Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

Can I thank the member for Swan for putting this motion on our agenda, and I also thank him for his engagement with this issue, which is so close to him. I cannot say I agree with everything he has said, but I do want to point to the recommendations in the royal commission. There were five key findings: firstly, that a national redress scheme should be established to process compensation claims for about 60,000 child abuse survivors; secondly, survivors with a reasonable likelihood of having been abused should receive at least $10,000 and up to $200,000 in the most severe cases; thirdly, that federal, state and territory governments should pay shortfall funding for institutions, which would be about $613 million or about 15 per cent of the total redress funding; fourthly, religious organisations and residential facilities for children should be liable for child sexual abuse in civil lawsuits—I think that is problematic; and, fifthly, unlimited counselling and psychological care should be available episodically through the survivors' lives.

In my view, the government has opted for the next best option with the 'opt in' proposal. There is real concern in the broader community about this element of an opt in. There will be a 10-year scheme, as the member said, which will commence in 2018 and could be extended past 2028 if that is required. The royal commission estimated the total cost of redress—at $200,000 for 60,000 abuse survivors—including administration costs, at about $4.3 billion, which is a significant sum of money. It is very clear that there are many, many Australians who have suffered as a result of the perversity and horrendous victimisation of child sexual abuse and suffered the depravity of those who have perpetrated that abuse on them.

I want to concentrate on evidence which the royal commission took from the Retta Dixon home in Darwin—one of a number of institutions for the stolen generations in the Northern Territory. There were seven institutions in the Northern Territory, where over 1,000 children were placed in homes. They were run by the church and funded by the Commonwealth government. These institutions were open at various times:

1. Croker Island Mission was a ‘half-caste’ mission located on the coast of Arnhem Land approximately 150kms by air from Darwin and run by the Methodist Overseas Missions …

2. Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, run by the Catholic Church and is about 60klms north of Darwin.

3. Kahlin Compound was on the same sight of the old Darwin Hospital over looking Cullen Bay on Myly Point—

It was administered by the federal government—

4. Retta Dixon Home on Bagot Road, Darwin run by the Aboriginal Inland Missions

5. Emerald Mission on Groote Eylandt near Angurugu community in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

6. St Mary’s near the Alice Springs Race Course run by Australian Board of Missions.

7. The Bungalow the Old Telegraph Station, Alice Springs.

I am indebted to Maurie Ryan and Tania Gaston for that information from their submission into the inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.

I am raising this because over the period we have done a really good thing. We have focused on the need to provide redress to those who have been harmed while in care. What concerns me though is that we, as a federal government—on both sides of the parliament—have failed to stump up to redress arrangements for members of the stolen generation. What that meant needs to be understood.

The Aboriginals Ordinance 1911 gave the Commonwealth the power, and gave to the protector of the native affairs, at that time—this was in 1913—the power to commit any Aboriginal half-caste to an institution in the Northern Territory until they reached the age of 18 years. That happened to so many wonderful people in the Northern Territory.

It is notable that the forcible removal of children was included in the definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of the Crime of Genocide. The Bringing Them Home report concluded that the forcible removal policies were a denial of common law rights and a serious breach of human rights. However, there have been no reparations for the stolen generations. They have not been forthcoming—save through the possibility of payments under this redress scheme, which we are talking about here this morning. Apart from the severe suffering and trauma of the children of the stolen generation who suffered sexual abuse while in the care of the state, they also suffered in the short- and long-term the affects of being simply members of the stolen generation.

As Sue Roman has so eloquently written, 'The nature of loss and harm experienced by a member of the stolen generation includes the loss of identity, family bonds, relationships and difficulties with parenting skills; the loss of cultural knowledge including language and traditional inherited rights; the loss of opportunity to be recognised as a traditional owner and member of a land trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Native Title Act 1993; the lack of opportunity to own land, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians priding themselves in providing inheritance to their children; the lack of opportunity to gain formal and informal life skills from their families.' And they have suffered generational cycles of homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, poor health and shorter life expectancy.

These people have never had redress. I think now is the time. No government of any political persuasion has accepted the need to provide reparations or a redress scheme to members of the stolen generation. They have been forced to go to the courts and, sadly, have been unsuccessful. But in this context it seems clear that the Commonwealth cannot abrogate itself of the responsibility that it has had for the welfare of children of the stolen generation. The Commonwealth was responsible for the administration of the Northern Territory and of these ordinances. They gave the power to people to steal these children from their parents. It seems to me that as a mature nation it is now time for us to stump up and do the right thing by these people.

There is no doubt that many suffered from sexual abuse whilst in care. Of that there is no doubt. I relate just one submission from the Bringing them home report:

Q: Did any girls get pregnant at Garden Point when you were there?

I remember one and they actually took her off the Island. And when I ask everyone, like even now when I ask people about her, they don't know what happened to her …

Q: Who was the Father?

The Priest. The same bastards who …

Q: How do people know that?

Well, the reason they know is, Sister A, poor thing, who's dead—I know she was upset because that priest had that young girl living in his place.

This was systematic exploitation of young, defenceless people stolen from their families. Whilst these particular individuals suffered from sexual abuse and from the privations of sexual abuse, importantly, others also suffered from psychological abuse by being taken away from their family—which I think is a form of cultural genocide.

It is about time we, as a nation, understood our responsibilities and took them to heart in relation to the stolen generation. I do not think it is beyond our wit and wisdom to do that. But, sadly, we force people to go to the courts. But I now understand the Retta Dixon children are class action litigants suing the Commonwealth government for lack of duty of care. Previous actions in the Federal Court have failed in Cubillo and Gunner v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084 and Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1.

Now we have a capacity to do something about this. The Commonwealth did have a duty of care to these children. Never mind the reparations that should have gone to their parents for the fact that these kids were stolen in the first place, but the suffering these people have endured over generations now is something that I understand because I know members of the stolen generation and have done for many years. But they have, for whatever reason, been sidelined. Yes, they have been given Link-Up services. Yes, they have been given counselling support. Yes, they have been given other assistance. But at no point has the Commonwealth—and I am now talking of Labor as well as Liberal—accepted the principle that these members of the stolen generation, of whom there are very few left, should be entitled to reparations of the type we are seeing here today. Why not, I ask. It is a very simple question, and I think it remains an open wound on the soul of this country.

See this speech in context