National Apology

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

Kevin Rudd and the parliment has finally undone the policy of the Howard goverment

This thread is to discuss the apology to the stolen generation that was given in the federal parliment today

This is the text of the motion passed in parliment today

THIS is the text of the formal apology to Indigenous Australians to be made in Federal Parliament by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at 8.30am (SA time) today:

TODAY we honour the indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again. A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

Viewed 13/02/08 at 10:24
Click to expand...

This artical is on his speach and has a video of the speach being given. My feeling is that his speach should go straight into the greatest political speaches thread. It was well written and sincerly given

However Brendon Nelsons speach was a national discrace. It would have been better if he had stoped at "we the oposition surport this motion"

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spud Emperor · Feb 13, 2008

Asguard,
I saw most of it on the telly,
It was very moving, spine tingling even.
I agree it will be viewed as one of the great speeches.It was sincere and brave in lots of ways and showed that pollies can actually lead by example; it showed the kind of leadership which has been lacking for a long time.

I thought Brendan Nelson was caught between a rock and a hard place in that he still felt the legacy of Howard and had to justify party position held for so long. His speech also had real empathy at times and following Rudd was a hard act to follow.

Some of the anecdotal quoting of the stolen gen. was heart wrenching.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bells · Feb 13, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

However Brendon Nelsons speach was a national discrace. It would have been better if he had stoped at "we the oposition surport this motion"
Click to expand...

Heh! I have to ask myself.. 'What in the hell was he thinking?!?'.. when he veered off topic and attempted to tow Howard's party line..

Especially when he said no one of this generation should feel guilt..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Does the man not realise a lot of those who removed the children and others who firmly supported the policy are still alive and should be feeling guilt?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

I lissioned to it on the radio, actually i split my time between News radio (which is the parliments offical broudcast station) and ABC local because they had all the extra stuff (though the actual speach was harder to hear on it because it was an ecoh from the TV screens
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
)

I have to agree with you there bells
Actually i think i will wait a few weeks before talking to one of my grandmothers because i know the racist atitude that she has towards aborigionals (and asians ect). Its rather sad

Apart from the topic i think this would be the most watched session of parliment and even that is a good thing. That school kids and everyone get involved in the prossess of parliment. That is compleatly apart from the topic but worth noting as well

I hope they do go the step further and make today a public holiday, actually i would love to see Australia day moved to today
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bells · Feb 13, 2008

I have to agree with Spud. Nelson was caught between a rock and a hard place. And looking at the Liberal's side of the house and to see many empty seats, the man must be having a hard time trying to please both sides of his party. But he should not have said some of the things he said. It seemed to try to appease those who found the policy acceptable. Excusing their actions in such a way should not have been part of the 'apology'. Instead, it detracted the true meaning of it.

Now regarding those empty seats. Maybe Chris Pearce and Wilson Tuckey should have just stayed home. Tuckey left immediately after the morning prayer, and Pearce.. well..

LIBERAL MP Chris Pearce read a magazine in Parliament during today's historic apology motion and speeches, refusing to get to his feet for several standing ovations.

He stood begrudgingly only when MPs were asked to vote on the motion.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23206540-29277,00.html
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

i am waiting to see what christpher pine says. Apart from being a libral MP who is always on abc local here he is also the shadow indigious afairs minister and seems to be highly surportive of the motion. The other person i would love to hear from is Turnball who lost the leadership over his surport of this very issue

I loved how Rudd has traped the oposition over this issue. He said a few days ago that if one member votes against the motion it would be imideatly removed from the floor and would become a goverment and labor party apology and on the opersitions head be the results. Apart from being the right thing to do he neatly stiched up the oposition so they had no choice BUT to suport it. If they didnt they could well have pissed away any chance of winning goverment in the forseeable future. In spite of that however it would have been better to NOT speak than to speak as he did. Yes Rudd was a hard act to follow and any speach after that one would have been overshadowed (on a side note its easy to see why Rudd reached so high up the ladder in the forign affairs department, he is a great speaker) but he would have been better not going off into the world wars as he did (this is where most aborigionals walked out) or praising the church groups who housed the kids. This was a HUGE mestake, it may have pleased his own party but it pissed off most of the people watching the speach. This mestake was made larger because we arnt talking about an unknown motion of parlment but probably the most watched motion ever. The journilists are already critising him and i can just imagin the articals and cartoons that are going to apear in tomorows papers. I wonder if this will end his leadership, its already rocky and he wont have satisfide people on EITHER side of the debate in this. Im glad that Rudd kept the National party from speaking on this, god only knows what we would have had if he hadnt. If he hadnt or he had withdrawn the motion we could well have had blood on the streets today.

Oh by the way if you think that there were a few empty seats in the house you should have seen the senate. Most of the oposition benches were empty when they were moving the same motion. If this was because commities were in sesion that was poor organisation because i doubt it will go unnoticed by those who this was aimed at.

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

Bloody hell, if Nelsons speach was bad Sentor Boswells (i think) was even worse. He bloody THANKED the churches
Jesus christ dont people get it???????????

Natasha's speach was brillant
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not quite as good as Rudds but quite good nether the less

Challenger78 · Feb 13, 2008

Took us long enough.

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

I agree although im VERY angry at the Libral party at the moment. It was a bloody good idea to keep there mouths shut in the House because they are doing there best to undermine it in the senate right now
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God im sick of the libals and nationals they are a usless party. You know that every parliment now has apologised over this and they have all been under the control of the Labor party when they did it. This maybe a coincidence but i doubt it somehow

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

For those who didnt see it (and those from other countries) here are the two speaches from Hansard

From Hansard said:

There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time. That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia. Last year I made a commitment to the Australian people that if we formed the next government of the Commonwealth we would in parliament say sorry to the stolen generations. Today I honour that commitment. I said we would do so early in the life of the new parliament. Again, today I honour that commitment by doing so at the commencement of this the 42nd parliament of the Commonwealth. Because the time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great Commonwealth, for all Australians—those who are Indigenous and those who are not—to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation. Some have asked, ‘Why apologise?’ Let me begin to answer by telling the parliament just a little of one person’s story—an elegant, eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s, full of life, full of funny stories, despite what has happened in her life’s journey, a woman who has travelled a long way to be with us today, a member of the stolen generation who shared some of her story with me when I called around to see her just a few days ago. Nanna Nungala Fejo, as she prefers to be called, was born in the late 1920s. She remembers her earliest childhood days living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek. She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days long ago, including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night. She loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when, as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men, as the girls were supposed to do. But then, sometime around 1932, when she was about four, she remembers the coming of the welfare men. Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide. What they had not expected was that the white welfare men did not come alone. They brought a truck, two white men and an Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stockwhip. The kids were found; they ran for their mothers, screaming, but they could not get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck. Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow in Alice, all in the name of protection. A few years later, government policy changed. Now the children would be handed over to the missions to be cared for by the churches. But which church would care for them? The kids were simply told to line up in three lines. Nanna Fejo and her sister stood in the middle line, her older brother and cousin on her left. Those on the left were told that they had become Catholics, those in the middle Methodists and those on the right Church of England. That is how the complex questions of post-reformation theology were resolved in the Australian outback in the 1930s. It was as crude as that. She and her sister were sent to a Methodist mission on Goulburn Island and then Croker Island. Her Catholic brother was sent to work at a cattle station and her cousin to a Catholic mission.
Nanna Fejo’s family had been broken up for a second time. She stayed at the mission until after the war, when she was allowed to leave for a prearranged job as a domestic in Darwin. She was 16. Nanna Fejo never saw her mum again. After she left the mission, her brother let her know that her mum had died years before, a broken woman fretting for the children that had literally been ripped away from her. I asked Nanna Fejo what she would have me say today about her story. She thought for a few moments then said that what I should say today was that all mothers are important. And she added: ‘Families—keeping them together is very important. It’s a good thing that you are surrounded by love and that love is passed down the generations. That’s what gives you happiness.’ As I left, later on, Nanna Fejo took one of my staff aside, wanting to make sure that I was not too hard on the Aboriginal stockman who had hunted those kids down all those years ago. The stockman had found her again decades later, this time himself to say, ‘Sorry.’ And remarkably, extraordinarily, she had forgiven him. Nanna Fejo’s is just one story. There are thousands, tens of thousands of them: stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century. Some of these stories are graphically told in Bringing them home, the report commissioned in 1995 by Prime Minister Keating and received in 1997 by Prime Minister Howard. There is something terribly primal about these firsthand accounts. The pain is searing; it screams from the pages. The hurt, the humiliation, the degradation and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children is a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity. These stories cry out to be heard; they cry out for an apology. Instead, from the nation’s parliament there has been a stony, stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade; a view that somehow we, the parliament, should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong; a view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon. But the stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end. The nation is demanding of its political leadership to take us forward. Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now step forward to right an historical wrong. That is what we are doing in this place today. But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with ‘the problem of the Aboriginal population’. One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated: Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes— to quote the protector— will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white ... The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on Indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives. These are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant. They are profoundly disturbing. But we must acknowledge these facts if we are to deal once and for all with the argument that the policy of generic forced separation was somehow well motivated, justified by its historical context and, as a result, unworthy of any apology today. Then we come to the argument of intergenerational responsibility, also used by some to argue against giving an apology today. But let us remember the fact that the forced removal of Aboriginal children was happening as late as the early 1970s. The 1970s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity. There are still serving members of this parliament who were first elected to this place in the early 1970s. It is well within the adult memory span of many of us. The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful. There is a further reason for an apology as well: it is that reconciliation is in fact an expression of a core value of our nation—and that value is a fair go for all. There is a deep and abiding belief in the Australian community that, for the stolen generations, there was no fair go at all. There is a pretty basic Aussie belief that says that it is time to put right this most outrageous of wrongs. It is for these reasons, quite apart from concerns of fundamental human decency, that the governments and parliaments of this nation must make this apology—because, put simply, the laws that our parliaments enacted made the stolen generations possible. We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect to our laws. And the problem lay with the laws themselves. As has been said of settler societies elsewhere, we are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors; therefore we must also be the bearer of their burdens as well. Therefore, for our nation, the course of
action is clear: that is, to deal now with what has become one of the darkest chapters in Australia’s history. In doing so, we are doing more than contending with the facts, the evidence and the often rancorous public debate. In doing so, we are also wrestling with our own soul. This is not, as some would argue, a black-armband view of history; it is just the truth: the cold, confronting, uncomfortable truth—facing it, dealing with it, moving on from it. Until we fully confront that truth, there will always be a shadow hanging over us and our future as a fully united and fully reconciled people. It is time to reconcile. It is time to recognise the injustices of the past. It is time to say sorry. It is time to move forward together. To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without qualification. We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied. We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments. In making this apology, I would also like to speak personally to the members of the stolen generations and their families: to those here today, so many of you; to those listening across the nation—from Yuendumu, in the central west of the Northern Territory, to Yabara, in North Queensland, and to Pitjantjatjara in South Australia. I know that, in offering this apology on behalf of the government and the parliament, there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain you have suffered personally. Whatever words I speak today, I cannot undo that. Words alone are not that powerful; grief is a very personal thing. I ask those non-Indigenous Australians listening today who may not fully understand why what we are doing is so important to imagine for a moment that this had happened to you. I say to honourable members here present: imagine if this had happened to us. Imagine the crippling effect. Imagine how hard it would be to forgive. My proposal is this: if the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation, in which it is offered, we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for Australia. And it is to such a new beginning that I believe the nation is now calling us. Australians are a passionate lot. We are also a very practical lot. For us, symbolism is important but, unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong. It is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history. Today’s apology, however inadequate, is aimed at righting past wrongs. It is also aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—a bridge based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt. Our challenge for the future is to cross that bridge and, in so doing, to embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—to embrace, as part of that partnership, expanded Link-up and other critical services to help the stolen generations to trace their families if at all possible and to provide dignity to their lives. But the core of this partnership for the future is to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities. This new partnership on closing the gap will set concrete targets for the future: within a decade to halve the widening gap in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes and opportunities for Indigenous Australians, within a decade to halve the appalling gap in infant mortality rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and, within a generation, to close the equally appalling 17-year life gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous in overall life expectancy. The truth is: a business as usual approach towards Indigenous Australians is not working. Most old approaches are not working. We need a new beginning—a new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure; a new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional Indigenous communities across the country but instead allowing flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly-agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership; a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation. However, unless we as a parliament set a destination for the nation, we have no clear point to guide our policy, our programs or our purpose; we have no centralised organising principle. Let us resolve today to begin with the little children—a fitting place to start on this day of apology for the stolen generations. Let us resolve over the next five years to have every Indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled in and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs. Let us resolve to build new educational opportunities for these little ones, year by year, step by step, following the completion of their crucial preschool year. Let us resolve to use this systematic approach to build future educational opportunities for Indigenous children to provide proper primary and preventive health care for the same children, to begin the task of rolling back the obscenity that we find today in infant mortality rates in remote Indigenous communities—up to four times higher than in other communities. None of this will be easy. Most of it will be hard—very hard. But none of it is impossible, and all of it is achievable with clear goals, clear thinking, and by placing an absolute premium on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility as the guiding principles of this new partnership on closing the gap. The mood of the nation is for reconciliation now, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The mood of the nation on Indigenous policy and politics is now very simple. The nation is calling on us, the politicians, to move beyond our infantile bickering, our point-scoring and our mindlessly partisan politics and to elevate this one core area of national responsibility to a rare position beyond the partisan divide. Surely this is the unfulfilled spirit of the 1967 referendum. Surely, at least from this day forward, we should give it a go.
Let me take this one step further and take what some may see as a piece of political posturing and make a practical proposal to the opposition on this day, the first full sitting day of the new parliament. I said before the election that the nation needed a kind of war cabinet on parts of Indigenous policy, because the challenges are too great and the consequences are too great to allow it all to become a political football, as it has been so often in the past. I therefore propose a joint policy commission, to be led by the Leader of the Opposition and me, with a mandate to develop and implement—to begin with—an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years. It will be consistent with the government’s policy framework, a new partnership for closing the gap. If this commission operates well, I then propose that it work on the further task of constitutional recognition of the first Australians, consistent with the longstanding platform commitments of my party and the pre-election position of the opposition. This would probably be desirable in any event because, unless such a proposition were absolutely bipartisan, it would fail at a referendum. As I have said before, the time has come for new approaches to enduring problems. Working constructively together on such defined projects would, I believe, meet with the support of the nation. It is time for fresh ideas to fashion the nation’s future. Mr Speaker, today the parliament has come together to right a great wrong. We have come together to deal with the past so that we might fully embrace the future. We have had sufficient audacity of faith to advance a pathway to that future, with arms extended rather than with fists still clenched. So let us seize the day. Let it not become a moment of mere sentimental reflection. Let us take it with both hands and allow this day, this day of national reconciliation, to become one of those rare moments in which we might just be able to transform the way in which the nation thinks about itself, whereby the injustice administered to the stolen generations in the name of these, our parliaments, causes all of us to reappraise, at the deepest level of our beliefs, the real possibility of reconciliation writ large: reconciliation across all Indigenous Australia; reconciliation across the entire history of the often bloody encounter between those who emerged from the Dreamtime a thousand generations ago and those who, like me, came across the seas only yesterday; reconciliation which opens up whole new possibilities for the future. It is for the nation to bring the first two centuries of our settled history to a close, as we begin a new chapter. We embrace with pride, admiration and awe these great and ancient cultures we are truly blessed to have among us—cultures that provide a unique, uninterrupted human thread linking our Australian continent to the most ancient prehistory of our planet. Growing from this new respect, we see our Indigenous brothers and sisters with fresh eyes, with new eyes, and we have our minds wide open as to how we might tackle, together, the great practical challenges that Indigenous Australia faces in the future. Let us turn this page together: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, government and opposition, Commonwealth and state, and write this new chapter in our nation’s story together. First Australians, First Fleeters, and those who first took the oath of allegiance just a few weeks ago. Let’s grasp this opportunity to craft a new future for this great land: Australia. I commend the motion to the House. Honourable members applauding—

Viewed 13/02/08 at 14:00
Click to expand...

From Hansard said:

Mr Speaker, Members of this the 42nd Parliament of Australia, visitors and all Australians, in rising to speak strongly in support of this motion I recognise the Ngunnawal, first peoples of this Canberra land. Today our nation crosses a threshold. We formally offer an apology. We say sorry to those Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families through the first seven decades of the 20th century. In doing so, we reach from within ourselves to our past, those whose lives connect us to it, and in deep understanding of its importance to our future. We will be at our best today and every day if we pause to place ourselves in the shoes of others, imbued with the imaginative capacity to see this issue through their eyes with decency and respect. This chapter in our nation’s history is emblematic of much of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians from the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. It is one of two cultures: one ancient, proud and celebrating its deep bond with this land for some 60,000 years; the other, no less proud, arrived here with little more than visionary hope, deeply rooted in gritty determination to build an Australian nation for not only its early settlers and Indigenous peoples but also those who would increasingly come from all parts of the world. Whether Australian by birth or immigration, each one of us as Australians has a duty to understand and respect what has been done in our name. In most cases we do so with great pride, but in others it is with shame. In brutally harsh conditions, from the small number of early British settlers, our non-Indigenous ancestors have given us a nation the envy of any in the world. But Aboriginal Australians made involuntary sacrifices, different but no less important, to make possible the economic and social development of our country today. None of this was easy. We cannot, from the comfort of the 21st century, begin to imagine what they overcame—Indigenous and non-Indigenous—to give us what we have and make us who we are. We do know, though, that language, disease, ignorance, good intentions, basic human prejudices and a cultural and technological chasm combined to deliver a harshness exceeded only by the land over which each sought to prevail. And as our young nation celebrated its Federation, formality emerged in arrangements and laws that would govern the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The new nation’s Constitution, though, would not allow for the counting of ‘natives’ or for the Commonwealth to pass laws in relation to Aborigines. Protection boards and reserves were established. Aborigines in some jurisdictions were excluded from public schools, episodic violence in race relations continued, assimilation underwrote emerging policies and churches heeded their Christian doctrine to reach out to people whom they saw in desperate need. Though disputed in motive and detail and with varying recollections of events by others, the removal of Aboriginal children began. In some cases, government policies evolved from the belief that the Aboriginal race would not survive and should be assimilated; in others, the conviction was that ‘half-caste’ children in particular should, for their own protection, be removed to government and church run institutions where conditions reflected the standards of the day. Others were placed with white families whose kindness motivated them to the belief that rescued children deserved a better life. Our responsibility, every one of us, is to understand what happened here, why it happened and the impact it had on not only those who were removed but also those who did the removing and supported it. Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but certainly not all, cases with the best of intentions. But in saying we are sorry, and deeply so, we remind ourselves that each generation lives in ignorance of the long-term consequences of its decisions and actions. Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions. The stories are well documented, and I thank the Prime Minister for reminding us of Nanna Nungala Fejo’s experience. I will repeat two stories. The first is from a submission given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry, and I quote: I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin]. They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we’d gone [about ten miles] they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers’ backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us. We were screaming in the back of that car. When we got to Broome they put me and my cousin in the Broome lockup. We were only ten years old. We were in the lockup for two days waiting for the boat to Perth. In his black oral history, The Wailing, which I commend to every Australian, Stuart Rintoul recalls the thin pain of an Aboriginal woman from Walgett: Something else that never left my mind, my memory, was of a family of children being taken away and this little girl, she must have been about the same age as myself, I suppose she might have been about six. But I can still see that little person on the back of the mission truck with a little rag hat on, and she went away and we never seen her any more. She was crying. Everyone was crying. Things like that never leave your memory. It is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives: children fed, housed and educated for an adult world which they could not have imagined. However, from my life as a family doctor and knowing the impact of my own father’s removal from his unmarried, teenage mother, I know that not knowing who you are is the source of deep, scarring sorrows, the real meaning of which can be known only to those who have endured it. No-one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate in seeking to diminish the view that good in many cases was sought to be done. This is a complex issue. Faye Lyman’s life is one of the Many Voices oral history at the National Library of Australia. Faye left her father when she was eight. She said this: Personally, I don’t want people to say, ‘I’m sorry Faye’, I just want them to understand. It was very hurtful to leave Dad. Oh, it broke my heart. Dad said to me, ‘It’s hard for Daddy and the authorities won’t let you stay with me in a tent on the river bank. You’re a little girl and you need someone to look after you.’ I remember him telling us that, and I cried. I said ‘No, but Dad, you look after us.’ ... But they kept telling us it wasn’t the right thing.
She went on: I don’t want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they have done ... You don’t belong in either world. I can’t explain it. It hurts so much. There is no compensation fund for this—nor should there be. How can any sum of money replace a life deprived of knowing your family? Separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children. Our restitution for this lies in our determination to address today’s injustices, learning from what was done and doing everything we can to heal those who suffered. The period within which these events occurred was one that defined and shaped Australia. The governments that oversaw this and those who elected them emerged from federating the nation to a century characterised for Australia as triumph in the face of extraordinary adversities unknown to our generation. In offering this apology, let us not in our language and actions create one injustice in our attempt to address another. Let no-one forget that they sent their sons to war, shaping our identity and place in the world. One hundred thousand Australians in two wars alone gave their lives in our name and our uniform, lying forever in distant lands, silent witnesses to the future that they have given us. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians lie alongside one another. These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights. They did not buy something until they had saved up for it, and values were far more important than value. Living in considerably more difficult times, they had dreams for our nation but little money. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, King and country and the belief in something greater than yourself. Neglectful indifference to all that they have achieved while seeing their actions in the separations only, through the values of our comfortable, modern Australia, will be to diminish ourselves. Today our nation pauses to reflect on this chapter of relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. In doing so, however, given that there are so many Australians who, perhaps unusually today, are focused on Aboriginal issues, spare a thought for the real, immediate, seemingly intractable and disgraceful circumstances in which many Indigenous Australians find themselves today. As we meet and speak in this parliament, Aboriginal Australians continue to die long before the rest of us. Alcohol, welfare without responsibilities, isolation from the economic mainstream, corrupt management of resources, nepotism, political buck passing between governments with divided responsibilities, lack of home ownership, underpolicing, intolerance by authorities and neglect and abuse of children that violates all for which we stand all combine to see too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living lives of existential aimlessness. Indigenous life expectancy is still stubbornly 17 years less than for non-Indigenous Australians. An Aboriginal baby born while we speak still has only a one in three chance of seeing the age of 65. Diabetes, kidney disease, hospitalisation of women from assault, imprisonment, overcrowding in housing, educational underperformance and unemployment remain appallingly high, despite gains in some areas over the past decade. Annual Indigenous-specific spending by the Commonwealth has reached $3½ billion a year, plus half a billion dollars this year on the Northern Territory intervention. The sexual abuse of Aboriginal children was found in every one of the 45 Northern Territory communities surveyed for the Little children are sacred report. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back, driving the Howard government’s decision to intervene with a suite of dramatically radical welfare, health and policing initiatives. I cannot imagine the strength upon which she drew, but the Alice Springs Crown Prosecutor, Nanette Rogers, with great courage, revealed to the nation in 2006 the case of a four-year-old girl drowned while being raped by a teenager who had been sniffing petrol. She told us of the two children, one a baby, sexually assaulted by two men while their mothers were drinking alcohol. Another baby was stabbed by a man trying to kill her mother. So too a 10-year-old girl was gang-raped in Aurukun, the offenders going free, barely punished. A boy was raped in another community by other children. Is this not an emergency, the most disturbing part of it being its endemic nature and Australia’s apparent desensitisation to it? Yet governments responsible for delivering services and security have resisted elements of a Northern Territory style intervention. I ask the Prime Minister to report to this parliament regularly on what his government is doing to save this generation of Aboriginal Australians from these appalling conditions. I also offer on behalf of the opposition my unconditional support to participate in the commission for policy which he proposes. This is far, far more important than any of the things that would normally divide us as a nation in philosophy and politics. Our generation has over 35 years overseen a system of welfare, alcohol delivery, administration of programs, episodic preoccupation with symbolism and, at times, even excusing the inexcusable in the name of cultural sensitivity, to create what we now see in remote Aboriginal Australia. With good intentions, perhaps like earlier generations, we have under successive governments created lives, in many cases, of misery for which we might apologise. I certainly do. The best way we can show it is to act, and to act now. I challenge anyone who thinks Aboriginal people get a good deal to come to any of these communities and tell me you wish you had been born there. The first Aboriginal Australian who came to this parliament was Neville Bonner. A Yagara man abandoned by his non-Aboriginal father before his birth on Ukerebagh Island in the mouth of the Tweed River, Neville was born into a life of hardship known only to some who are here today as visitors. He grew up in a hollow that had been carved by his grandfather under lantana bushes. The year before his mother’s death when he was nine, she sent him to a school near Lismore. He lasted two days before the non-Aboriginal people forced his exclusion.
It was to his grandmother Ida he attributed his final success. Arguing that at 14 the boy must go to school, she had said to him: ‘Neville, if you learn to read and write, express yourself well and treat people with decency and courtesy, it will take you a long way,’ and it did. Through a life as a scrub clearer, a ringer, a stockman, a bridge carpenter and 11 years on Palm Island, it brought him to this parliament in 1971, as the events of this motion were nearing an end. He said in prophetic words to the Liberal Party members who selected him: ‘In my experience of this world, two qualities are always in greater need—human understanding and compassion.’ When he was asked by Robin Hughes in 1992 to reflect on his life, Neville observed that the unjust hardships he had endured ‘can only be changed when people of non-Aboriginal extraction are prepared to listen, to hear what Aboriginal people are saying, and then work with us to achieve those ends’. Asked to nominate his greatest achievement, he replied: ‘It is that I was there. They no longer spoke of boongs or blacks. They spoke instead of Aboriginal people.’ Today is about ‘being there’ as a nation and as individual Australians. It is about Neville Bonner’s understanding of one another and the compassion that shaped his life in literally reaching out to those whom he considered had suffered more than him. We honour those in our past who have suffered—many of whom are here today—and all who have made sacrifices for us by the way we live our lives and shape our nation. Today we recommit to do so—as one people. We are sorry.

Viewed 13/02/08 at 14:00
Click to expand...

Challenger78 · Feb 13, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

I agree although im VERY angry at the Libral party at the moment. It was a bloody good idea to keep there mouths shut in the House because they are doing there best to undermine it in the senate right now
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God im sick of the libals and nationals they are a usless party. You know that every parliment now has apologised over this and they have all been under the control of the Labor party when they did it. This maybe a coincidence but i doubt it somehow
Click to expand...

Heh, they were probably just jealous that Labour got the limelight.

draqon · Feb 13, 2008

Kevin Rudd...identifying a national scapegoat Mr. Howard

Spud Emperor · Feb 13, 2008

No he was just a goat.

draqon · Feb 13, 2008

Spud Emperor said: ↑

No he was just a goat.
Click to expand...

your just proving what I said.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Spud Emperor · Feb 13, 2008

Well let's just say I never voted for him.

draqon · Feb 13, 2008

Spud Emperor said: ↑

Well let's just say I never voted for him.
Click to expand...

omg...a local Australian "American Bush" scenario
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

Howard will get very little sympathy on this issue here dragon

Chalanger they had 11 years to take the spotlight as state parliment after state parliment took this action. The brining them home report was commisioned by Ketting but it was delivered to Howard. If his party didnt like his stance they should have kicked him out of the job 3 years ago but they chose not to. So they should sit quitly and take there spanking on this because they made the choice and the labor party took the initive even from oposition. Why sabotase something that has wide spread suport to please a few when it is going to hurt there own chances in the future. I think the Libral party is imploding and it will be interesting to see what sort of future our politics has. Either the libs revitalise themselves realising that Australia will no longer surport the far right, we end up with a one party parlimentry system or we end up with a compleatly new party. It will be facinating to see what comes next

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

Oh dragon, the simulatrity is quite aproprate. Howard was more interested in following Bush than lissioning to the country and in the end he stoped lissioning even to his own party. Thats probably what cost him the election in the end that he wouldnt back down on higly unpopular policies even when his back benchers were screaming at him that they would lose there seats if he didnt

Challenger78 · Feb 13, 2008

Asguard said: ↑

Chalanger they had 11 years to take the spotlight as state parliment after state parliment took this action. The brining them home report was commisioned by Ketting but it was delivered to Howard. If his party didnt like his stance they should have kicked him out of the job 3 years ago but they chose not to. So they should sit quitly and take there spanking on this because they made the choice and the labor party took the initive even from oposition. Why sabotase something that has wide spread suport to please a few when it is going to hurt there own chances in the future. I think the Libral party is imploding and it will be interesting to see what sort of future our politics has. Either the libs revitalise themselves realising that Australia will no longer surport the far right, we end up with a one party parlimentry system or we end up with a compleatly new party. It will be facinating to see what comes next
Click to expand...

Maybe they thought that they had nothing to lose. I'm wondering how long this govt will last, hopefully long enough to see a lowering of uni fees.
Although education has become a business, I really don't think it should be.

Asguard · Feb 13, 2008

why do you think they wont last more than one term?

I think the librals will implode soon
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
so i doubt they will take the reins at a federal level for a long time. Its at a state level im worried, i like the fact that all the goverments are labor because that means they cant bullshit about eachother on health, education and water

Log in or Sign up

National Apology

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Bells Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

National Apology

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Bells Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Bells Staff Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

draqon Banned Banned

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches