Motions

South Australian Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.S. Marshall (resumed on motion).

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:09): Before the adjournment, I had commenced my remarks to commend the Premier's motion this morning in relation to the report of the South Australian Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme to the house as well as the good work of the Independent Assessor, the Hon. John Hill. I indicated that in South Australia we have a history that is mixed, particularly in comparison with the federal history, in terms of our relationship and efforts to reconcile with our Indigenous history.

At the outset, I would like to note that South Australia has some aspects of history in this regard that it ought to be proud of. In 1856, the initial reforms on separating South Australia's electoral regulations from New South Wales enacted an electoral rule that provided that all men may have the vote. That was notionally a highly progressive state of affairs, and I am quick to note that, notwithstanding that provision, I understand the first Indigenous vote that appears to have been recorded was not until as late as 1896. In this 125^th year of women's suffrage in this state, it might also be noted that was not until two years after that significant reform occurred.

As honourable members are aware, in 1901 the federation had, for South Australian Indigenous people, the significant retrograde effect of stripping them of their electoral rights. That was soon followed by what was a further significant retrograde step in this state with the enactment of the Aborigines Act 1911. That commenced what cannot be described in any way other than as a very sorry period in our state's history between at least that time, 1911, and 1962. We now know, not least by the further accounts set out in the report, of the truly horrible experiences of members of the stolen generations during that time.

I also want to highlight some examples in the time I have available to me. The first is somewhat famously described at some length and is the subject of a judgement by the Hon. Justice Gray in the matter of Trevorrow v State of South Australia (No. 5). These matters were recorded in [2007] SASC 285 at paragraphs 1 to 4. I want to record the narrative of the history recounted there because Mr Trevorrow's experience was very much that of Indigenous people in that period of our state's history.

As is set out by Justice Gray, on Christmas Day 1957 Mr Trevorrow, as an infant in need of medical treatment, was sent to hospital. He recovered a short time later and was then taken from hospital and placed in long-term foster care. His parents were unaware of the removal or of the fostering. Almost 50 years later, the court was asked to determine the legal consequences that were to flow from that removal, his placement with another family and the circumstances of his return to his own family a long decade later. Those circumstances became the subject of perhaps the most famous and certainly the first judicial treatment of this topic. It is important that this be recognised as part of the process of coming to grips with that horrible chapter in our state's history.

Mr Trevorrow was aged 13 months when he, along with neighbours from Meningie, was sent by his father, Joseph Trevorrow, to the Adelaide children's hospital on Christmas Day in 1957. Joseph had informed neighbours that young Bruce was suffering from stomach trouble. The neighbours drove Bruce to the children's hospital, where he was admitted. The hospital notes recorded that Bruce had no parents. They also recorded that the child was neglected and malnourished. According to the hospital records, Bruce responded to treatment, and by New Year's Eve it was noted that he was going well.

The judgement goes on to say that, at or about that time, it appeared that Martha Davies responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking foster care for Aboriginal babies. On 6 January 1958, she attended with her husband at the children's hospital and was shown the plaintiff. They decided to take the plaintiff home. That was a process authorised and arranged by an officer of the Aborigines department on behalf of the Aborigines protection board. At that time, Martha Davies was yet to be approved or licensed as a foster-parent.

Young Bruce and his father never met again, and Bruce was only much later reunited with his mother. It took more than a decade for this to occur, and by then there had been significant family disruption. Bruce claimed, all that time later, that the circumstances of his removal and his ongoing separation for almost a decade had led to significant injury, loss and damage.

That is the subject of a judgement that I commend to all members. It is the subject of findings that Bruce went on to lead a troubled life marked by loss of family, loss of community identity and cultural identity, depression, alcoholism, poor health, poor domestic relations and an erratic employment history. Those are the opening observations of Justice Gray in the substantive judgement in Trevorrow. It is one example of so many of those members of the stolen generations. I commend members' reflection on that case and, indeed, so many others.

Another member of the stolen generations who experienced in many ways a similar experience in early childhood is a personal hero of mine and, I would submit to members of this chamber, a hero for all South Australians, and that is Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue AC, CBE, DSG. Dr O'Donoghue was born in 1932 at Indulkana, in the APY lands. She was just two years old when she was taken away from that place and taken from her parents. It is my understanding, and it is well recorded—because, as we all know, Dr O'Donoghue went on and continues to go on living a distinguished public life that is characterised by her advocacy for better outcomes, better conditions, for Indigenous people Australia wide—that it was quite by chance that she was reconciled with her mother many years later.

Unlike Mr Trevorrow, who continued with significant travails in life, Lowitja went on to a life of enormous achievement, so much so that the words that I might say in the time that I have available here this afternoon could do no real justice to her distinguished life story. I do want to reflect, though, on that marvellous portrait of Lowitja that was completed by Robert Hannaford in 2006. It was a portrait that was made possible by a whole number of individuals and institutions across the spectrum of Australian life. It takes pride of place in our National Gallery in Canberra, and very rightly so.

Both Lowitja and Bruce are examples of South Australians significantly affected by that shameful part of our state's history. Indeed, in attempting to right those wrongs, in attempting to respond to the need for justice in this area and in attempting to deliver real reconciliation we have a lot of ground still to cover.

In the context and at the time of this report being completed, I am pleased and proud of the Premier's actions in recent times. That includes, significantly, on 10 December last year the Premier, in his role as the first premier to take the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, launching the first SA Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. It is an important series of steps that are the subject of the plan. It has been developed following a real and meaningful engagement with Aboriginal community leaders, and it is a plan that has been coordinated across government.

As we have heard from the Premier and other speakers in support of this motion earlier today, it is a plan that will very much set out the agenda of the new Marshall Liberal government going forward. We know that the South Australian government's commitment in this area will be very much measured by the benchmarks that are the subject of this action plan. They are—and I put them on the record in the context of this report—firstly and importantly, creating opportunities for Aboriginal jobs and businesses; secondly, improving the quality and delivery of services to Aboriginal South Australians; and, thirdly, building strong and capable Aboriginal communities.

While the motion that is before the house today, the Premier's motion in relation to this report, is to be commended, so too is the broad-ranging and long-term commitment in response, which is the subject of the action plan.

I am glad personally to see that reparation payments that are the subject of the reparations scheme, to the extent that there is residual money available, will be distributed in a way that will lead to an increase in the amount of money to those 312 people who are to be in receipt of payments, as well as the initiative in relation to community reparation. The Premier has already recognised the excellent work of Reconciliation SA and, indeed, the recent special occasion to honour and recognise those many survivors of the generations of ordeals, two examples of which I cited briefly this afternoon.

With those words, I express my hope that this government and this parliament will double and renew their efforts, especially via this action plan, to achieve real reconciliation, genuine reparation and a future in this area of which we can all be proud. I commend the motion.

Motion carried.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are somewhat bereft of numbers. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: