EASLING, MR T.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (15:56): I refer to the case of Thomas Easling. He was a foster carer. He was accused of child abuse. He was acquitted. My first reaction on hearing details about this case in the Independent Weekly was to set up a parliamentary committee of inquiry. After all, there were serious allegations made about the nature of the investigations. I want to say in general terms that bungled investigations of child abuse have an effect not only on the accused but also on the accuser.

Many years ago I was acting as a criminal defence lawyer and observed some cases where even sworn police officers bungled investigations into child abuse by contaminating the mind and thus the evidence of young people alleging sexual abuse, the result being that prosecutions would not proceed at all. My point is that having a thorough but fair and sensitive investigation of child abuse allegations does the right thing by not only the accused but also the accuser.

I have since been informed that Mr Easling is suing the government, or at least one of its agencies and thus it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matter further. But there is another reason why I am not going to pursue a parliamentary inquiry into the matters raised by his case. The Hon. Ann Bressington, in another place, has informed me of the Families SA inquiry which specifically covers investigations of claims of abuse, and I direct interested people to that inquiry, which is ongoing.

I have another topic to raise today. It was a great day for Australia when Kevin Rudd, Mike Rann in our parliament, and Martin Hamilton-Smith in our parliament, made an apology to Aboriginal people. The South Australian parliament had done this before in 1997. The apology is in relation to what were called the stolen generation.

When considering why it happened I think the history is important. It is commonly said that the European arrival on the shores of Australia was an invasion. Some spaces on the continent were shared, but when there became a conflict between those who were new arrivals and those who were already here it was the ones with guns who ended up determining the outcome. I made a point when coming into this place of studying the early Aboriginal and colonist rivalries and cooperations in the first decades after 1836. I found there were three driving forces.

There was a philanthropic sentiment, which emanated from London and which was largely practised on the Adelaide Plains themselves. However, as one proceeded further away from Adelaide there was a large degree of lawlessness, particularly practised in outlying areas on the Eyre Peninsula and along the Murray. Thirdly, there was a dogma of Christian evangelism, which sought to regulate the customs, beliefs and way of life of Aboriginal people. 'We know best' was the policy. The stolen generation phenomenon is the legacy of that philosophy that we know best and that a less sophisticated way of life is not good enough. It led to kidnapping of young people being put to work and, very often, at great risk of sexual assault. I have no doubt that, generally speaking, the laws, the people who made the laws, the officials and the foster parents acted with the best of intentions, even if they were patronising.

Of course, there were many kind and caring foster parents; still, there was a widespread incomprehension of what it means to tear someone from their roots, their parents and their identity. We now recognise how culturally one-sided those views were. If anyone out there is in any doubt about the rightness of the apology, the question is: how would you feel if you were taken from your parents at five or 10 years old? I join with Premier Rann and Mr Hamilton-Smith in expressing sorrow at the practices that resulted in the stolen generation.