Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Last Wednesday, 13 February, was a very special day in many ways. If I could personalise a little: it was the 16th birthday of my younger son, and that was special to our family. A number of our family were here on a very special day. In the chamber were his brother, who is 26, and his mother, my wife—and I will not divulge her age! The 26-year-old son spent part of Thursday, 14 February, at the War Memorial and, with modern communications and a few buttons to push, he was able to trace the history of his grandfather’s and great-grandfather’s military service. That was a special thing that he could do. Last Wednesday was about recognising that many Aboriginal people are not able and have not been able to make that connection because policies of many years ago physically removed some children from their parents for no other reason than their Aboriginality.

I fully understand that there were young people who were removed for welfare reasons, and today there are people of various nationalities who are removed from their families for quite legitimate reasons. But those people who were taken away and, as I think Laurie Ferguson mentioned, treated as orphans have not had and do not have the capacity to do as my sons have been able to do—to trace their forebears. We are what our forebears are; they are part of us. And to remove that deliberately from any human being is something I think we should apologise for. I was very proud, as a member of the parliament but also as an individual, to be here on such a very special occasion. I do not think anybody who was in the chamber or in the gallery would not have been touched by a number of moments that occurred during the ceremony.

I congratulate the Prime Minister for moving the motion, and I think the words were quite appropriate. I was in the New South Wales parliament in the late nineties when a sorry motion was introduced there. I was supportive of the motion then and obviously I was supportive of the motion here last Thursday. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson. I know he has been pilloried in the press on a number of occasions in relation to some of his choices of words and, on reflection, he might well have reflected on some of the topics he branched into. But going back to last Tuesday, when we had the welcome to country ceremony, I thought both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition gave very, very good speeches. There was no doubt in my mind, on the Tuesday and the Wednesday, that Brendan Nelson was very sincere in his apology. I do not think there was any politics in his personal demeanour and body language in relation to the apology. Quite rightly, he supported the substantive motion of the Prime Minister and he has joined with the Prime Minister on the joint council that is being set up to try and reconcile some of the problems, now that the apology has been formally given.

I thought the moment that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shook hands across the chamber was very special. It is something that I will remember from this parliament. And I thought the moment that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition walked together towards the back of the chamber encapsulated the day for me in a sense because, as they were walking towards the back of the chamber to see some of the elders who were in the chamber as guests, a voice came out of the back gallery—I assume it was an Aboriginal woman speaking—and said these very simple words: ‘Thank you.’

I know there is a debate about some of what the Leader of the Opposition said, but the substantive motion was endorsed. The way the two leaders conducted themselves and the way it was received by the people in the gallery, particularly the Aboriginal people, I thought made it a very special day. I think anybody who spent some time outside with that group knows that the emotion that was in that room was quite incredible. The only time I have experienced that sort of emotive unity of purpose—and it might seem quite strange to liken that function to the one I am about to mention—was when farmers had a rally here in 1985, when 50,000 farmers came together in a sense of unity of purpose. There was a real feeling within that group, and I experienced a similar feeling here the other day. People who did not know one another were congratulating one another and offering their sympathies and goodwill to others. Again, I thought that was a very special moment on that day.

I emphasise my congratulations to both Kevin Rudd and Brendan Nelson. I do not doubt the sincerity of either man in the apology and sense of unity that should lead out of this motion in coming to grips with the future. It has been the politics of division that has stopped any resolution to some of these problems. There must be a united approach, not just with the white community and the Aboriginal community but in the political community, to agree on a way forward that can be depoliticised. The Leader of the Opposition has an enormous opportunity to play a great role in the future debate—as, obviously, do the government and the Prime Minister.

Many speakers have spoken about the possibility of compensation. I think that has been used as a bit of a red herring for some years in order not to apologise for previous policies which were obviously out of order in the way in which they were conducted. I do not believe, and I did not get the feeling from the Aboriginal community who were there the other day, that there will be a great demand for compensation. Maybe it will be tested in the courts in some circumstances, but I think the real meaning of last Wednesday to the recipients of the apology was that they were finally recognised and that the policies which had harmed their families were recognised in probably the most special parliamentary occasion for many years. I think that was the heartfelt thanks that the lady in the gallery was giving when she just said, ‘Thank you,’ which is what you do if somebody apologises for something they have done inadvertently.

Something like 70 per cent of the population of my electorate are Aboriginal, and I consider myself to have a very good relationship with the Aboriginal people. I have known many of them for many years. I grew up near what used to be a mission near a little place called Caroona. It is now the Walhollow Aboriginal community, and a great community in any right—black, white or brindle. It is a very good community and a very good example of what can be achieved with community leadership, elder participation, particularly in relation to the strong women in that community. That has been reflected in many other areas as well. I would urge people who are a little uncertain about what this means to try to put themselves in the same position—if they had been taken away from their parents for no particular welfare reason but because of the number of their house in the street, the colour of their skin or the name of their family. I think that would be gut wrenching and would be very difficult to live with. They would not have been able—as my eldest son was able—to go to the War Memorial, push a button and trace their family because they would not have known who they were. In that sense, there would have been a vacuum in their lives.

In the few minutes remaining, I would like to reflect on my deceased colleague, Peter Andren, the former member for Calare, on the regard he had for Aboriginal people and the respect they had for him as well. There is no doubt in my mind that his spirit was here on Wednesday and it would have been a great thing for him to have participated.

I noticed that a former New South Wales parliamentarian, Col Markham, was in the audience on the day of the apology. I would like to pay my respects to Col. He was a parliamentary secretary in the New South Wales Parliament when I was there, but he was really the minister for Aboriginal affairs and a man who devoted a great deal of time to the betterment of Aboriginal people in New South Wales. Linda Burney, the Aboriginal minister from New South Wales, was there too. She has put a tremendous amount of work in. It was good to see her in tears, in the sense that she was overcome with the emotion of the day.

A couple of people in my own electorate, Joe and Pearl Trindall, who are in their 80s, are real examples of Aboriginal elders who have done it tough. They are still working hard for their people and they are great examples to the young people. We have to learn that we have to help re-establish communication in a lot of these communities. I have spent a lot of time in inland Australia. I am going back out into the deserts in July to spend some time in some of those very remote areas. In my view, we have to assist in the re-establishment of communication between the elders in the community and the young people. One of the reasons why I was opposed to the intervention in the Northern Territory is that a blanket approach such as that does not recognise the flexibility that is required. Many of those smaller communities in very remote places have not had grog for years. They made voluntary decisions, because of the integrity of their communities, to keep out alcohol, petrol and a whole range of other things.

People assume that in the Northern Territory and Western Australia there are massive problems everywhere. There are problems in some parts but there are many good communities as well. Maybe they are not communities that some of us would prefer to live in, but they are, nonetheless, communities where a sense of family and respect for elders and respect for one another are still very much alive. They are not dominated by alcohol, petrol or other substances.

I take issue with the member for Indi. She complained about having only 15 hours—I cannot remember exactly how many hours it was—to consider the 360 or so words of the apology. I would like to complain about the way in which the government introduced the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 and four other bills—545 pages—and expected it all to be passed in one day. We were expected to believe the Prime Minister and the minister as to the content of that legislation. I did not vote on that because we were not given sufficient time to go through it. I have now had time to read that legislation and there are certain parts of it that I disagree with.

In conclusion, a message to the government: I would bring back the permit system. I think there are some real arguments for the permit system in some of those communities.

See this speech in context