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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

STOLEN GENERATIONS REPARATIONS TRIBUNAL BILL 2008

In February of this year the Stolen Generations were given a formal national apology by the new Government. A national apology was one of the key recommendations from the “Bringing them Home” Report and I welcomed the apology along with many other Australians.

The Bringing Them Home Report also stated that “[t]he only appropriate response to victims of gross violations of human rights is one of reparation” and recommended that:

“for the purposes of responding to the effects of forcible removals, ‘compensation’ be widely defined to mean ‘reparation’; that reparation be made in recognition of the history of gross violations of human rights; and that the van Boven principles guide the reparation measures. Reparation should consist of:

(1)

acknowledgment and apology,

(2)

guarantees against repetition,

(3)

measures of restitution,

(4)

measures of rehabilitation, and

(5)

monetary compensation.”

This bill seeks to implement this key recommendation from the Bringing Them Home Report by providing a mechanism to make reparation to the Stolen Generations.

Following the national apology former Senator Andrew Bartlett introduced the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008. Senator Bartlett is a tireless campaigner for social justice and strongly advocated for compensation for the Stolen Generations both inside and outside this Chamber.

I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Bartlett in bringing before this place a Bill for compensation for the Stolen Generations. It was very disappointing to hear the Government dismiss out of hand the issue of reparation and compensation when delivering the apology. Senator Bartlett’s Bill kept the issue of compensation before the parliament and the nation.

Following its introduction, Senator Bartlett’s Stolen Generation Compensation Bill was referred to a Senate Inquiry which received submissions and heard evidence from around the country. The Inquiry canvassed many of the issues relevant to both compensation and broader reparation for the Stolen Generations. There was strong support for a reparation scheme from the submissions and hearings.

One of the submissions to the Inquiry was a joint submission from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Australian Human Rights Centre (the PIAC/AHRC submission). The submission and evidence from PIAC/AHRC proposed a Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal.

PIAC first developed a proposal for a Reparations Tribunal in response to the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home Report and presented the proposal to the 2000 Senate Inquiry into the Federal Government’s implementation of the Report’s recommendations. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee recommended the establishment of a reparations tribunal modelled on the PIAC proposal.

Following the Inquiry, PIAC conducted significant consultations with Indigenous people and organisations across Australia, to further develop their proposal. This finalised proposal was submitted to the Senate Inquiry into Senator Bartlett’s Bill. It is notable that Senator Bartlett in his Additional comments to the Senate Inquiry Report recommended that his Bill be modified by adopting the amendments proposed by PIAC/AHRC. It is a recommendation I agree with and I am pleased to be now putting such a bill before this parliament.

The distinguishing feature of this bill to the Stolen Generations Compensation Bill is the broader remit for reparation. We recognise that a sum of $20 000 is manifestly inadequate compensation for the Stolen Generations. This is why this bill, while keeping a limited ex gratia payment, also provides for the Tribunal to decide on appropriate reparation. Reparation can include funding for certain services and monetary compensation when particular harm is demonstrated. These reparations are unlimited and are to be determined by the Tribunal.

There is a focus in the bill on communal reparation, including measures such as funding for healing centres, community education projects, community genealogy projects, and funding for access to counselling services, health services, language and culture training.

The bill establishes a Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal which is constituted according to the following Principles:

• Acknowledging that forcible removal policies were racist and caused emotional, physical and cultural harm to the Stolen Generations;
• Asserting that Indigenous children should not, as a matter of general policy, be separated from their families;
• Recognising the distinct identity of the Stolen Generations and that they should have a say in shaping reparation; and
• Ensuring that Indigenous persons affected by removal policies should be given information to facilitate their access to the Tribunal and other options for redress.
• The key elements of the Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal are:
• Reparation should be guided by the van Boven principles and should be material, in-kind and non-material, and include but not be confined to monetary compensation;
• The provisions of ex-gratia payments as a minimum lump sum payment to all Indigenous people forcibly removed from their families as a recognition of the fact of removal;
• Acknowledging the intergenerational harm of the forcible removal policies, that reparation should be extended to include not only the individual removed, but also family members, communities and descendents of those removed; and
• Claimants will only have to demonstrate the act of removal occurred under certain legislation or was carried out, directed or condoned by an Australian government.

The van Boven Principles are a set of principles developed by Theo van Boven in 1996 for the United Nations on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. The van Boven principles recognise the right of remedy for victims of gross violations of human rights. The Bringing Them Home Report cites the van Boven Principles and concludes that reparation for the Stolen Generations should be guided by these principles.

The Tribunal’s functions include:

• Deciding on appropriate reparation,
• Deciding on an appropriate amount of any ex gratia payment;
• Providing a forum and process for truth and reconciliation by which Indigenous persons affected by forcible removal policies may tell their story, have their experience acknowledged and be offered an apology by the Tribunal or others;
• Consider proposed legislation to report on whether it would be contrary to the Principles of this Act;
• Inquire into prejudicial policies and practices by government or a church organisation brought to the Tribunal’s attention.

The Tribunal’s functions that relate to examining proposed legislation and inquiring into prejudicial polices and practices of government and church organisations are limited to legislation and policies and practices that are contrary to or inconsistent with the Principles mentioned above. The Tribunal’s functions are thereby limited to matters related to the Stolen Generations and the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.

The Tribunal will be constituted by a Chair and 6 other members. At least half the members of the Tribunal must be Indigenous. The Chair of the Tribunal will be full-time position, while members may be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis.

The key elements and functions of the Tribunal provide for a more holistic approach to reparation for the Stolen Generations. As PIAC stated in its submission to the Senate Inquiry into Senator Bartlett’s Bill:

“It is critical that a mechanism, distinctly shaped by the needs of the Stolen Generations is put in place to service the dual objectives of redressing past harm and creating measures of reparation that offer enduring social, cultural and economic benefits to those affected.”

In response to the national apology I said:

“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.”

I add to that statement that just reparation is equally essential to repair the enduring social, economic and cultural harm experienced by the Stolen Generations.

In the same way the national apology was long overdue, so is a reparation scheme. As Associate Professor Durbach from the AHRC told the Senate Inquiry, in reference to the recommendation of the 2000 Senate Report of a reparation scheme:

“A failure to implement that commitment by way of establishing a Stolen Generations reparations tribunal ignores Australia’s obligations to repair the enduring social, cultural and economic damage particularly endemic to the stolen generations experience. In failing to honour that commitment, it also suspends and accordingly prolongs the critical healing of Stolen Generations communities and undermines any real prospect of effective reconciliation.”

The Government must act urgently to provide the Stolen Generations full reparation.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.