 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
ABORIGINES, CHILDREN
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I move:
That this Council recommends to the commonwealth government that it should-
I. Follow the lead of the South Australian Parliament and express its deep and sincere regret at the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their families and homes; and
II. Apologise for disputing the veracity of the term `stolen generation' and adopt that expression as the appropriate nomenclature for referring to the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents during the twentieth century.
This motion is prompted by a simple truth: that the forced removal of children from their parents on the basis of race is profoundly offensive and that, in the light of revelations that this practice was systematic and widespread, an unqualified apology is an appropriate starting point for reconciling past injustices.
It was in the name of assimilation that past Australian governments initiated the practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families. It should be in the name of reconciliation that current Australian governments apologise for that misguided policy. I am pleased to acknowledge that this parliament has faced its past and offered its apology. I am deeply disappointed that the federal government of John Howard has not.
I have heard numerous rationalisations for not apologising. `We shouldn't have to say "Sorry" for something we didn't do' is frequently offered as an excuse for this ungracious display. Yet it was officials of democratically elected state and federal governments who removed Aboriginal children from their parents. Surely the elected representatives of those governments are the most appropriate people to apologise. The world applauded when the Japanese government finally and reluctantly apologised for forcing Korean women into prostitution during the Second World War. How tardy the Howard government looks alongside that begrudging effort of the Japanese government. Most recently, the Pope apologised to all the people in the Catholic Church who had been hurt by the priests within that church.
Another excuse offered is that the policy of assimilation was well intentioned and, therefore, despite its disastrous impact on Aboriginal people, there is no need to apologise. This reasoning is based on the flawed assumption that apologies follow only malevolent acts. I should think the opposite is closer to the truth. The key is harm inflicted, not intention.
Others will argue that `sorry' means that you are admitting some form of guilt, and that is certainly not the case. To say `Sorry' acknowledges that the damage was done to a culture by the deliberate displacement of the Aboriginal people. To say `Sorry' acknowledges that something was not done properly, and it allows a moving on. Shamefully, the Howard government has moved on from the `We intended no harm' argument to the `We didn't inflict the harm' claim. By engaging in a semantic argument about the meaning of the term `generation', it has implied that the events associated with that phrase did not take place or at least are greatly exaggerated. I note that, come Anzac Day, we regularly refer to the generation of Australian boys lost on the battlefield of World War One, and I believe that was about 10 per cent of young Australian males. That fact should demonstrate to John Howard how silly is the manoeuvring of his government. The fact is that semantics will not hide this problem.
The legacy of the stolen generation is very real. The question is: do we as a country have the will to confront and seek a resolution to the problems generated by our past? The Howard government claims its focus is on designing practical solutions to the problems confronting Aboriginal Australia. That view echoes the paternalism of the assimilation policies that led to the stolen generation. I acknowledge that in South Australia it was a Liberal Premier who moved the motion of regret. John Howard should take some heart from this. It occurred almost three years ago and, to my knowledge, there has been no legal action as a result. There is quite a degree of comfort there for John Howard.
The wording of my motion is a little less provocative than that of the previous motion introduced by the Hon. Terry Roberts, and it goes a step forward in that we would be communicating it to the commonwealth government. We teach our children to say `Sorry' because it does not seem to come naturally to children. It is an adult undertaking to say `Sorry.' If the federal government, through our Prime Minister, can say `Sorry' on behalf of the Australian people, it will be a sign of our maturity. Saying `Sorry' is the place to begin the healing process, for from the expression of sorrow comes the possibility of forgiveness and, from forgiveness, reconciliation.
See also Sandra Kanck's News Release on this issue : 4th April 2000
