Senator FAULKNER (12:43 PM) —This motion is, tragically, a second-best motion. That is a sad thing to have to admit. When the stolen generations report was released in May 1997, there was drafted, and the Senate eventually passed, a resolution that provided exactly what was required—a proper apology. Most state parliaments followed suit with not a formal expression of regret but an apology that was heartfelt and unreserved—except one. That is an interesting story in itself. In Queensland, the National Party was in power and Rob Borbidge took exception to a decent apology. So the Nationals moved one of their own. It said:

I move that the Parliament of Queensland, on behalf of the people of Queensland, expresses its sincere regret for the personal hurt suffered by those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, in the past, were unjustifiably removed from their families.

That was the Borbidge government's response. I think Senator Ridgeway last night called it `by far the worst' of the states' responses. But that is the response that we have here, that this Senate:

expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices;

At the time of the Borbidge motion, Peter Beattie, as opposition leader, moved an amendment which contained a decent apology. He moved:

That this House:

(1) apologises to the Aboriginal people on behalf of all Queenslanders for the past policies under which Aboriginal children were forcibly separated from their families and expresses deep sorrow and regret at the hurt and distress that this caused . . .

Decency came to Queensland last year. Peter Beattie as Premier was able to move his amendment. `Regret' moved to `unreserved apology', and deep sorrow about Queensland's past treatment of Aborigines was expressed on behalf of the people of Queensland. So we move our amendment today. I move:

Omit paragraph (f), substitute:

(f) unreservedly apologises to indigenous Australians for the injustice they have suffered, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to suffer as a consequence of that injustice;

(fa) calls for 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;

We move that with the express purpose of one day seeing it stand in the Hansard as a government motion. We move it because the motion we have now before the chamber is second best.

There has been much said about who supports this motion among the Aboriginal community. But I think it is fair to say that not one of the people in the Aboriginal community who support this motion would not prefer a better one. I can understand why people have supported second best when the alternative is nothing at all. But we would do well to remember why that was the only choice. The whole point of the government motion is to settle the issue—and this does not. That is the whole point: it is to settle the issue. The motion we have before us does not settle the issue. It is not about the thousands of members of the stolen generations; it is about one person—the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. The tragedy of this is that what should be a matter of national healing—the national psychology—has become a matter of a Prime Minister saving face and keeping his back covered. That is the saddest aspect of this second-best motion.

Because the semantics have shifted and weakened the intent that millions of Australians wish for, the apology has slipped into the unedifying ruck of politics. It has become a newsprint plaything, part of the endless `who's up, who's down; who's in, who's out; who's negotiating, who isn't negotiating'. That is not the stuff—and this is not the stuff—of national psychology or national honour. There is no honour in the motion. And it will cost us as a nation.

This year's budget papers state that there are 2,200 claims by members of the stolen generations under way. They say the Commonwealth could potentially be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. The Commonwealth has already spent several millions of dollars fighting the first of the stolen generations' litigants in the Northern Territory. It has created pain, anger and mistrust in the process. We all know that the greatest cost to the taxpayer will be incurred if the stolen generations' claims are all litigated individually. The only way to deal with this is through a transparent, honest process beginning with a decent apology and building goodwill into the compensation process. This compensation will come anyway. Why can it not be done in a way which promotes healing rather than anger and, incidentally, costs the Commonwealth less? I commend to the Senate the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the opposition. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate to give its sentiments strong endorsement today.