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.