Mr SNOWDON (1:44 PM) —I first came to this parliament in 1987 and I have seen some very important days in the life of the parliament. A resolution passed by the parliament in this House in 1988 was one of the most important days of my life. But I cannot say that I am proud to have been here to listen to the Prime Minister this afternoon, because I think he has diminished us. I am concerned because I do not think our Prime Minister understands—I genuinely think he does not understand—the gravity of some of his words, when he uses a voice which has a lot of gravitas and talks about making maximum contributions to achieving reconciliation. Words must have meaning; making these sorts of statements without accompanying actions is meaningless.

When he talks about making a practical contribution towards reconciliation, he must have something in mind about what that is. What genuine actions is he taking, is his government taking, are we as a parliament taking? When he says we should confront the uglier parts of our national history, I agree. But I recall a speech in which the Prime Minister talked about the black armband view of history. I recall a speech in which the Prime Minister was very uncharitable about people who adopted a view that somehow or other the rights of indigenous Australians needed to be redressed. I recall those speeches. I recall the times when, in this parliament, this Prime Minister has not been able to bring himself to accept, as a fundamental principle, what justice is all about—a simple expression and a simple apology to indigenous Australians, particularly the members of the stolen generation.

The Prime Minister lauded a speech by someone who I think is a fine man, Aiden Ridgeway, in the parliament last night. But I do not agree with Aiden Ridgeway, and I certainly do not agree with the Prime Minister. There is no way in the world, as my leader said this afternoon, that this can be seen as anything other than indigenous Australians being required to come the distance and the Prime Minister effectively doing nothing, because the words which are being proposed by the Prime Minister's proposed resolution appease him. They are an action of appeasement. Because you, Prime Minister, cannot bring yourself to apologise, we will appease your will. We understand that you are blinkered and blinded by the contradictions which are your make-up: the inherent conservatism; your inability to understand and comprehend or know Australian history or to understand the implications of the actions of past governments and what they have meant to indigenous Australians. I do not think you really know, and I am sorry for that.

I have to say that I see this proposed resolution as a cynical political exercise; nothing more. It does not achieve the fundamental objective or the demand which has been made by indigenous Australians across the nation for a national apology.

This Prime Minister can have severe regrets. `I'm sorry, I sincerely regret not making it to your party on Saturday night.' `I can regret something'; but he is not prepared to apologise for it. `I regret the fact that you have suffered hurt but I won't apologise for it.' What does this say about our Prime Minister? What does this say about this man? And we are asked in this parliament to accept that this speech that he has given this afternoon and the motion which he has put before the House will achieve some fundamental objective in terms of reconciliation. Well, reconciliation comes at a price, Prime Minister. It comes at the price of your walking those extra yards, and you are not prepared to walk those extra yards.

Why is it that only a few short months ago you were not prepared to do what you have done today, as our leader said this afternoon? Because you are incapable of doing so. I feel sorry for that, and I feel hurt that I have got to sit in this parliament and listen to a Prime Minister who asserts that he is concerned about the rights and interests of indigenous Australians, yet he cannot apologise.

He says he has spoken to indigenous leaders. I will tell you something, Prime Minister: so have I. I spoke to those people in my electorate who started this process about the stolen children, the `bringing home' conference, which I attended in late 1994, which stimulated the discussion and caused the then Keating government to bring about the inquiry which was launched by this parliament in 1995. The report was brought down in 1997.

One of the people who was crucially involved and centrally engaged in that report was a very good friend of mine and a great Australian, Mick Dodson. This morning we have had some correspondence from Mr Dodson. In this correspondence, Mr Dodson says:

I have some comments about the proposed motion. I think at first it is useful to be reminded of the relevant recommendations of the "Bringing Them Home" Report.

Remember this report? We debated it here in the parliament. He then quotes recommendation 5(a), which talks about this apology. Of course, he has got access to the motion that has been moved today. He says this:

The proposed motion provides no apology, which is so central to the principle of reparation.

Understand that it is `central to the principle of reparation'.

This Prime Minister and his government do not understand what this debate is all about. They think it is about mouthing words in the parliament which are effectively meaningless because they will be accompanied by no action. This is occurring at a time when the Attorney-General, who was in the House just a while ago, is responsible for prosecuting a court case in Darwin in which members of the stolen generation are having their backgrounds impugned, their personalities denigrated and their insides gutted by a merciless Prime Minister and his government through their actions in the court.

I spoke to a member of the stolen generation this afternoon—Harold Furber, a very good friend of mine. He said to me, `What's the use of someone expressing regret while at the same time they're kicking you in the guts?' That is exactly what is happening. While this Prime Minister is saying, `I offer my sincere regrets,' outside this place he is putting the boot in like a great bovver boy. Let us be clear about it: that is exactly what is happening in this Federal Court case in Darwin. If you read the transcripts and find out the instructions which have been given to the Commonwealth's representatives in that court, you will understand what is happening. The Commonwealth is running this case and further harming the plaintiffs and their witnesses.

I know these plaintiffs. They are members of my community: Mr Peter Gunner and Mrs Cubillo. The claimants, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo, have had to give evidence for many days. Reliving their experiences under extensive cross-examination conducted by the Commonwealth's lawyers is only compounding the damage caused by the original wrongdoing. It should be understood that it is compounding the damage, just as the inability of the Prime Minister to say sorry is compounding the damage.

The Commonwealth's lawyers are picking up every technical point. In his opening, the QC representing the Commonwealth, Douglas Meagher, cast serious aspersions on Aboriginal women and their sexuality and made offensive comments about the Aboriginal race at the time. These are the Commonwealth's actions in the court, while we speak, while this Prime Minister is saying that we should accept this action of his today, this motion, as a sincere act of reconciliation. It is nothing like a sincere act of reconciliation, because it is accompanied by no action.

What they have done is to delve into the private lives of these people in a most pernicious way. We have had vicious and personal cross-examination and a win-at-every-cost approach being adopted by the Commonwealth. This is the reality. This is what is happening now, today. And we are being told by the Prime Minister that somehow or other his motion is a genuine act of reconciliation. It is nothing of the sort, unless it is accompanied by what we in the opposition have asked for—that is, the establishment of appropriate processes to provide justice and restitution to members of the stolen generation through consultation, conciliation and negotiation, rather than requiring indigenous Australians to engage in adversarial litigation in which they are forced to relive the pain and trauma of their past suffering.

Let us not believe that other indigenous Australians are not of like mind on the views that I have just expressed and the views of Mick Dodson. Let me read a statement from the stolen generations group in the Northern Territory which is dated today, 26 August:

The Northern and Central Australian Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporations have questioned the Federal Government's commitment to an apology to the Stolen Generations.

"On the one hand we have a Government in Canberra trying to find the right words for an apology whilst in the Northern Territory, expensive Commonwealth lawyers are conducting a vicious and aggressive legal defence against two elderly members of the Stolen Generations . . .

"How can they be serious about regret while they pour millions of dollars into fighting our compensation claim tooth and nail? How can they be serious about atonement if they will not consider some form of compensation to the individuals whose lives were devastated . . .

"We estimate . . .

And it goes on to refer to the cost of litigation. That statement was signed by Lyndsay McGuinness and Harold Furber. I have another statement signed by Richie Ah Mat from the Cape York Land Council, Archie Tanner from the Cape York Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu from the Northern Land Council, Mary Yarmirr from the Northern Land Council, Norman Fry from the Northern Land Council, Murrandoo Yanner from the Carpentaria Land Council, David Ross from the Central Land Council, Brad Foster from the Carpentaria Land Council, Peter Yu from the Kimberley Land Council, and Pat Dodson. What do they say? They say:

We call upon the Australian People and all political parties to stand by the recommendations of the Report of the `National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families' in relation to an apology to the Stolen Generations. Do not be caught up in this hasty and disgraceful pretence when members of the indigenous peoples have already suffered so much indignity. The word `sorry' must be used—nothing less is acceptable on behalf of our peoples.

The apology has to be one that is unreserved and that has a commitment to restitution for hurt and trauma that was caused to, and continues to be suffered by, the Stolen Generations. This should include compensation, without requiring Indigenous Australians to engage in adversarial litigation. We should not forget that the separation of indigenous children from their families is an act of genocide.

We call upon all parties in the Parliament to acknowledge that saying sorry removes a heavy burden that the Stolen Generations has been carrying and involves giving something back to those who have suffered.

Is that too much to ask? The Prime Minister comes into this House with a backroom deal which does not acknowledge any of those things, which does not get to the heart of the matter, which does not deal with the proper issues involved with reconciliation. We need to move forward, Prime Minister. But to move forward requires your action—not this sorry approach and attitude you have adopted to this issue. What you must do is to go to the Northern Territory and sit down with members of the stolen generation. Why can't you do that? Why can't you bring together members of the stolen generation and negotiate terms with them, instead of forcing them through litigation? Why can't you do that, Prime Minister? Why can't your government do something meaningful for indigenous Australians? Why can't your government do something meaningful for reconciliation, instead of these empty words? I can't support your proposed resolution, Prime Minister, and I won't.