HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STOLEN GENERATIONS REPARATIONS TRIBUNAL BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on the question:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the Hon. S.G. Wade moved to leave out all words after 'That' and insert:

the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for inquiry and report.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (17:53): On behalf of the government I oppose the second reading of this bill. The Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill 2010 draws heavily on an equivalent bill introduced by the Australian Democrats in the Senate, including the tribunal's powers, the forms of reparation and the establishment of a stolen generations fund. I point out to the council that that bill did not pass as it did not have the support of either the government or the opposition in the federal parliament.

In the State of South Australia and Trevorrow, the court held that the power of guardianship under the former Aborigines Act 1934 did not extend to unilateral removal of children from their parents. It follows that, depending upon the circumstances of the individual case, the state may be liable. Other relevant factors in determining liability will include whether a plaintiff in a given case was subject to a care and control order, whether the parents consented to removal and whether an extension of time in which to bring the proceeding should be granted in light of the passage of time, death of critical witnesses and loss of relevant documents.

The phrase 'stolen generation' is not a fixed concept, and policy decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of children removed with the consent of parents or by court order need to be considered. The chief reason for a court order would have been for reasons of neglect under the former Maintenance Act. It is unknown how many potential claimants there might be. However, in any event, the circumstances of the Trevorrow case are not representative of the majority of other Stolen Generation claims. Future cases will subsequently be considered on their individual merits. For these reasons, the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:55): I rise today to support the Hon. Ms Frank's Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill. South Australia does, indeed, have a shameful history when we consider the treatment of Aboriginal people. I am personally of the belief that compensation and equality for our Aboriginal people and the horrors they have suffered are more than just a target or a goal that we, as a society, should share—it is, in fact, a long-overdue debt. The shame that we feel in terms of our treatment of Aboriginal people can be traced back to the 1840s, when the then governor proclaimed 'An ordinance for the protection, maintenance and upbringing of orphans and other destitute children of the aborigines.'

What is shameful about this, you may ask; surely, if a child is destitute or orphaned the child should be protected? This ordinance was not only about protection; it facilitated the development of the colony through child labour, allowing Aboriginal children of suitable age to be bound by indenture as an apprentice until the age of 21. While the apprenticing of children required the consent of parents, it is certain that Aboriginal parents were at a clear disadvantage in the new Eurocentric world.

At around the same time, boarding schools were set up for Aboriginal children and, while it seemed that parents did have a choice of whether to send them to school, it appears that many parents had no real choice in fact, with the authorities bribing them with blankets and food. I use the term 'bribe', as the original people's traditional means of survival were shattered with the invasion. They were not in a true bargaining position and were, no doubt, desperate to properly care for their children and families, so they were effectively bribed.

During these early days, it is clear that government policy was one of forced separation in the sense that many parents had no choice. If the government had cared about the welfare of Aboriginal people, it would have provided basics to the children's parents with no strings attached so those who were dispossessed of their land and way of life could have survived without having to choose between the children living a white life or dying a black life.

In 1911, our parliament passed the Aborigines Act, which provided that the protector was to be the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child and half-caste until the age of 21, regardless of whether the child had parents or not. The act provided broad powers to the protector, who was able to remove children from their families. I am certain that some would say, 'Well, the act was well intentioned. If we knew then what we know now, it simply would not have happened.' But I draw the attention of honourable members to the words of the Hon. J. Warren, who spoke of his concern for the future of the Aboriginal population, suggesting that child removal would deter women from bearing children. Mr Warren suggested that it would be preferable for the protector to travel the countryside and talk to 'blacks' about what they needed.

Aboriginal people also opposed the Aborigines Act, writing letters to the protector protesting the bill. However, the Aboriginal people's protests fell on deaf ears. Others may say, 'Well, they had the best interests of the children at heart', but one need only consider the Protector's comments that there was too much charity and not enough industry when it came to Aboriginal people. Then came the Aborigines Training of Children Act 1923, which empowered the protector to institutionalise Aboriginal children over the age of 14 and all those deemed neglected. I am saddened to say that the government of the day suggested that assuming neglect as opposed to proving it was in the best interests of children.

This legislation met with vocal opposition from Aboriginal people like Sarah Karpany, whose granddaughter was stolen, although her family lived well, and her two sons had fought in the war. Enlightened media outlets of the day, such as The Adelaide Sun and Daylight magazine noted the unfairness of such laws and denounced the removal policies as akin to the farming of Aboriginal children. It seemed that the public outcry worked, for the protector virtually suspended the operation of the act, or at least his duties under the act.

In the mid 1930s the government consolidated the Aborigines Act 1911 and the Aborigines (Training of Children) Act 1923, and the protector proceeded to remove Aboriginal children who he considered to be neglected. From the mid 1940s, in line with the state's assimilation policies, Aboriginal children were placed in institutions alongside non Aboriginal children, resulting in further cultural and emotional alienation for the children. However, it was not until 1962 that assimilation was entrenched in our legislation via the Aboriginal Affairs Act, which held that Aboriginal children came under the same child protection legislation as non Aboriginal children. Despite this, Aboriginal children continued to be removed for neglect at the same rate.

So what effect did these policies have on those who were stolen? How can we really fathom how it felt to be torn from your mother's arms, let alone put it into words? Honourable members have already heard the harrowing experiences quoted in the 'Bringing them home' report as raised by the Hon. Ms Franks. The 1991 Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody found that nearly half of the 99 deceased persons had been removed from their families as children and identified links between child welfare practices and the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people in our prisons.

I know that the former prime minister has said sorry, on behalf of the Australian people, for the pain, suffering and hurt of the Stolen Generations, but those who are affected by these polices deserve more than just lip service from us. Words, however powerful they may be in their intent, can fade considerably compared to our actions. I am not sure that any amount of money, counselling services, memorials or centres of culture and history can adequately compensate these people who were removed from their families. However, a Stolen Generations reparation tribunal, if instituted, is another step along the long road to reconciliation.

I therefore support the proposal to establish a Stolen Generations repartitions tribunal and, as such, I can see the benefit of referring this bill to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for further consideration. With those few remarks, I commend the Hon. Ms Franks on introducing this bill and hope that one day such a scheme becomes a reality.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (18:05): I rise briefly to indicate my support for the referral of the Stolen Generation Reparations Tribunal Bill 2010 to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for inquiry. The establishment of a statutory redress scheme to award reparation or ex gratia payments, in this case specifically to those Indigenous peoples forcibly removed from their families against their best interests, has my full support.

Given the alternative of requiring claimants to retrace the footsteps of Mr Bruce Trevorrow, a dedicated tribunal for such claimants would tailor the eligibility criteria or provide a clear pathway to redress. I am also pleased that the bill recognises that, for most claimants, an ex gratia payment alone will not amount to reparation and that many will require ongoing services to recover. I know this from the experience of state wards who, despite the claims of some, are not simply seeking a payout but also seeking ongoing services to assist them to move past the trauma inflicted upon them.

I would like to very, very briefly reflect on the fact that, just a couple of weeks ago, my nine-year-old son and I sat down and watched the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence together because I was researching this bill. He could not quite get his head around what the problem was. At the end of the movie, he was full of questions about why would a government do such a thing, why would children be removed from their parents, and why were Aboriginal children not allowed to remain with their mothers? At the end of the day, they were simple questions, but it was very hard to answer them in a reasonable and logical way, apart from the fact that governments do not always really know what they are doing and that governments do not always really get it right.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Both, not just this government.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes; don't take it all personally. I think it is very important that we set up a tribunal such as this so that, apart from reports and inquiries, we are able to establish the fact that in the past we got it wrong and, as the Hon. Stephen Wade said earlier, to look to the past in order to be able to move forward, and to do it better and to do it differently, and to make sure that some of the dire mistakes we have made are not repeated.

I always hold the hope that this bill will also lead the way to dealing with the victims of abuse in state care and their issues because the emotional, psychological, physical and all the other kinds of damage that has been done is not so different. The sooner we can stop these mistakes being made, for both Aboriginal and white people, the better off we will all be. I commend the bill and I commend the Hon. Tammy Franks for introducing it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:08): I would like to thank those members who made a contribution—the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Paul Holloway, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Ann Bressington. I indicate that I am very supportive of the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment to refer this bill to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. I want members to note that one of the chief reasons for undertaking this process of a stolen generation reparations tribunal is not about the financial compensation; it is about things such as genealogy and restoring links to language and culture, ensuring that, if someone was taken away, they have the ability to be able to communicate with their lost family members. It is about healing centres, and it is also about apologies and individual apologies and an opportunity for people to have their story heard and validated.

If anyone has had any experience of women's human rights courts, which is an experience I had at the University of New South Wales, with the Asia Pacific Women's Refugee Group that is based out of that institution, they will know that it is about having stories validated and accepted as real and enabling people to have that affirmation and to assist with their recovery and also to assist with reconciliation.

With that, I say it is not just about money but about changing our culture and future practices and letting people on an individual level and on a societal level start to heal. With that, I indicate again that I am supporting the Stephen Wade amendment to this bill. I am very happy to see this referred to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:11): I move:

That this order of the day be discharged.

Motion carried; bill withdrawn.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT