Page 237 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is times like these when we see the importance of symbolic gestures and the controversy they can cause. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of working in this legislature that some of the most controversial motions do not involve substantive changes to law or government policy at all, while some of the most sweeping legal changes go relatively unnoticed. It is my sincere hope that this week’s apologies to the stolen generation can allow us to put some of the sorrow and anger to rest and look forward to the substance of problems that still afflict a great many Aboriginal people being addressed.
Members of the stolen generation were removed from their families by agencies of the governments of Australia and by church missions under various acts of parliament which made these Aboriginal children wards of the state. This practice began in the late 19th century. In 1886 the Victorian parliament enacted an amendment to the Aborigines Protection Act which allowed the removal of half-caste children from Aboriginal reserves. This amendment became known as the half-caste act.
Whilst questions about the reason for their removal remain controversial, it is certainly clear that many of these children suffered great emotional trauma as a result of their removal from their parents. This is hardly surprising; indeed, it would be more of a shock if being removed from their parents had not produced significant anguish. In recent days we have heard numerous stories broadcast in the media citing examples of people’s recall of some of these terrible experiences.
It is clear from the historical record that Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their parents were removed under the authority of child protection laws emanating from the various Australian parliaments. Decisions to remove children were made by government officials acting within laws set by those parliaments, and it was the members of those parliaments which empowered the governments of the time to act in this manner. It is therefore ultimately the responsibility of parliament to ensure that it holds the executive government in check and to ensure that the actions of government officials do not destroy the lives of those that they purport to protect.
Instances of forcible removal of children show us the dangers inherent in government power and attempts to use force against a person “for their own good”. Such instances of forcible removal and the trauma that has followed from them should give us pause at the awesome power wielded by governments and the harm they cause with their interventions into people’s lives.
This debate on the stolen generation has given rise to important discussions on the topic of so-called intergenerational responsibility. The Prime Minister touched briefly on this topic in his speech yesterday, but I would like to make a little more mention of it today because I think it is important to know exactly who is responsible for what and who is apologising.
It is legitimate for members of Australian parliaments to apologise on behalf of the parliament itself as a continuing political entity. But in apologising on behalf of the parliament, there should be no suggestion that current generations of Australians are responsible in any way for wrongs committed by others in the past, whether those others had the same race or occupation as people today or not. People who attempt to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .