Reparations for the stolen generations - Government responds - Bob McMullan

Reparations for the stolen generations - Government responds

Speech delivered by Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs And Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Reconciliation and the Arts - Bob McMullan

I wish to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land on which we stand the people of the Eora Nation and pay respect to their elders.

I am pleased to be here today at the Moving Forward: Reparations for the Stolen Generation Conference. I have been following the Moving Forward project by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, ATSIC and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission closely and look forward to hearing the outcomes from this project.

The debate about reconciliation in general and the Stolen Generation in particular, is very important to the future direction of our country. The outcome of this debate will go a long way towards deciding whether Australia will be a proud, self confident, united nation showing a face to the world of best practice in dealing with our social issues, or will we be forced to obfuscate and hide from the world's gaze, slightly shame faced about our failure to recognise that within a proud history there are darker moments which we need to acknowledge and address?

Although the future of the reconciliation process has many elements, confronting our past and dealing with the legacy of the Stolen Generation is a fundamental pre requisite for any successful process of reconciliation.

All Australians need to be able to honestly and openly own our shared history. Our sense of who we are and what we hope to be can never be securely held if it is based on a false and incomplete history. There are things that must be done and said if we are to be able to move on.

Past government policies continue to have lasting economic, social and cultural effects among indigenous communities in Australia. The evidence suggests that these past policies are a fundamental source of indigenous disadvantage today.

An unwillingness to extend a formal apology on behalf of the Commonwealth to those who have suffered and a continued determination to force the victims of these policies into the adversarial court system has only generated further hardship for those who have suffered.

My principal concern is for the many people who have suffered and for whom attempts to deny the reality of their suffering is hurtful and damaging. My concern is also for our nation which continues to suffer unnecessary division for so long as we fail to address this issue in a positive manner.

This is by no means a new debate. The terms 'Stolen Generations' is also by no means new. The first use of it that I have found in the context of describing the forced removal of indigenous children was by Peter Read, a historian now at the ANU, in his paper The Stolen Generations prepared for the New South Wales Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in 1981.

The New South Wales Government had good cause to address the issue. In New South Wales, removing children from their families was official government policy from 1909 until 1969. 1n 1909, the Aborigines Protection Act gave the Aborigines Protection Board legal sanction to take aboriginal children from their families if they could be found by a magistrate to have been "neglected".

In 1915, the Act was amended so that any aboriginal child in New South Wales might be removed without parental consent if the Board considered it to be in the best interest of the child's welfare. No court hearings were necessary the manager of an aboriginal station or a policeman on a reserve or in a town might simply order them to be removed.

Nevertheless, the implication that these decisions were made against an assessment of the welfare of children certainly suggests perhaps some equality of treatment. However, further studies indicate that this is not the case. Non-indigenous children could be removed when suffering from parental neglect.

However, there was a range of measures to mitigate this removal under the relevant Act which were not available to aboriginal families.

The fact of different laws for people of different races should of itself be sufficient to cause concern and alarm. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of saying that we didn't know. There was adequate opportunity to know. Peter Read documents the Second Reading Debate of the amendment to the Aboriginal Protection Act in 1915. During the course of this debate, at least one Member of Parliament spoke out denouncing the suggested scheme as cruel and futile.

Acknowledging and dealing with elements of our history is important but we should not pretend that this is only a matter of past history.

Firstly, of course, the small amount of data which I have presented indicates clearly that these policies were in operation well into the lifetime of most of us present here today and most of the Members of the Federal Parliament. In fact, they continued to be in force while some senior political figures were actually active in the major political parties implementing those policies.

But the other awkward reality which those still in denial must face is that the evidence presented to the HREOC Inquiry found that children removed from their families are more likely to come to the attention of police as they grow into adolescence. They are more likely to suffer depression, mental illness and low self esteem. They are more vulnerable to physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of the MABO decision, it is significant that by the very nature of the action taken against them, children removed from their families have been effectively denied their opportunity to access native title rights. This is because they have been unable to retain links to their land and culture. This is, in itself, a direct problem of denial of cultural rights but it has profound consequences in the post MABO environment.

It is more than 85 years since the first Member of Parliament spoke out against these policies. They will continue to be a source of division and concern from generation to generation until a government addresses the matter adequately and comprehensively. Why should we leave this problem to our children'? They would not thank us for our failure to address it adequately.

It is not as if the Howard Government has done nothing in response to the Stolen Generation. On the positive side, they have set aside funds to deal with some of the link-up issues. There is ground for criticism of the adequacy and efficacy of the measures they have taken but they are steps in the right direction and should be acknowledged.

However, in two other areas, they have taken steps that are worse than doing nothing. In the first area, they have continued to not only refuse to apologise but refused to acknowledge the nature and extent of the suffering caused by past policies of government of all political persuasions including Commonwealth Governments which had responsibility in the Northern Territory from 1911.

Secondly, they have spent millions of taxpayer's dollars forcing the victims of past policies to pursue their cases through the court and resisting their claims.

The Commonwealth Government's commitment to acting as a "model litigant" has a hollow and ironic ring to anyone in any way familiar with the Commonwealth's conduct in the Cubillo/Gunner case currently under appeal in the Federal Court.

This litigation has cost taxpayers over $11.5 million to date and there are more costs to come. These costs, when broken down, include over $1 million for one lawyer alone and $770,000 spent on private investigators.

This is a case where the singular lack of compassion or cultural sensitivity of the Commonwealth has astounded those who have studied it.

The court found that Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner suffered systematic abuse and trauma over a long period when removed from their families and placed in institutions. It also found that there is a causative relationship between their experiences in those institutions and their continuing mental and physical suffering.

Despite this, they have been subjected to humiliating and harrowing treatment in the court.

There is no doubt that the Commonwealth has set out to make an example of them. Any person thinking of making a complaint, and any legal service thinking of supporting them is to be left in no doubt as to the consequences.

The matter will be fought out in Court. The process will be long and expensive. No secret, no private matter, no youthful indiscretion will go untouched. The Commonwealth will set out to humiliate, discredit and defeat every claimant.

The highest paid legal professionals will cross examine each claimant and use all the experience and guile at their disposal to intimidate and confuse the claimant into inconsistent or uncertain testimony.

Currently there are a total of 742 writs served on the Commonwealth in relation to claims by 2104 people seeking damages in connection to forced family separations in the Northern Territory. There are cases underway around Australia against State Governments.

It is clear that a failure to establish proper alternative means of recognition and handling these cases will cost the taxpayers dearly. The Howard Government recognises this financial risk in their Budget papers.

It is interesting to note at this stage that the entire National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families that resulted in the Bringing Them Home Report, cost just $1.8 million. More than 6 times as much has been spent fighting one court case alone. It is clearly time to stop such costly and divisive litigation and examine a new more positive approach.

International experience suggests that alternative means of dealing with these issues have been more effective and less burdensome to the taxpayer.

Many other countries have apologised for past actions, some of them of a nature quite similar to that which Australia needs to confront. There is no evidence of successful series of legal actions against the relevant governments as a consequence.

All the States have apologised. No successful claims for compensation have ensued.

Canada is dealing with the results of the institutionalisation of indigenous children and is a comparable example. In January 1998, the Government of Canada announced a strategy for a process of reconciliation and renewal with their aboriginal peoples. An Aboriginal Healing Foundation was established. The Anglican and United Churches have also established healing funds.

Neither Canadians nor Australians can be denied their right to take cases to court and some legal cases are ensuing in Canada but most are being satisfactorily settled.

Australia is therefore not alone in having to learn how to deal with the consequences of our history. However, we are alone in having stalled in the process of addressing them. We need to remove the finger from the national pause button so we might move on.

There are no reasonable impediments in the way of a comprehensive national apology by the Australian Government through the Australian Parliament.

All that is needed is the political will to act.

Kim Beazley gave a commitment on May 25th this year to act so that we can move on with this important national issue.

Labor proposes a number of steps to providing an integrated response to the recommendations of the National Inquiry's Bringing Them Home Report.

1. An Apology

A Beazley government will, in the first week of the new Parliament, introduce a motion for an apology on behalf of the Commonwealth Government to those who suffered under the policy of separation of indigenous children from their families as outlined in the Bringing Them Home Report.

We will apologise for the mistakes of the past, believing that such an apology is the first step to effective reconciliation.

The terms of this apology will be based upon those already passed by all State Governments Labor and Conservative.

Labor will consult with ATSIC, Reconciliation Australia and Stolen Generation groups for an appropriate form of words for the day of apology.

Labor will encourage a non partisan approach to this apology by inviting other parties to support the motion.

2. National Conference

In light of the human trauma, recurrent costs and budgetary risks associated with the current policy of Fighting each Stolen General case through the Federal Court, a Beazley Labor Government would actively seek alternative means of resolving these matters.

Accordingly, a Beazley Labor Government would invite representatives of the States and church organisations and Stolen Generation representatives to join with the Commonwealth at a Conference to examine alternative methods for dealing with the consequences of the policy of removal.

We will take the findings of this conference into account in developing options to be considered by the Conference.

We will be seeking a model which avoids the cost and pain of the Courts. Such a model should include all potential parties to litigation in the alternative approach.

The National Conference will be held approximately six months after the election.

3. Monitoring

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) will be required to review the adequacy of responses to date to the Bringing Them Home Report and subsequently to present annual reports to the Parliament on the progress of implementation of the recommendations.

In so far as these reports relate to the Commonwealth they reports will be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for examination. State governments will be requested to establish a similar process.

HREOC will be funded to monitor the implementation of the Inquiry's recommendations and report annually to the Council of Australian Governments on the progress of implementation of the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These proposals are not dependant on apportioning blame, or being stricken by guilt. They are about addressing the consequences of shared history and past policies, initiating real programs, and ensuring transparent accountability for their delivery.

The economic and social costs of the intergenerational after effects of past policies in poor levels of health, education, employment, in alcoholism and substance abuse, and in the transfer of poor and often destructive parenting practices present an ongoing and ever increasing burden to indigenous families and communities, as well as to the Australian economy.

The Howard Government's response to the Bringing Them Home Report shows that the Government has its priorities wrong yet again. They are spending millions of dollars on costly and divisive litigation and yet this money could be better used to assist those who have suffered.

Every Australian, regardless of their political view, could think of better ways to spend this money to provide assistance to the poorest Australians.

We have stark choices. We can either turn our back on the Stolen Generation, or we can specifically acknowledge past injustices with an apology by our national leadership and with practical means to address the loss and grief that so many indigenous Australians have suffered as a result of being removed from their families. We can then move on together with a common acceptance of our history, with a common purpose, to a better reconciled future.