Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand today to support the motion that has been passed overwhelmingly through this parliament, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Yesterday was a historic day and I support saying sorry and apologising for past injustices. It provides an opportunity for a new beginning. The preamble to the motion stated:

That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.We reflect on their past mistreatment.We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

It is true that the passing of this motion has been received with great relief by many, and I hope it provides healing and reconciliation. I hope it provides an opportunity for better outcomes and future possibilities so that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can achieve their full potential. We can anticipate, as I have indicated, a new beginning.

Why do I support the motion? Why is it wrong? What was wrong? In particular, I refer to one of the paragraphs of the motion which said:

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

The fact is that both levels of government, state and federal, had laws and policies in place which were based on race; they were discriminatory. It is my view that the vast majority of the very well-intentioned church and mission organisations were exactly that: they had good intentions; they were well-motivated; they were there to provide support, care and compassion to those Indigenous children. But the fact is that the laws of this land were wrong. They were based on race and it is appropriate to say sorry and apologise for that past injustice. I want to make it clear that it is my view that in no way do I wish to attribute guilt to this generation for the injustices of the past, but it is appropriate for the government and this parliament to say sorry and apologise for that past injustice.

The motion read:

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

An apology is doubly powerful if it is both given and received with sincerity. Forgiveness is far more meaningful if it is actually accepted with a heart of thankfulness. Reconciliation requires two to tango so that healing can take place; it is a two-way street. I hope with all of my heart that it can be accepted with sincerity by our Indigenous communities, the leaders of our Indigenous communities and those affected in particular.

In Tasmania, on 13 August 1997, the state parliament passed a motion which was of the following accord. It was moved by the Premier at the time, Tony Rundle. It said:

That this Parliament, on behalf of all Tasmanians, expresses its deep and sincere regrets at the hurt and distress caused by past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and homes, apologises to the Aboriginal people for those past actions and reaffirms its support for reconciliation between all Australians ...

I commend former Premier Rundle and the Tasmanian parliament for that motion. I support it wholeheartedly. Former Premier Rundle quoted some concerns that were expressed by former Tasmanian Aboriginal elder Mrs Ida West. Premier Rundle quoted two examples of a boy who was removed from Cape Barren Island in 1959 at the age of 12 who remembers:

I had no knowledge I was going to be taken, I was not even able to see my grandmother and I had just the clothes I had on my back, such as they were. I never saw mum again.

Mr Rundle went on to say:

... his two brothers and two sisters were not able to be all together again until 1995. Families were kept apart physically and emotionally. A Tasmanian woman removed from her family as a baby recalled that:

I was not allowed to go to the same school where my natural siblings were. I was told not to contact my natural family because they were not any good.

The motion was wholeheartedly supported by the Tasmanian parliament. I want to acknowledge the support at the time of Premier Jim Bacon, and in particular I want to acknowledge the leadership shown by former Premier Ray Groom, who officially stated in December 1993 that Tasmania would work to give full and proper recognition of Tasmania’s Aboriginal people and their heritage and culture. Of course, former Premier Bacon was responsible for transferring Oyster Bay and the Wybalena property to the Aboriginal community in Tasmania.

I would like to ask: what about this new beginning, this new joint commission to fight disadvantage in Indigenous communities, particularly with respect to housing? That is a welcome development. But Paul Kelly referred to it very well in the Australian today, where he said:

... the apology imposes obligations on today’s Australians.

Its spirit is dishonoured if the current generation cannot devise new and better policies to lift the conditions of indigenous peoples.

That is a very wise statement indeed.

In today’s Examiner the editorial is worth noting. It says:

Yet, as much as yesterday’s speech by Mr Rudd was a huge landmark for Australia, we need to move beyond that symbolic landmark.

The apology may help heal wounds, but it will not end the very real problems that remain for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

So there is clearly a lot more to do.

I would like to add a further apology, and that is an apology to the current generation of Indigenous children. We have breached a duty of care as federal, state and local governments—and the community all around Australia—to provide a safe and secure environment in which Indigenous children can live, grow, be nurtured and prosper. There was a recent case in Queensland with Judge Bradley, where nine boys and men repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl in the community of Aurukun. It was so horrific to hear of that case but, sadly, it is not alone. The Little children are sacred report that was released last year contains damning evidence that the current generation of Indigenous children in this country deserve an apology because we are incapable at this time of providing a safe and secure environment for them to be nurtured, to grow and to reach their potential as human beings.

That is why I am a very strong supporter of, and thank, Mal Brough for his leadership and that is why I am a strong supporter of the Howard government’s Northern Territory intervention legislation. It saddens me greatly that the Rudd Labor government is moving down the track of dismantling that intervention measure and, in particular, bringing back the permit system, providing no-go zones—little enclaves—where children will not be safe. I wonder about this and I ask this question: by going down that track, now knowing that there is evidence on the table that children are being abused, particularly sexually abused, is our government in breach of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child? I do not know but I certainly think it is worth considering whether that is the case.

It was disappointing that the Prime Minister was not able to disclose the wording of the motion in advance of the debate. I think it was a churlish act but nevertheless I thank Dr Brendan Nelson for his leadership in supporting it overwhelmingly and the leadership that he has shown the coalition. I support the motion.