Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Mr President, the motion before the Senate is to take note of the motion of apology passed in the Parliament yesterday. The motion offers an apology to those indigenous people past and present who were affected by the removal of Aboriginal children from their families.

The fact that the Senate is only noting the motion and not debating begs the question as to the abuse of process pursued by the Government. This is important because it demonstrates a less than frank approach by the Rudd government.

Firstly, the wording of this motion was only released the day before the apology despite being a matter of Labor Party policy for the last 10 years. Despite talking of an apology for some time, Prime Minister Rudd could only advise the Australian people of the wording the day before yesterday. Despite the fact that this has been on Labor’s political agenda for some time, we now have a truncated debate where only Party Leaders could participate. The remainder of the Senate has now only the opportunity to take note of the motion.

As Senator Brown said on Tuesday 12 February 2008, “the process in here is not right. It should not be depriving every senator of their contribution to this historic debate. I put on the record that we do not support the component which says that those senators who contribute after the vote will effectively be doing so as also-rans”.

Similarly, Senator Bartlett pointed out on the same day “I think it is right to suggest that this should not become a precedent as a matter of course”.

I raise these points because it is not just the Opposition which has an objection. Indeed this lack of process taints a very important issue and it is essential that we do not employ an abuse of process where none was needed.

Mr President, this motion of apology broadly responds to the Bringing Them Home Report in 1997.

Key recommendations by that Report were that reparation be made to Indigenous people affected by policies of removal of indigenous children from their parents and that reparation should also include an acknowledgement of responsibility and apology from all Australian parliaments and other agencies which were involved.

It also recommends compensation.

It is important to note that this motion, whilst apologising, deliberately does not endorse compensation.

Moreover, the Senate quite rightly yesterday solidly rejected an amendment by the Greens calling for compensation.

Over the last eleven years a number of statements and apologies have been made. In 1999, the former Prime Minister John Howard moved a Motion of Reconciliation which acknowledged prior injustices and expressed regret.

Over the last eleven years, all States and Territories have passed a number of resolutions which have included an apology however without the word sorry. Moreover, none of the governments concerned used the term “Stolen Generation”.

I do not believe that the term “STOLEN” is appropriate. Firstly, the term “stolen” is one which denies that some children were voluntarily surrendered as found by the Bringing Them Home Report. It also flies in the face of the good intentions held at the time by some of those involved who believed they were acting in the best interests of Aboriginal children.

If there is to be a healing process this act of apology, as the motion states, should be accepted in the spirit it is given.

This does not involve people turning their backs on the Leader of the Opposition who supported the Motion but should involve positive action by all concerned for the future of indigenous Australians.

Interestingly, despite apologies by various Governments over the last eleven years, there has been little progress made in indigenous affairs by State and Territory Governments. Indeed, in the Northern Territory, it has been necessary to intervene due to the drastic situation in the Territory. In my home state of Western Australia, the apology has done nothing to deliver practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians. In the Kimberley region, we have a situation so severe it rivals that of the Northern Territory.

It is undeniable that to separate a child from its parents is a serious matter and that unless there are serious threats to a child, all would agree that a child should be raised by its parents.

We need therefore to look at the actions which are the subject of this motion.

From about 1910 to the 1960s, there was a policy of removal of Aboriginal children from their parents in circumstances which at the time were thought to be in the best interests of the child.

The Bringing Them Home Report closely examined the differences between forcible removal, removal under threat or duress, official deception, uninformed voluntary release and voluntary release. It has never been disputed that some removals were certainly voluntary, with mothers possibly surrendering their children for any number reasons that could include sickness, poverty and living arrangements. Some would have also voluntarily released their children in the hope that they would be able to remain in contact with their children and have some knowledge of their whereabouts. The report acknowledged that there are several cases where the state took responsibility for children that were genuinely orphaned or in a state of neglect.

It is undeniable that stress and trauma was suffered by those removals and we all feel for those children who never knew their parents and family, along with those that never knew their children or never knew a brother or a sister.

Some of those children who were removed suffered abuse whilst there are reports of others pursuing a successful life.

In any event, the stress to those indigenous people concerned cannot be denied, however it is also clear that the policy was carried out by many people who believed that they were doing the right thing.

It should also be made clear that this motion of apology does not cast integrated guilt across the various generations of Australians.

You cannot deal with this motion of apology, however without also addressing commensurate measures to achieve positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians for if you do not, the apology is useless.

The motion of which the Senate is taking note does have some positive aspects for the future. The motion tells of closing the gap that lies between the life expectancy of indigenous Australians and the wider community. It talks of new solutions where old approaches have failed. These are commendable goals.

Now is the time for the Rudd Government to commit to the intervention in the Northern Territory. It would do well to follow the advice of such indigenous leaders as Noel Pearson and Dr Sue Gordon.

It would also do well to engage in practical measures for education, health, housing, law and justice rather than simply engaging in rhetoric or measuring its commitment in terms of expenditure.

In this regard we ALL stand accountable—indigenous and non indigenous—to ensure that real outcomes are achieved for Aboriginal Australia.

(Quorum formed)

Question agreed to.