Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Ten years ago, on 13 February our then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a national apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this nation. His recognition in particular focused on those who suffered as part of the stolen generations. The journey to the national apology began with the Bringing them home report in 1997. Recommendation 5a was:

That all Australian Parliaments

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

This particular recommendation is very relevant to the issue that we are discussing in this chamber today—that is, the government's proposal to open up adoptions for Indigenous children who are in out-of-home care. Ultimately, the government is proposing to see a return to Australia's reprehensible legacy of permanently removing First Nations children from their families. We know that this policy has a profoundly disproportionate impact on First Nations children, yet those opposite seem to choose to ignore that fact.

In March this year, the then Assistant Minister for Children and Families, the Hon. David Gillespie, spontaneously made a public call to open up adoptions for First Nations children living in out-of-home care, without appropriate consultation from those who would be affected—that is, of course, primarily families. I was certainly not at all surprised that his proposal was quickly condemned by experts and First Nations representatives. The Aboriginal Child and Community Care Chief Executive labelled the public call as incredibly offensive.

Not only did the then minister choose to make a spontaneous call without input from those in the sector but he also chose to ignore these very people when he decided to stick to his guns and refer the matter to a parliamentary committee. It is absolutely clear that the minister and his government were not interested in taking this matter seriously or even entertaining the idea of proper consultation, as they rejected attempts from Labor to work through a bipartisan position for a consensus report. Instead, the minister identified only two terms of reference for the framework. Only two terms of reference for a framework that would have a dire impact on this country and its people! Only two term terms of reference for a proposal that would effectively see forced removals of children from their homes! Only two terms of reference for a proposal that would essentially disconnect our First Nations children from their cultural heritage and connections! To add insult to injury, the terms of reference called for consideration of:

1. stability and permanency for children in out-of-home care with local adoption as a viable option.

If the member for Lyne and former minister were serious about the stability of a child's life, he would never have made his spontaneous call in the first place. I agree with the report where it states:

All Australian children deserve to feel safe and loved and to have a strong sense of identity and belonging.

However, I cannot agree that permanently separating a child from its family will deliver this outcome—particularly for our First Nations youth, whose sense of identity strongly relates to their cultural ties. I am also deeply concerned that not all organisational representatives and First Nations organisations had their voices heard on this critically important matter, particularly if their view was not in favour of the minister's assertions. The government's report not only ignores the weight of evidence from submitters but disregards human rights conventions and the recommendation of countless inquiries that show connection to kin, culture and country as being critical to the safety and wellbeing of First Nations children. Surely we need to be addressing the causes of out-of-home care as a priority. Right now we are spending more on out-of-home care than we are on early intervention and prevention measures. This disproportion of funding is clearly not delivering good outcomes for children.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged Australia to collect information on the reasons children are placed in out-of-home care, in order to work towards reducing the number of children being placed in out-of-home care. At present, there is no national approach to research on outcomes for Australian children in out-of-home care, including placement types, such as kinship care, guardianship and other permanency orders. If we are serious about protecting and delivering safe environments for our children, we need to be discussing early intervention and prevention actions.

The proposed plan in the government members' report rests solely on diverting children from out-of-home care into open adoption, which purports to be about providing an open exchange of information and contact between children and their birth parents and families. However, in reading the joint standing committee's report, many witnesses told the committee that their lived experience of so-called open adoption is very different. I have deep concerns that, by transferring children who are living in the out-of-home care system, the government is effectively turning its back on our most vulnerable youth. Severing children's links to families, culture and background—particularly our First Nations children—will only cause further harm. I strongly urge the government to reconsider its position.

I urge the government to listen to the organisations and the individuals who are pleading with you to not return our nation to the appalling policies of the past. You must reflect on the recommendations of 2018 and allow the parliament of today to uphold our responsibility to their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal. I call on the government to return to the drawing board and look at intervention and preventive measures, rather than policies that will simply separate families and cultural identities and, indeed, cause more detriment to our children's futures. Surely it is more humane and important to invest in keeping families together and functional, rather than creating another stolen generation, with all of the hurt, trauma and social and emotional disconnection that our First Nations children in particular have experienced as a result of the past.

See this speech in context