Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The opportunity to take note of the decision of this chamber, and indeed the decision of the House of Representatives, to apologise on behalf of the parliament to the stolen generation is a matter in which I take great pride. I take even greater pride having been part of the party that has made this apology its policy for several elections now since the recommendation was made in the report handed down by Sir Ronald Wilson during the first parliament of the coalition government. Of course, ever since that time, unfortunately, we had a barrier placed between this parliament and the apology. That barrier was clearly the coalition government. It is significant that a change in government to a party which has regard for the rights of Indigenous Australians—proper regard is perhaps a better way of putting it—has led to this parliament making the apology. It is significant that the leadership given by the Australian Labor Party in this parliament has led to the parliament making the apology and to the overwhelming majority of coalition members and senators supporting that apology.

It is unfortunate that there were a number of members—and I think one senator in this place—who made a point of highlighting the fact that they did not support the sorry motion which was carried unanimously in the House of Representatives by choosing not to participate. A senator in this chamber chose not to participate and made a point of drawing that to the attention of the chamber. Be that as it may, it is a matter of great pride that, in the end, the overwhelming majority of members and senators from all parties and all political persuasions were prepared to give their support to the resolution which was carried yesterday in both houses of Australia’s national parliament.

In all of the joy and emotion, the tears that followed the debate and the vote, and the celebration of the final coming to its senses of the Australian parliament, we have had a number of comments made by media commentators, such as Andrew Bolt, who wanted to highlight the fact that there may have been some individuals who were removed for proper reasons—entirely missing the point of this whole debate. The point about this debate, the point about the resolution, was that the historical facts are that many, many Indigenous Australian children were removed from their families because of their race, because of their colour. You only have to look at the national overview from that very well researched and authoritative report Bringing them home, to look at some of the aspects of our history, which completely and utterly justify the recommendation of that report, which has been now given effect by both houses of this parliament—well behind chambers right around Australia in all the states and territories. In the national overview we are drawn to events back in 1911, in the time since Federation:

By 1911 the Northern Territory and every State except Tasmania had ‘protectionist legislation’ giving the Chief Protector or Protection Board extensive power to control Indigenous people. In some States and in the Northern Territory the Chief Protector was made the legal guardian of all Aboriginal children, displacing the rights of parents.

…            …            …

Enforcement of the protectionist legislation at the local level was the responsibility of ‘protectors’ who were usually police officers.

It is interesting to see how that took effect. Because government officials clearly, according to this report, theorised:

... by forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families and sending them away from their communities to work for non-Indigenous people, this mixed descent population would, over time, ‘merge’ with the non-Indigenous population.

As the report says, quoting Brisbane’s Telegraph of May 1937:

Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Sixty years ago—

that is, about 1867—

he said, there were over 60,000 full-blooded natives in Western Australia. Today there are only 20,000. In time there would be none. Perhaps it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying. The pure blooded Aboriginal was not a quick breeder. On the other hand the half-caste was. In Western Australia there were half-caste families of twenty and upwards. That showed the magnitude of the problem ...

In Neville’s view, skin colour was the key to absorption. Children with lighter skin colour would automatically be accepted into non-Indigenous society and lose their Aboriginal identity.

What could be more clear than this publication of the views of the arms of the state which was designed to enforce the policy on Indigenous Australians? Why is it so hard for some people to believe that we have something to apologise for? The other point I want to draw to senators’ attention is that, after 1940, the removal of Indigenous children was governed by the general child welfare law. Although, once removed, Indigenous children were treated differently from non-Indigenous children—again, one rule for Indigenous Australians and another for non-Indigenous Australians. It is important to note this, because some people have talked about the welfare concerns that might have impacted on the decisions. The report continued:

Under the general child welfare law, Indigenous children had to be found to be ‘neglected’, ‘destitute’ or ‘uncontrollable’. These terms were applied by courts much more readily to Indigenous children than non-Indigenous children as the definitions and interpretations of those terms assumed a non-Indigenous model of child-rearing and regarded poverty as synonymous with neglect. It was not until 1966 that all eligibility restrictions on Indigenous people’s receipt of social security benefits were fully lifted. Before that time Indigenous families in need could not rely on the financial support of government which was designed to hold non-Indigenous families together in times of need. Moreover, ongoing surveillance of their lives meant that any deviation from the acceptable non-Indigenous ‘norm’ came to the notice of the authorities immediately.

There is a wealth of information in the report about how the application of those laws to Indigenous Australians was much different, much more rigorous in many circumstances. For example, in the state of Tasmania, children were taken from Flinders Island and flown from the island and parents did not have the means or the understanding of the way that they might challenge that.

The best way that I can categorise the comments of those that have opposed this motion, or sought to downplay it, is to use that very well known Arabic proverb, ‘The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.’ We have moved on. It is time for Australia to move on. I think we have to have no regard for this snapping at the heels of progress by those who oppose this resolution.