Apology to Aboriginal people by Premier Mr Jeff Kennett

By leave, I move:

That this house apologises to the Aboriginal people on behalf of all Victorians for the past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and expresses deep regret at the hurt and distress this has caused and reaffirms its support for reconciliation between all Australians.

In introducing this very important debate today I acknowledge that it is brought to the Parliament by both sides of the house and will be debated along agreed terms between the parties: four speakers from each side and 10 minutes for each speaker. I thank the opposition for its assistance in this matter.

In May 1996 the commonwealth government released a Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report entitled Bringing them home. The report detailed the findings of the commission's extensive investigation into the practice and effects of the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.

The report has already played an important role in highlighting a part of our history of which many people know little. It describes in great and often harrowing detail how the separation of Aboriginal children from their families has impacted on both individuals and communities. The report also reminds us that this practice did not occur in the distant past but during our lifetimes and in our state. Acknowledging and apologising for these past practices and working together for a positive future is therefore what this motion is all about. The future must be built on acknowledgment and appreciation of the events of the past, ways in which they continue to impact adversely on the lives of Aboriginal people and means by which the hurt can be overcome.

The Victorian government is committed to redressing these disadvantages in partnership with the Aboriginal people. In areas such as education, health and housing can be seen the very tangible gains that can be made through such partnerships. The government acknowledges that the report raises many issues of concern to Aboriginal communities across the state.

The report is a long and complex document and includes 54 recommendations which are currently being considered in detail by all governments in Australia. Some of the recommendations are controversial and may not be supported in full by the government; others, however, are consistent with current Victorian government policy and practice. I assure the Aboriginal community that the government is giving serious consideration to all the reports and recommendations as it prepares its response.

I have requested that the minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs coordinate the preparation of a comprehensive Victorian government response to the report to be laid before the house later this sitting. It is a detailed submission to the inquiry. The Victorian government acknowledges that many past practices in the management of Aboriginal affairs and child welfare systems would be unacceptable today -- in fact I would find them abhorrent.

The report also notes the grief and shock that some non-indigenous parents who fostered or adopted Aboriginal children are still suffering. Their pain was caused by responding to appeals that stressed the supposedly unwanted nature of these Aboriginal children and that they faced a lifetime in institutions.

Last year the Victorian government formally pledged itself to Victoria's cultural heritage and diversity. In November this house unanimously passed a motion reaffirming its commitment to maintaining Australia as a culturally diverse, open and tolerant society. The motion also reaffirmed the commitment of the house to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the context of addressing their profound social and economic disadvantage. In my remarks at that time I acknowledged that Aboriginal people occupy a special place in Victoria as members of an indigenous community that suffered greatly in the past through acts of discrimination. This discrimination and its long-term effects must be understood and acknowledged if Aboriginal people and other Australians are to achieve genuine reconciliation within the context of a truly multicultural Victoria.

I have said previously that reconciliation must be sealed in the concept of freedom for all Australians; that we are a free and independent people who are able to demonstrate the capability of living together with understanding and dignity. The Victorian government is committed to working with Aboriginal communities to deliver programs to address their undoubted disadvantage but, more importantly, this government is committed to assisting Aboriginal communities to become economically sustainable and reach a point where they are no longer overwhelmingly dependent on government support. To achieve this Aboriginal people need to feel confident that their unique place in this society is both understood and appreciated. This motion of apology is another important step in the process. It acknowledges history and says that we as a community are sorry for the pain and suffering caused to Aboriginal people. It is also a commitment to make sure that such events do not take place again. By restating the house's pledge to the process of reconciliation we are saying that we believe Victoria's multicultural composition is truly enriched by the contribution of Aboriginal communities and their unique cultural heritage.

This motion conveys our sorrow to the Aboriginal people of Victoria for the hurts of the past. From a personal perspective -- my involvement from 1980, when I was appointed minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs; for the responsibilities I had then and still have today to all members of this community; for the very special relationships I have developed with individual members of the Aboriginal community and some tribes -- I want to express my own sorrow and apology to the Aboriginal people. The motion also provides a point from which we can look forward to building a strong future together.

Response by Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Brumby

On behalf of the state opposition I second the motion. The forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is a shameful part of Australian history that occurred in every state and territory of Australia.

The separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families began as early as 1885 in Victoria and New South Wales, and I think many people are unaware that the program of forced separation continued in some states until the 1970s. Indigenous children's institutions were still operating in various parts of Australia in the 1980s.

Children were taken under government policies of protection and assimilation. They were taken on the basis of having indigenous people adopt European culture and behaviour to the exclusion of their families and cultural backgrounds. The assimilation policy assumed that over time indigenous people would simply die out and would be so mixed with the European population that they became indistinguishable.

Indigenous children, particularly those of mixed heritage, were removed from their families in the hope that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identities would totally disappear. The government practices separated tens of thousands of Aboriginal children from their families, and many of them have never found each other again. The pain of separation is well within the living memory of many Aboriginal families and traverses many generations. Indigenous communities are still affected by the trauma of separation and its impact on family and cultural life.

As the Premier said in April of this year, the report of the national inquiry into the separation of indigenous children, now better known as Bringing them home, was tabled. Like many members of Parliament and members of the Australian public, I closely read and followed the media reports of the time but did not read the full report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Having written to the Premier requesting that this debate be brought on, over the last week I have read the report and watched the accompanying 32-minute video. I particularly commend the video to all honourable members, who I know have large amounts of reading material to get through. The report -- particularly the case studies and the video -- shows in the most powerful and graphic way possible the extraordinary hurt, damage, distress, destruction and in many cases death that was inflicted on Aboriginal families by the policy of forced separation, however well meaning that policy may have been at some times in some states.

One needs to understand that what drove the policy of forced separation in some cases was a benign intent, but in most cases it was aimed at destroying the culture of the Aboriginal people through their assimilation into our European culture. That is why Sir Ronald Wilson used the word 'genocide' to describe the report. Many people were shocked at the use of that expression. However, if one relates the dictionary definition of the word to the destruction of a culture and to the destruction of a race, as is done in the dictionary, one is left with no doubt whatever that the program of forced separation was intended to kill off, to destroy, the culture of the Aboriginal people and the people of Torres Strait and to assimilate them into our white European population.

Worse still, when one looks through the case studies one sees that forced separation involved removing young people not only from their families and communities but also from their land, which has such a vital, crucial and almost religious link for Aboriginal people. Bringing them home concluded that between one in three and one in ten indigenous people were forcibly removed from their families in the period from 1910 to 1970. In some cases families were removed over three and even four successive generations. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission concluded that across Australia up to 100 000 Australians of Aboriginal descent have been affected by forcible separation. We do not have long to speak in this debate, but I think the case studies describe most powerfully the impact of forcible separation. I will read part of the report dealing with the case of Paul. It states:

For 18 years the state of Victoria referred to me as state ward no. 54321. I was born in May 1964. My mother and I lived together within an inner suburb of Melbourne. At the age of five and a half months both my mother and I became ill. My mother took me to the Royal Children's Hospital, where I was admitted.
Upon my recovery the Social Welfare Department of the Royal Children's Hospital persuaded my mother to board me into St Gabriel's Babies' Home in Balwyn ... just until mum regained her health. If only mum could've known the secret, deceitful agenda of the state welfare system that was about to be put into motion -- 18 years of forced separation between a loving mother and her son.

Early in 1965 I was made a ward of the state. The reason given by the state was that, 'Mother is unable to provide adequate care for her son.'

In February 1967, the County Court of Victoria dispensed with my mother's consent to adoption. This decision, made under section 67(d) of the Child Welfare Act 1958, was purportedly based on an 'inability to locate mother'. Only paltry attempts had been made to locate her. For example, no attempt was made to find her address through the Aboriginal Welfare Board.

I was immediately transferred to Blackburn South Cottages to be assessed for 'suitable adoptive placement'. When my mother came for one of her visits she found an empty cot. With the stroke of a pen my mother's heart and spirit had been shattered. Later, she was to describe this to me as one of the 'darkest days of her life'.

The story goes on to deal with Paul's adoption:

In January 1970, I was again placed with a foster family.

Later it continues:

When I'd say to my foster family, 'Why am I a different colour?' they would laugh at me and would tell me to drink plenty of milk, 'and then you will look more like us'. The other sons would call me names such as 'their little Abo'.

He says that from the time he was 5 months old until she found him when he was 18, his mother never gave up trying to locate him. He continues:

She wrote many letters to the state welfare authorities pleading with them to give her son back. Birthday and Christmas cards were sent care of the welfare department. All these letters were shelved. The State Welfare Department treated my mother like dirt and with utter contempt, as if she never existed. The department rejected and scoffed at all my mother's cries and pleas for help. They inflicted a terrible pain of separation, anguish and grief upon a mother who only ever wanted her son back.

It goes on for generation after generation. I turn next to the story of Millicent:

At the age of four I was taken away from my family and placed in Sister Kate's Home Western Australia, where I was kept as a ward of the state until I was 18 years old. I was forbidden to see any of my family or know of their whereabouts. Five of us D children were all taken and placed in different institutions in Western Australia.

It continues:

My daughter was born in 1962 at King Edward Memorial Hospital. I was so happy, I had a beautiful baby girl of my own who I could love and cherish and have with me always.
But my dreams were soon crushed: the bastards took her from me and said she would be fostered out until I was old enough to look after her. They said when I left Sister Kate's home I could have my baby back. I couldn't believe what was happening. My baby was taken away from me just as I was from my mother.

Millicent says that when she returned to Adelaide she was told her baby was dead. She told the inquiry:

I didn't even get to hold her, kiss her and had no photographs ...

The good news from that story is that the daughter was later reunited with her mother.

Another story concerned Rose:

We always lived by ourselves. Not that we thought we were better than any other Koori family. It's just that the white welfare, if they seen a group of Koori families together, they would step in and take their children away never to be seen again.
We moved from South Gippsland to East Gippsland. By this time I was about nine years old. My parents pulled me out of school because the welfare was taking the Koori kids from school never to be seen again. My parents didn't want this to happen to us. That's why we always lived by ourselves.

The story continues that the next day welfare took all his brothers and sisters and placed them in homes.

I turn to the story of Lance:

Dad died when I was about two. My parents were married, but they often lived apart. When I was a little kid, they gave me to an uncle and aunty and the police took me away from them and put me in a home. I have never been with my brothers and sisters at all. They were also put into the same home. My brothers and sisters did not know that I existed until a nun said, 'Come and meet your little brother'.

The stories go on and on. I could turn to hundreds of case studies like those I have just read to the house.

The opposition supports this apology; it is crucial that this apology be made to the Aboriginal people of Victoria and Australia. It is important to apologise unreservedly for the policies that have led to such horrible stories, for the policies which have affected so many Aboriginal families.

I believe the Premier's motion to be an act of good faith and I support it. I commit all members of the opposition to work towards further improving the Aboriginal culture and story, and towards improving future opportunities for Aborigines.