowledgement—not only by the parliament but by this country—that what occurred in the past was an incredible mistake and was so terribly wrong.

If you think of yourself and what defines you as a person, it is actually your family. It is who you are, where you have come from and who you relate to. It is what you learn from each other, how you defend and support each other, and, at times, how you have some massive blues with each other as well. I cannot imagine, as a mother of four, what it would possibly have been like back at the turn of the last century to see your child being removed from your arms or from your camp or from your family existence. I cannot imagine the pain that a mother, or even her relatives, would have felt in seeing that occur. We have heard the stories; we have watched the movies. I think everybody can internalise the kind of impression that would have on you as a parent and, of course, as a child. We know now the significance of the 1997 HREOC report which was called Bringing them home. The term ‘stolen generation’, of course, was first used by Professor Peter Read when he was at the Australian National University. It is a term that has stuck because it so aptly describes what these people were and what they were to themselves.

In taking pride in our country we always look at the achievements, whether they are scientific, sporting or in arts and crafts. We relish those achievements and we are happy to celebrate them. We do not do such a good job at recognising the faults and perhaps the flaws in our history and confronting them full on. The fact that children were taken from their parents on the basis of their race is indeed a national shame. We do have to confront that past act and make that admission. We have done it today and I think we have done it in a very appropriate, capable way. We have done it through consultation with Indigenous people and through the people who have been concerned. We have done it by talking to members of the National Sorry Day Committee and members of the Stolen Generations Alliance.

In the Northern Territory I had the privilege of meeting for many hours representatives from the Northern Territory Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation—members of the stolen generation who come from the Retta Dixon home, Croker Island, Garden Point, Groote Eylandt, the Kahlin compound, the fostered and adopted group, and members from Katherine. The significance of those names, of course, is that they were the names of the homes that children were taken to in the Northern Territory: the Retta Dixon home, the Kahlin compound, Croker Island and Garden Point. There are not too many of those children left, I have to say—probably around 186 in the Northern Territory. In fact, there are only three still alive who were taken to the Kahlin compound. Aunty Hilda Muir is one of those. She could not be here in Canberra today, but I know she would have been listening in the hall of parliament house in the Northern Territory.

What people were after was a final recognition from this parliament that the acts and the actions back then were wrong. They were very clear to me in our discussions that they wanted this day to be about the beginning of a new era. They wanted to be very clear that this was not about a closure or an end, not about signalling further action or requests for assistance, but about a brand new day, about bringing peoples together, about confronting the past and acknowledging how severely wrong that was, and about everybody taking a step forward. They wanted to ensure that it was made on behalf of the Australian parliament and not the Australian people. They would lay no fault at the feet of any one particular person—not then and not now. They wanted to ensure that this parliament acknowledged that the acts of this parliament were wrong, and we have done that. Of course, that has particular reference to the Northern Territory. The Aboriginals Ordinance of 1911 applied specifically to families in the Northern Territory. They were directly affected by this. Unlike any other non-Commonwealth legislation in various states, the Commonwealth Aboriginals Ordinance had a direct and specific effect upon the families in the Northern Territory. They wanted to ensure that the apology was to pertain to the people affected by the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal. In fact, they were hoping that recommendation 5a of the Bringing them home report would be specified and enacted today and that is what has happened. Recommendation 5a states:

That all Australian parliaments—

and now all Australian parliaments have—

1. officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal;

…            …            …

3. make appropriate reparation as detailed in following recommendations.

That has occurred. We have had the start today with Prime Minister Rudd setting up a commission to look at housing and preschool education. It is a new beginning and that is exactly what members of the stolen generation want. They were also concerned that this apology must acknowledge their Indigenous mothers. I notice that today in his speech the Prime Minister did exactly that. They wanted acknowledgement that their mothers who were left behind when children were taken suffered the most unkind and cruel impact you could possibly imagine. They also want us to acknowledge that, when they were removed from their families, they incurred an incredible loss of language, a loss of culture and a loss of land. A lot of these people would have been the next senior people in their communities and camps and the next line of traditional owners. All of that has been denied them.

These children were discouraged from having family contact. They were taught to reject Aboriginality. Their institutional conditions were harsh. Their education was often basic. Many never received wages. Physical punishment was often common. They were at risk of sexual abuse and the authorities failed to care for and protect the children. We have had documented in the Bringing them home report the lifelong effects that some of these people have endured—the loss of a primary carer in infancy, the fact that forcibly removed people were no better off despite the fact that that is what the policies intended, the fact that their parenting skills have been undermined, that their next generation is at risk, that there is a loss of heritage and that there have been massive effects on those left behind. These people deserved this apology today and I am glad to have been part of it.

One of the strongest memories I have of my time in this Senate is walking over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000. I want to place on record my thanks to non-Indigenous people who have walked the journey with the stolen generation people over the years, people out in the broader community who have worked hard to achieve the apology we have had from the federal parliament today, and to those members of the stolen generation who were wandering around at morning tea this morning with ‘Thanks’ on their T-shirts. This has been a very significant day for them and for our nation. I sincerely hope we can all now walk forward in a new era of reconciliation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am deeply and genuinely sorry for the way Indigenous Australians have been treated for many years. I apologise for the fact that in the time I have been in parliament we did not do enough to address many of the problems. I am also very sorry that some of the initiatives that we implemented for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, the only jurisdiction over which we have control, have already been placed in doubt by the new government.

I am desperately sorry about the treatment of Aborigines even as we speak. Stories abound in my state of Queensland about sexual abuse of young Indigenous people and about worse than Third World health and education services provided by the state government. The state government seems incapable of or uninterested in addressing those issues. Daily in Queensland there are reports of tragic incidents.

All the talk, all the symbolism, all the hand wringing will not address the appalling situations that many Indigenous people still find themselves in.

The work that the Howard government started should be accelerated, but already the politically correct brigade are stalling that work. I mention just one instance—the actions of the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments in reversing the opening up of communities to other Australians. It seems to be so essential to involve Indigenous Australians in the wider community and to let the wider community interact with Indigenous Australians. In this regard I share the concern of prominent Australians such as Mr Warren Mundine, the former President of the ALP, who has, as do I, concerns about bringing back the permit system.

Many of the actions implemented by Mr Brough should have been duplicated around Australia, but it served the purposes of Labor state governments not to accept those solutions. I am desperately sorry for the plight of many Indigenous people who find themselves in the revolving door of poverty, substance abuse and sexual abuse and parents who are simply incapable of bringing up their children.

The forcibly separated generation of Indigenous people was separated by well-meaning people decades and decades ago. I do not believe that I or other Australians can apologise for actions taken by former generations in different circumstances at a time of different attitudes, laws and Christian beliefs. I venture to say that all the missionaries, churches and state government officials did what they did believing it to be best for those involved—for the children they believed to be at risk, for the children they believed would never be able to enjoy what they believed to be a civilised way of life. In today’s thinking, that has all changed and would not be repeated. Having said that, though, one only has to look at the everyday occurrences in the non-Indigenous communities today, where young children seen to be at risk are forcibly taken from their parents because those parents are simply incapable of dealing with young children at a particular age. I know about this because I have family in this situation.

But, if apologies are to be given and compensation paid, I think it behoves the government to look wider than just the position of Indigenous people. I want to refer the government to the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee entitled Forgotten Australians, published in August 2004, which gives a damning account of young non-Indigenous Australians who were forcibly taken from their parents in the 1930s and 1940s. I am indebted to a Mr John Walsh from Roma in Queensland, who contacted me and alerted me to this report into the terrible situation in which he and many other young Australians found themselves in the last 70 years.

In many cases the father had volunteered to join the Australian Defence Force to go overseas in defence of our country and the empire. Their spouses, left with young children, when they asked for assistance from the government of the time, had their young children forcibly removed from them. Horrific stories abound of how these young people were molested by monsters, how they were transferred from one orphanage to another and, at an early age, made to work for their existence. If apologies are to be made and compensation paid to Indigenous people, they should, in my view, also be made to all those Australians, be they Indigenous or otherwise, who have suffered through the forcible removal of children from their parents in years gone by.

I am deeply sorry for what happened to those people, and I do believe that those who are still alive, who have suffered and continue to suffer, should be treated in the same way as those Indigenous people also forcibly removed. I would assume, again, that those who perpetrated the acts of separation in the 1930s and 1940s did so not out of malice but out of their belief at the time that it was the correct way to deal with the situation as they found it. We can look back today and say how inappropriate and in fact devastating those actions have been. But again I remain to be convinced of the worth of a formal apology by the Australian government for actions perpetrated by another government in another time.

Nothing will ever prevent me, having learnt of their plight, from being deeply sorry for them, as I am for those Indigenous people who were forcibly separated and suffered as a result. But a formal apology, I think, does not take the matter further. The day after the formal apology, life will move on for most Indigenous people. I want to see out of this whole debate a continuation of the good work started by the Howard government so that, in that way, we can really do something to address the problems that confront Indigenous people. Formal apologies have been offered by churches and state governments in the past, and what has been achieved? After all, actions speak louder than words. State governments have responsibility for safety, protection, education and health and have failed, and words will not fix these deficiencies. It needs real action.

I draw the Senate’s attention to the motion passed by parliament in 1999 where the parliament expressed ‘its deep and sincere regret that Indigenous Australians 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’. Those words from back in 1999 were followed by action which culminated in the Northern Territory intervention—the first real attempt to right the appalling conditions and circumstances of Australia’s Indigenous people. If the apology takes that any further, then I am very happy. I doubt that it will, however, and what we need to get from this government is not more rhetoric and hand-wringing but real action of the sort that Mr Brough introduced to try and build the situation of Indigenous people to what other Australians accept, rightly so, as a matter of right.

I also urge the government to look at the plight of the forgotten Australians and any other persons, Indigenous or otherwise, who have been forcibly separated from their parents by the authorities over the years. Whilst on the subject of actions of past generations which are unthinkable today, I wonder what the government has planned for those South Sea islanders taken not only from their families and loved ones but also from their own country. They were taken in what was then acceptable conduct according to the laws and norms of those days but through actions which today we find totally repugnant and abhorrent, not to mention unlawful. I am desperately sorry for what former generations did to these people but, with the benefit of hindsight, I do so from a much more enlightened era. In fact, I am desperately sorry for what former generations of governments, churches and welfare agencies did to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and to South Sea islanders, to name but a few of the peoples of Australia who have every right to feel distraught and resentful.

I apologise for any hurt that I myself may have ever brought to the people of Indigenous Australia in my lifetime. I hope there is nothing that fits that description apart from my reluctance to pillory state governments and former Australian governments who have ignored the problems of Indigenous people. I am also sorry that we did not move with action like the Northern Territory intervention earlier than this. I am not in a position to apologise for the actions of other Australians in past generations who took actions which in most cases were well meaning. If symbolism and words do solve the hurt then, as I say, I will be very happy. If, however, they are just words of political expediency that mean little and have even less impact on the real solution, then I will not be happy.

I conclude, as we did in 1999, by again expressing the parliament’s deep and sincere regret that Indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and also apologise for the hurt and trauma that many Indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices. I conclude with the final paragraph of that 1999 motion—that the parliament:

… believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now move forward together for the benefit of all Australians.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I speak to and support the motion before us today and of course acknowledge on this day of history the traditional owners of this land. My colleagues and I support this motion in its entirety. As you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, we did not support amendments because today is not a day for quibbling; today is not a day for political point-scoring. Today is an occasion that must not be marred.

I am so proud to stand in this chamber today, I support the eloquence of the words chosen by the Prime Minister and I support the way he spoke those words. It is a very rare occasion indeed when I can say that he spoke for me today. I do not know that I have often been able to say that of a Prime Minister in this place and I am only sad that I feel that I am leaving this place just as the government seems to be getting it right on these matters of history and of such great importance.

That is not to say that neither the Democrats nor I feel strongly about the issue of compensation. Of course we do. I feel it is quite right that these issues of compensation and an apology be dealt with separately. But, as a matter of principle and fairness, I cannot reconcile how any government can acknowledge the error of the policies—that is, of the stolen generation and the pain and suffering that these policies have inflicted—yet rule out any form of reparation. So, yes, that debate will come, but today is an important day for an apology just as yesterday’s welcome to country ceremony was a remarkable and historic event.

I found it a wonderfully moving ceremony yesterday. It felt like we were moving as a country in the right direction. The Prime Minister was talking about carpe diem. Today it is about ex unitate vires—a time to be united as a parliament and hopefully united as a people in moving ahead and healing wounds. It is an honour to speak as a South Australian representing, of course, the South Australian descendants of those who have walked this land for many thousands of generations before us, members of an ancient and proud culture, unique in its longevity and its character. Of course, many people would be aware of the many different Indigenous Australians who are represented in South Australia, my home state.

But it is one generation in particular to whom today I direct my thoughts, my sorrow, my empathy and my words. It is to a generation who suffered unspeakable wrong, a generation who were torn from that which they held most dear and thus were doomed to confront a life without the healing and guiding that a family love can provide.

As a senator for the state of South Australia, I echo and endorse the words of the motion without detraction: I am sorry. I am sorry that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were removed from their families, their cultures and their clans. I am sorry for the suffering and the hurt of those stolen generations, their descendants and their families left behind. I am sorry for the pain, sorrow and degradation that were inflicted on these generations and their families by successive government policies. I am sorry this pain was inflicted by policies determined by former members of governments that we now represent.

To those who have campaigned relentlessly for many years, for decades, to reach this moment I offer my congratulations, my solidarity and my admiration. I know many thought that this day would never come and may well it not have but for the tireless efforts of many individuals and organisations. Reconciliation Australia is one example. Then there is the Sorry Day Committee and, of course, so many individual Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have worked so hard. I wear a scarf today given to me by Lowitja O’Donoghue many years ago as we debated this issue and worked together on it. I think there are many, many people who are enjoying this particular occasion and who feel that their efforts have not been totally in vain.

I offer my encouragement for, although the magnitude of this occasion cannot be understated, as is made clear by the words of this apology, it is but a first step towards a shared future built on mutual recognition and empowerment. Of course, there remains much work to be done, as has been acknowledged by all in this place. It is true that the divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians represents a blight on this nation still. Indigenous Australians live 17 years fewer, are 17.5 times more likely to be in jail, and are three to four times more likely to fail basic numeracy and literacy tests than non-Indigenous Australians. But much has been made of the symbolism of this act in the face of such figures. And symbolism is important; it does matter. As Reconciliation Australia has said: ‘The divide between so-called symbolic and practical aspects of reconciliation is a false and dangerous construction,’ and one which fails to recognise that the apology is ‘fundamentally about building mutually respectful relationships as the foundation for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians moving forward together—acknowledging our shared history and looking to a shared future’.

I do congratulate this government on the initiative it has shown and for imbuing this apology with the priority that it deserves by making it one of the foremost acts of the 42nd Parliament. This should not be, and I do not believe it has been, about blame. I think this has always been about healing and about moving forward—hence the Democrats’ strong belief, as indeed the Bringing them home report acknowledges, that compensation and reparation are an important part of that. It is about ensuring that we acknowledge that pain and suffering. It does not do justice to the Bringing them home report and it does not bring an end to this unfinished business if we just have the apology. But, for today, it is a fundamental and important first step.

I urge the government and my opposition colleagues, those of us on the crossbench and all elected members in this place—especially the new ones, through whom I think some of us will live vicariously over the coming years—to seize this cooperative spirit and to use the spirit of this movement to move forward hopefully. Often in circumstances such as these the collective goodwill of the movement can be lost in semantics and cynicism. I hope not. Let us declare here and now that such a fate will not befall this parliament and that the generations of the future will look back on this moment as the birth of a united and mature nation that has been big enough to recognise the mistakes of the past while simultaneously moving forward to a better future. I wholeheartedly support the motion and I commend my Senate colleagues to do likewise.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to follow my fellow South Australian Senator Stott Despoja to support this National Apology to the Stolen Generations. In May 1997 I spoke to a motion in the South Australian parliament as a member of that parliament at the time. It was a motion of apology and reconciliation. I indicated then that I thought it would be appropriate for the federal parliament to make a similar apology. It has taken more than 10 years. I hope that this occasion means that Aboriginal people will finally have the sense of a complete and heartfelt apology from all of the governments of Australia, because all of the states and territories, I think, have now delivered an apology for their role in the administration of the forcible removal of Aboriginal children. It is very pleasing to see that the national parliament, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all of the minor parties here in this chamber have now joined the states and territories with one voice to speak that apology to those people who have suffered the pain and the devastating consequences of a policy which was aimed at the assimilation of Aboriginal people.

The time at which we gave the apology in the South Australian parliament marked the 30th anniversary of the 1967 referendum to give the Commonwealth special powers to be used for the benefit of the Aboriginal people. I would just like to reiterate a short part of the remarks that I made at the time. I said:

It is not enough to recognise and acknowledge the mistakes of the past: we must also make a commitment to avoid those mistakes in the future. In 1967 the Australian people voted overwhelmingly in favour of that referendum in a country where very few referendum questions get up. The Australian people did that, I believe, because they thought it was a fair thing and a recognition of the rights of people in this country. We take for granted that our Government is set up to make laws for our benefit, even if we do not agree with those laws, but Aborigines have no such confidence based on their past experiences. The rights of Aborigines as citizens were denied—rights such as life, liberty, property and dignity. They deserve an apology for those past mistakes and deserve to be told that we will ensure that it will not happen in the future.

I think that is still precisely what this apology is about now. In my view, it is about apologising for the past, making sure that these mistakes do not happen in the future and doing something about it.

Senator Macdonald earlier quoted a friend of mine, Warren Mundine, about another issue, but I will quote him as well. I saw him just now at lunchtime and he said that this apology is essential because it will raise itself again and again and get in the way of what we do in the future. That is another reason it is important. We must have this as the starting point before we can go forward and rectify those mistakes.

In rectifying those mistakes, we must first of all ask ourselves why we are doing it. This is about the dignity of and the respect in which we hold Indigenous people in Australia and the acknowledgement that we treat all Australians with justice and equity. We do not treat all Australians the same but we treat them all with justice and equity and respect their rights as individuals.

In moving onto the future, the Prime Minister in his speech today talked about targets in education and health. I want to support those targets but with the understanding that they are set with the full cooperation of and consultation with Aboriginal people and that they are not decided for them. We must give Aboriginal people the dignity and respect that we give to all Australians—and the choice and the say in their lives and their lifestyles, and never deny that to them. It will not work if we do not do that.

I am no expert. I have spent some time working and living in outback areas of South Australia and the Northern Territory. I spent some years in Alice Springs working at a pathology lab in the hospital there and therefore had some experience of the Aboriginal communities around Alice Springs. I have a sister who has worked for 30 years in education in the Northern Territory, particularly with Aboriginal children. I do not claim any particular expertise, but this is my assessment of where the Aboriginal community is positioned: before we can move forward, we need to have the full cooperation of that community. They must make the choice about which direction they want to head in. The Prime Minister referred to that in his speech this morning. He said that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for the hundreds of Aboriginal communities around Australia. He said that what we are doing is setting a destination and we should be asking the Aboriginal people to come along with us.

Aboriginal people have been here on this land for many thousands of years. We came and we built our country and our wealth on their land. In doing that, we displaced and/or disrupted many Aboriginal people. That means, in my view, that we have an ongoing obligation to care and show consideration for those who continue to suffer the consequences of that trauma. The way we should be addressing the future is by providing ongoing compensation for that. This small proportion of our wealth should not be paid with any sense of paternalism or of someone with a better knowledge coming in to provide for those communities. It should be paid as a just and right contribution for the displacement that those Aboriginal communities have suffered.

In conclusion, it has given me great pleasure to be here as a representative of South Australia in the federal parliament and to be part of this national apology. It is clear, from the many people I have seen around Parliament House today, that receiving that apology has given pleasure to many Aboriginal people. I think that is a wonderful start for the future relations between Aboriginal people and the parliament and people of Australia.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the motion of a national apology to the stolen generation. Today is about honouring Indigenous Australians, reflecting on their past and apologising for the laws and policies which failed to honour the Indigenous Australians. We say sorry today. We do not know ourselves the grief and the pain of forced removal and separation from family and community. But we know of it, and we have listened.

Today I also want to acknowledge that there were a lot of dedicated people, from religions and non-religious organisations, who gave a great deal of their lives to man missions or work with Aboriginals in these distant communities—the Lutherans at Hopevale; the Brethren at Doomadgee; I know the Catholics were represented, and so were the Methodists—to look after the welfare, the education and the health of Aboriginal communities. In passing this motion, we must in no way denigrate their efforts and their lives’ work.

We see by your reception of this apology how much it was needed. Today there will be celebrations aplenty. The sorry motion was telecast live by many media outlets. There was cheering from the crowds outside and in Parliament House, and there were people watching from around Australia. I know that today is all these wonderful things. But there are many Australians who will be thinking that tomorrow, in some remote and isolated Indigenous communities, there will still be no work, lots of alcohol and violence, child abuse and neglect and intolerable levels of sickness and disease. Apologies for the past are meaningful if they lead to a renewed vigour to do more and to do better. The past cannot be undone, but the future can be remade. There is a genuine mood in the nation today that we can do better, that we must do better and that we will do better.

One step in this process to do more and to do better is to look again at how remote communities can be made sustainable so that they are not reliant on government handouts and welfare but are in control of their own choices and destiny. For example, Indigenous communities in Queensland have large amounts of land and water not being used to grow anything. They could grow—and in some instances have negotiated forestry agreements to grow—trees, creating employment and hope for their communities by establishing a forestry industry in those communities in North Queensland that have lots of land.

Queensland has other good examples of success, such as contracting businesses in the cotton industry at St George and Goondiwindi. Many of the Indigenous people there have their own businesses and contract out to the cotton growers. There are also the mining and transport industries at Mount Isa. Mining companies also offer employment in remote Australia. Some communities are developing their own tourist villages and caravan parks. These are but a few examples of how sustainability can create and ensure a better future for those Indigenous people and their communities.

With this apology, we now need to ensure that our efforts are renewed and refocused to ensure that the mistakes of the past are learnt from and never repeated. I hope this apology assists in the healing process of those who have suffered from past decisions. I also hope that the momentum for a better future for our Indigenous community is continued with examples like those I have described in Queensland and with the Northern Territory intervention.

What worries me is that, one day in a parliament of the future, senators may vote to apologise for what this generation has failed to do for our Indigenous people. We will fail if we do not focus on practical help to forge healthy, educated, law-abiding and sustainable communities. Today, maybe we feel good about ourselves because we apologised for the past mistakes. But tomorrow we must assume responsibility for our own mistakes and make action, not rhetoric, our weapon of choice.

I cannot let this debate go by without recognising the frustration felt by many decent Australians when it comes to Indigenous policy. Their sincere and generous desire to help Indigenous Australians has been backed by a huge amount of public funds. Yet it seems to many ordinary Australians that there is such a long way to go. The willingness to see Indigenous Australians succeed is wholeheartedly felt across the nation. But the disappointments have been many. Cross-cultural misunderstandings and internal politics, black and white, have contributed to the difficulties. Sometimes there was conflict despite everyone having the common underlying aim of improving life for Indigenous people.

It is right that there be joy and tears today. It is right that we say sorry. It is also right that we move forward as a nation. The present and the future demand our attention. The world sees the huge abyss of despair in some Aboriginal communities. Australians want to help. They want to stop clouds gathering over the young children. So let there be jubilation today. Let the victims of injustice breathe easier. But, please God, let the leaders stand up and insist on a mutual responsibility as included in this motion.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a fantastic day today. I was riding my bike to parliament this morning and there were hoards of people walking towards Parliament House, wanting to be here at the front of Parliament House and watching on the big screen. In the Great Hall people were streaming out the back just to be present on such a historic and really important day. It is just fantastic to know that that was occurring, and not just here in Canberra. We have heard the reports today about people who filed into Federation Square in Melbourne and into Martin Place in the rain in Sydney. People gathered at Bourke High School to watch on the big screen there and to hear from local Indigenous leaders about what this apology means to them. Close to my house at the Block in Redfern, many people gathered as well and watched the apology that occurred here. So it is a fantastic day for all of us to be here and participate in.

Having an apology in the name of the parliament today feels really special to us, but it is really meant for the people who make up the stolen generation. I really hope that today is an opportunity for them to start the process of healing. We have all acknowledged that it is just the first step; it is the beginning of a long process of healing. I hope that the activities here in parliament today can contribute to and assist in the process of trying to start the healing process. Much damage has been done and it is really only when we acknowledge that damage and work together that we can start to forge a better future for this country.

Three young schoolgirls were at the Block this morning in Redfern. They were on their way to school and they came because they really wanted to be there. I heard them on the radio just earlier today. They were asked about what the apology means to them and they said, ‘Well, we know one thing: it has been a long time coming.’ I thought that if those schoolgirls can understand that, perhaps that is some insight into the sense of frustration that many people have. It really has been a long time coming. It is over 200 years ago that this country was first invaded and occupied by colonisers. A lot of recognition needs to occur. It is not just about saying sorry to the stolen generation; it is about saying sorry for the colonisation of this country, for so many things that have happened, all the way up to the most recent Northern Territory intervention.

Yesterday we had the fantastic opening of parliament, with a long-overdue welcome to country ceremony. That was really pleasing to see. We also had a tremendous gathering of people at the front of Parliament House who were talking about the negative impact that the Northern Territory intervention is having. I think that the history of black and white relations in this country shows that, if you can learn one thing from it, it does not work to impose things on Aboriginal Australians. That is why we are here now, with the parliament saying sorry. It may have been well-intentioned government policy, but look at the heartache it has created.

On the day when the former Prime Minister made the announcement about the Northern Territory intervention, I was in Rachel Siewert’s office—our Green senator from Western Australia—with a group of women from the Northern Territory. They were in Canberra because they own the land where the former government wanted to put nuclear waste dump sites in the Northern Territory. The women were lobbying here about that issue and it happened to be the day when the former Prime Minister made the announcement about the Northern Territory intervention. As I was leaving Rachel’s office, one of them turned to me and said, ‘I’m from the stolen generation.’ It was a real look of ‘I’ve seen this before’. It just made me think: ‘I don’t want us to be here; I don’t want us or political leaders, decision makers, to be here in 10, 15 or 20 years time saying sorry for well-meaning decisions made by the former government and supported by the Labor Party.’ People were trying to do things and feeling that they were doing their best for the children, and yet that is what happened with the stolen generation—and more damage was done. If what is going on in the Northern Territory is not done in cooperation with Indigenous Australians, the same thing will occur. When you impose things, it does not work. When you give Indigenous people the opportunity to drive their own future and create their own opportunities, that is what works. There are so many positive examples of that.

In New South Wales, I visited schools in Aboriginal communities run entirely by Indigenous staff who do fantastic work in engendering in young people a sense of cultural importance, with dance and activities they can be involved in. There are so many success stories. There is the state condom program, for example, that is happening in parts of Victoria. Indigenous people are running their own programs about the importance of safe sex. These are the programs that work, and they are the programs we should be supporting. We cannot have an intervention which is exempt from the Race Discrimination Act so it can be racist—imposed on a group of people in the Northern Territory. It has to be a cooperative action, and that is why I support so much the demands of the protest that happened out the front of Parliament House yesterday about the Northern Territory intervention. We have to work together in order to achieve things. That has been the history and the legacy of so much of the black-white relations in this country. If we are going to turn a new page, if we are going to start over, it is about working together.

People have done a whole lot of studies and research. People in here know the figures about the disadvantage—about the 17-year gap in life expectancy and the experiences that Indigenous Australians have had. We need to look at the work that has been done. There was the Bringing them home report. We need to implement all of the recommendations, not just an apology but fair and just compensation—reparation for Indigenous Australians. We need to go down the path of implementing all of those recommendations—reparation in not just a monetary sense but also a health, education and housing sense. We need to be holistic about the way in which we make reparation work so that as a country we can forge the new future that we all want to be a part of.

There are so many things that need to be done in this area: recognising sovereignty, putting in place negotiations around a treaty and the land rights movement that has been so important for this country. We need to look at these issues again and ensure that this is done in a way where Indigenous Australians are leading the way. So much needs to be done and this is just the first stage. We need to see, as I said, all of those recommendations of the Bringing them home report implemented. There are recommendations outstanding from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody which also need to be implemented.

There are far too many Indigenous Australians in prisons right across this country, and we need to look at working with Indigenous communities to ensure that those people are given the opportunities that mean they can have a really positive life that allows them to contribute to our society rather than find themselves in prison. We need to ensure not only that those recommendations from the black deaths in custody report are taken up but also that we do not have such a horrendous representation of Indigenous communities in our prisons as we currently have. So many things need to occur. These are issues that the Greens and people from other parties in this chamber have worked on for many years, but we need to continue all of this work.

I just want to take a couple of moments to share with the Senate the story of a young woman. I think she would be aged 41 this year. She is a woman by the name of Charmaine Clarke. She ran as a Green candidate for a Senate seat in the federal election of 1998. I met her a couple of years beforehand. As I said, Charmaine is quite young—a couple of years older than me. She was a member of the stolen generation. At the age of three she was taken into care—along with four of her brothers and sisters—by social workers when she was being looked after by an aunt while her mother and father were out looking for work. When she was 14, Charmaine ran away from that care to rejoin her mother. Much of her family history is still missing. It is many years ago that Charmaine told me about her experiences and the experiences of other members of her family. Charmaine is just one of many people who have had a hurtful experience because of the actions of the Australian government, and I hope that today’s apology can be part of the healing and repair for them and for this country so that we can forge a bright future together—and ‘together’ is the most important part.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today’s apology is an acknowledgement of guilt which will have far-reaching implications for current and future generations, both in Australia and internationally. It stems from the 1997 Bringing them home report, which found that nationally Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities between 1910 and 1970 to be placed in institutions, church missions and adopted or fostered where they were potentially at risk; ‘that welfare officials failed in their duty to protect Indigenous wards from abuse’; that under international law, from approximately 1946, the policies of forcible removal amounted to genocide; and that from 1950 the continuation of distinct laws for Indigenous children was racially discriminatory.

A key recommendation was that reparation include: an acknowledgement of responsibility and an apology from all Australian parliaments, police forces, churches and other non-government agencies which implemented the policies of forcible removal; guarantees against repetition; restitution and rehabilitation; and, most importantly, monetary compensation.

On 26 August 1999, then Prime Minister Howard moved a motion of reconciliation which reaffirmed commitment to the cause of reconciliation while acknowledging past mistreatment and expressing deep and sincere regret that Indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations. Given the divergence of views in Australia, that motion struck a fair balance. A motion in similar terms went before the Senate.

The primary justification for an apology is inextricably linked to the notion that a policy of genocide was deliberately instituted against our Indigenous community. As coalition senators noted in their dissenting report at the inquiry into the stolen generation, many Australians would not agree that there are direct parallels between the separated children experience and the sort of gross violations of human rights found elsewhere in the world, such as torture, genocide, slavery and executions.

The apology follows an acknowledgement that children were removed forcibly. This critically satisfies those international conventions that a policy of genocide was enforced against our Indigenous population. Therefore, an apology will support a tide of claims for compensation reinforced by an acceptance that human rights were breached. A flurry of legal activity will be driven by the principle—stated in the report—that states breach their obligations when they fail to prevent human rights violations by others, as well as when human rights are violated by state action. In either event, the victims have a right to reparation under international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Let us understand the extent of potential claims. Recommendation 4 requires reparation be made not only to the individuals but also to others whose ties with them were affected by the removal, such as family members, descendants and their communities. The Senate inquiry into the implementation of the report also advocated a reparation tribunal—a powerful precursor of what is likely to materialise.

The advocacy for compensation remains strong and is driven by a diversity of stakeholders who say that a symbolic apology without compensation is meaningless. In recent memory our nation has sought to expunge our psyche with notions of political correctness and divisive policies designed to overwhelm us with symbolism but which fail to deliver tangible and practical solutions to complicated challenges. Any objections to an apology in no way negate the tremendous need to support our Indigenous population. The disparity in their living standards and in their mortality rates is cause for great concern. Many remain destitute in a lifestyle surrounded by violence, addiction, poor health and low levels of education—a situation I saw when I was growing up one block away from an Aboriginal community in the Illawarra.

These challenges can only be addressed through practical responses such as the Northern Territory intervention. My concerns about the motion are: first, it exposes the taxpayer to potential ambit claims of compensation, including under international law; second, it solidifies an acknowledgement that a policy of genocide was deliberately instituted against our Indigenous population; third, it leaves an indelible mark on our history by supporting the notion that Aboriginal children were ‘stolen’, thus imputing some criminal intent on the actions of good men and women whose actions were motivated by rescuing or saving children from appalling conditions; fourth, it tarnishes our nation’s reputation and imputes guilt to the current generation for alleged transgressions over past policies and practices; and, fifth, it creates an environment whereby generations of students will be inculcated, through a curriculum, that Australia once adopted a practice of violation of human rights of Indigenous people.

Remember that some very good men and women from churches and other organisations acted legally and with the best of intentions to remove children from appalling conditions where they had been abandoned, abused or neglected. Many of those children went on to make important and varied contributions. What about the children and grandchildren of these good men and women? How are we making them feel?

Whilst many Australians may regret any injustices suffered under past practices, they do not believe that this constituted ‘stealing’ for which this generation should say sorry. A vocal coterie of interests has effectively created a pressure-cooker environment designed to stymie debate over an emotive issue stoked against our collective national interest. As Professor Windschuttle recently said, one thing, though, that this coterie has kept to itself is that the major pieces of legislation underlying these past practices were all passed by Labor governments.

As a lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor for 15 of my 20 years in public sector employment, I saw instances of collective activism egged on by unscrupulous lawyers who had no hesitation in encouraging plaintiffs to pursue spurious claims against the Commonwealth, knowing that, at the very least, go-away money, together with their costs, would be paid. Naturally, prospective plaintiffs may have legitimate common-law rights to sue—such as Mr Trevorrow, who was awarded $525,000 for breach of duty of care by the South Australian government. Such legitimate legal rights of course continue to exist.

Should we go back into our history and consider reparation for other alleged injustices committed, however well intentioned or well founded? What about the many white children removed from appalling conditions for the same reasons of being abandoned, abused or neglected? Are they entitled to compensation for forced removal? What about those law-abiding migrants who suffered when interned during the war for no other reason than their nationality? Should they be compensated? Will we see emerging other groups who may legitimately argue that they too should be compensated for an alleged injustice? Should we now find these aggrieved people? Where do you draw the line?

More importantly, as Andrew Bolt recently stated in the Herald Sun, will the fear of liability for reparation mean that the welfare officials of today will be too scared to remove Indigenous children from dangers from which, ordinarily, children of any other race would be saved? On the other hand, will we see future claims for reparations because today, with the best of intentions, Indigenous children are being removed from circumstances of sexual abuse and neglect and other atrocious instances?

It is incumbent on us to remain true to our convictions and maintain the cohesiveness of our nation by enacting initiatives designed to benefit all Australians.

The motion omits compensation and reparation. It is illusory to think that an apology in itself will be sufficient. Many will want compensation, and, given the number of potential claimants, I believe reparations will run into billions of dollars. Rest assured that, in the future, we will be called upon to consider compensation legislation. Calls for compensation by key figures in the debate are only the beginning of a sustained campaign.

Some claim today’s motion provides finality and closure, but many believe it is the beginning of the next phase, in which this generation and future generations will be made financially responsible for past and, potentially, current actions towards Indigenous Australians. There are very diverse views held by Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on an apology, ranging from strong support to outright opposition. I know that my concerns and reservations are shared by many Australians. For this reason, I left the chamber when the motion was carried on the voices, thereby abstaining from the vote.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not always begin speeches in this place by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, though many people know that in most places I do. But I think today, in this discussion, is a time when we can because acknowledgement is the focus of today.

The word ‘sorry’ has been said—and it has been said a number of times here—and it has made a difference. That is the important element. But the word that I want to use most in my short contribution is ‘thank you’. Thank you to the many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have kept this issue on the agenda. From the time that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission began their work on what later became the Bringing them home report, across our community there was a raising of awareness of what really happened to the Indigenous Australians who were caught up in a period of our history that we have tended not to acknowledge. The report also acknowledged what happened to people who were not Indigenous—people who were, as many speakers have acknowledged, doing things that were accepted.

Through the Bringing them home report—and I know many people in this chamber and in the other place have read that report in detail—individual people had the courage and support to tell their stories, and through that storytelling an amazing awareness came to a large sector of our community. Out of that report came individuals who then told their stories more widely. Through that process, through various reconciliation networks across our country, there was genuine engagement with these people. That engagement spread from school groups to pensioner groups, to community areas where there was time and space provided for people to share their stories. That is the real value of the journey in which we are taking our own place today.

We have an awareness now that was not accepted in the past. We cannot hide from what occurred, but we have an opportunity to move this awareness forward by taking this step. Anyone who saw the candlelight display in front of Parliament House the other night with its statement, ‘Sorry—the first step’, knows it indicated that the debate was not over, that the discussions that were started over 11 years ago by the Bringing them home report, which worked across all areas of Australia encouraging people to come forward, will keep going. That is the strength that saying sorry today has given all of us. We have acknowledged that the journey must continue, but by publicly stating sorry, by that communication given today, we have taken one extra step towards that infrastructure on which we can build. That is why we are excited.

That is why today is not the day to talk about all the other things that have to happen. This is not the day to set up contrasting divisions, to be competing about who is more disadvantaged. Today is the day, as we should together agree, to make this statement—our Parliament House, our government, all Australians together, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, making this statement but acknowledging that the journey continues. No-one believes that there is going to be some magic effect today and everything is going to be better. Anyone who brings that argument into the debate is continuing to hide from the core issue. What we are doing together today is acknowledging the first step and acknowledging that there is so much more that has to be done. One of the key elements of that forward action is keeping all the stories that were told through the Bringing them home report and all the contributions that we have shared in this place and in the other place today together as a constant reminder of where we have come from, where we are today and where we must go in the future. That is the hope. But when you actually mingle with the people who really are the owners of today, those people who have told their stories and who now have the strength of and support from their parliament, you can see that they have the strength now to help us move forward with them. That must be where we go from today.

I urge people from across all parties to give the time and the space today for some celebration, for some acknowledgement, and then, maybe in different ways, we can continue the debate about what should and should not happen in the future and what the legal implications are into the future. That debate will continue—it must—but today is the day to acknowledge the ‘sorry’ statement. That recommendation from the Bringing them home report was not the only recommendation. It did not say that, by making an apology, that would be the end of the issue. What the Bringing them home report said was that one threshold element of our job was to make the apology, and we can do that. In fact it has been done today and we are in furious agreement that that was a good thing to happen.

What we can now do is join with the people from Indigenous communities across the country—and, most importantly, deal with the school kids who have had the opportunity today to watch what has been going on in this place—and to regather our energy. One of the things that often happens in this place is that something that is really important today is left on a bookshelf in a library or pushed aside. That cannot be the legacy of our ‘sorry’ statement. The legacy of the ‘sorry’ statement must be the joint commitment to future action. What we can ensure today is that future action will be able to be done in a more positive way, in a way that engages all of us and does not have this element of unfinished business.

Through the process in the lower house and in the Senate today, through the agreed decision to make the statement—which has now become part of our government history, our parliament history and our community history—we have acknowledged what went wrong in the past, we have said that we think that was wrong and we as a parliament and as a government have said sorry. That is the challenge for all of us. I am sure there is going to be extreme discussion about what the next step should be to actually achieve those commitments and look at what must happen. When people have the opportunity to hear and read the contributions that have been made by various members of parliament and senators today, we will be able to develop a framework for moving into the future.

I am very, very glad that we have made this statement today. I think the joy that has been expressed by people who told their stories in the Bringing them home report must give us the courage to take the next step—and remember: there are next steps. We hope that today’s activity will be commemorated in a permanent way in this building, in our history, so that the people who wander through Parliament House and see the way our government operates will be able to see this moment in time and so that they can learn about what has happened in the past and share in whatever our community chooses to do in the future.

The word ‘sorry’ is important—the statement ‘sorry’ is important—but I think that what we need to do is understand that from tomorrow we should be looking at the word ‘action’ and how we can work together. The reconciliation story circles that came out of the Bringing them home report had an engagement and education phase, but they also had an action phase about what we should do next. That is for future debate. Today we can celebrate, we can acknowledge and we can share with the people to whom, as a community, we owe the apology: ‘Sorry and thank you.’

Debate (on motion by Senator Faulkner) adjourned.