Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4:09 PM) —I think most Australians understand what the government fails to comprehend and that is, of course, because most Australians do have a heart and they do want to be honest with our history. That is, that generations of Australians—generations of Aboriginal children—were forcibly removed from their families and placed in care for the sole purpose of assimilation. This was done to Europeanise the indigenous people of this nation. I say that the government fails to comprehend the ramifications of these policies. If Mr Howard and Senator Herron comprehended the hurt, the suffering and the anguish of these people, they would never have produced such an inflammatory document for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into the stolen generation. They would not have submitted that particular document to the committee. I cannot fathom the government's intentions in producing the document. In two question times, today and yesterday, and throughout two days of media interviews, the minister still has not produced one good reason why in one fell swoop the Commonwealth of Australia has insulted the stolen generations and undermined the process of healing that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission began, which led to the Bringing them home report. The government has questioned the very existence of the stolen generation and that is why this particular urgency motion is so critical.

The previous Labor government commissioned the Bringing them home report. The Labor Party prided itself in being at the forefront of the reconciliation process and promoting policies that would go some way to making amends for past wrongs. The failure of the government to accept its responsibilities in this matter now threatens the whole reconciliation process. Worse still, it reflects attitudes that suggest that past lessons have not been learned. As a consequence, both the integrity and the likely success of contemporary policies are called into question. It is true that moving forward together as a nation requires an honest and open approach to our shared history. Any honest and accurate history of relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians reveals facts of events, of attitudes, of actions and of policies that should be the cause of shared regret. It should be the cause of shared sorrow in our community. It should see a common purpose that such things are not perpetuated and are not repeated. That same history, with its consistent thread of dispossession, destruction of indigenous culture and heritage and the deliberate fracture of indigenous families should inform and illuminate our understanding of present-day despair and present-day social dysfunction in indigenous communities.

You cannot frame better policies if you fail to address the underlying problems—the underlying failures and prejudices—of past policies. It is an abrogation of principle to say that we cannot or should not evaluate past policies or actions according to contemporary values and contemporary attitudes. The fact is that virtually every evil of public policy and administrative action directed towards indigenous Australians was the subject of informed and widespread contemporary criticism. There was the Roth commission in Western Australia. In 1905 that provided one of the first systematic critiques. That was followed by, amongst others, the Finnerty report of 1908 and the Moseley report in 1935. The cautionary point for every member of the Australian parliament today—every legislator here—is that all the aspects of past policies for which we now express regret were framed in the context of the contemporary debate that did show it was criticised at the time. Perhaps those legislators were content to march forward safely with majority public opinion rather than to accept informed but perhaps less popular advice.

It is broadly accepted that the practice of removing indigenous children from their families continued into recent times. You cannot say we judge past practices by contemporary standards, as Senator Herron has, because contemporary Australians are still suffering from quite recent policies. We are having to frame policies today to assist those people. For many people this issue can be dealt with only by consigning mistakes to some ill-defined past. Those people try to forget it or to rationalise it, and that is what Senator Herron's very ill-judged submission attempts to do.

In 1949, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II of that convention sets out to define genocide when it says in part:

It goes on to specify

Public policy across this nation proceeded in either ignorance or defiance of that convention for the best part of a generation after its ratification. It is equally dangerous for policy makers to comfort themselves with the myth that, even when a policy was not done for the good of separated children, the net effect itself was good.

If we go beyond anecdotes to scientific research on this question, the myth is quickly disposed of. Recent studies show that a comparison of educational attainment, income level and employment status between indigenous Australians separated from their families and those who were not demonstrates consistently better outcomes for those who stayed with their families. Sadly, the statistics go in the other direction when we look at negative outcomes. One of the findings of the inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody—a finding that was a key motivation for the stolen generation report—was that those who had been separated from their families were overrepresented amongst the deaths in custody.

It is not surprising that individuals who have been denied parental and family love and support and education in their first language, and who have been separated from their own culture, would suffer social and psychological problems in later life. In fact, many of them also suffered systematic physical, mental and sexual abuse. That fact was a dominant influence in their personal development and had a massive effect on their ability to form relationships and their capacity to function in a society that was at best indifferent to them and so often actually hostile to them. Those who cannot bring themselves to apologise for past wrongs should at least be able to express sorrow for and empathy with such a widely documented personal and family tragedy and should not embark on just a demolition job of the stolen generation, which is what Senator Herron and his ilk have done.

Policy makers who fear history, Senator Herron—who are unable to honestly evaluate what went wrong and why it went wrong—are the sorts that are doomed to repeat history. I have heard some say that expenditure measures that the current government has made are better and more useful than any apology, but I beg to differ. Whilst any clawback of the massive cuts that this particular government—the Howard government—has made to programs to indigenous Australians is welcome, it is a mistake to identify the problems of indigenous communities as being primarily or exclusively caused by poverty.

Policies that fail to appreciate and address the personal and social dysfunction that has flowed from past and present injustices are policies that will not succeed. Just as policymakers of other generations were wrong in their paternalistic conviction that things needed to be done to or for indigenous Australians for their own good, so we will fail today if our policies are ill informed and enacted for, rather than with, indigenous Australians. It is in the interests of reconciliation, of a mature national identity and sound public policy that members of the government open their eyes and their ears—and, if they can, even their hearts—on this particular issue. The Prime Minister must act for all Australians, from the office of Prime Minister, and apologise as Australia's Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has of late offered all of us his personal opinions and views. It is clear he is trying to distinguish his personal views from his views as Prime Minister, as the elected leader of this country. In making that distinction, he is making the point that the office of Prime Minister is not his as an individual, but to a certain extent it is his in trust. He holds that office of Prime Minister in trust as the nation's leader. It is in his capacity as Prime Minister, and not in his capacity as an individual, that he must apologise. It is the office of Prime Minister that must apologise for the grievous wrongs that previous Australian governments have wrought on the indigenous people of Australia, and he has proven time and time again as Prime Minister that he simply cannot say `sorry' to indigenous Australians on behalf of the government.

We have Senator Herron's recent submission, and that has just attacked relentlessly the whole concept of a stolen generation. According to that submission, the stolen generation is, on page 2, `a simplistic concept'; on page 4 it is `simplistic terminology'; on page 4 again, it is `so-called'; on page 5 it is `a falsely constructed past'; and on page 18 it is `rhetorical'—among many other attempts at semantic diminishment or elimination. The submission canvasses past practices of assimilation as `benign in intent' but, at the same time, points the finger squarely at state governments and churches, all of whom have taken the Bringing them home report on board, and all of whom have apologised to Aborigines for these allegedly benign past practices. Senator Herron's own submission is not benign; it is poisonous. And it sets out to justify why the Howard government will not properly address this massive past wrong, the effects of which thousands of our fellow Australians are suffering to this day, as we speak in this chamber. And of course it sets out to attack the critics of the government. It squarely attacks the methodology of the Human Rights Commission. I heard Sir Ronald Wilson talking on Radio National today. He said:

In other words, the only fly in the ointment in the stolen generation inquiry's thoroughness was Mr Howard's government. For no good reason, out of the blue, these words are presented by Senator Herron to a Senate committee, and they have reopened old wounds. They have greatly distressed members of the stolen generation. There is no sympathy in Senator Herron's words. There is no empathy in Senator Herron's words; there is a void filled with semantics and statistics. It is an attempt to define the concept of a generation in some sort of Herronesque, amateur legalese—and it doesn't wash. The report tries to spread the legal blame to the states and the churches. It is in itself an apology for the policies of assimilation.

The submission has become a rallying cry for the racist cheer squad, including the racist cheer squad within government, like the member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch, whom I quoted in question time today. He was at his worst on ABC Radio today when he was asked whether some of his constituents in the electorate of Leichhardt—an electorate with thousands of Aboriginal people—would have been stolen. Do you know what he said? `No'.

Senator Herron —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask Senator Faulkner to retract his statement where he called Mr Entsch a racist. I think that is unacceptable for a member of another chamber, and it is not acceptable in this parliament. I ask him to withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Faulkner, I suggest that the association of your words do seem to suggest and imply that about Mr Entsch and I would ask you to withdraw it.

Senator FAULKNER —If I have said something that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. But the point is: the apologists for these past practices are out there drumming up support on radio. So you have to ask: why does Australia's minister for Aboriginal affairs do this? Why do you do it, Senator Herron? Don't you care just a little about your own legacy and the legacy of this government? You do not understand why there is such outrage, do you? Can you understand why someone who understands as much about government process as Bill Jonas does says that reconciliation is dead? I have no doubt, Senator Herron, that you did not write this report. We know that you did not write this report. I know that you claim ownership of the report, but I have absolutely no doubt that you had very little, if anything, to do with it. I doubt very much whether you even bothered to read it.

Senator Herron —You know so little. How many Aboriginal people do you know?

Senator FAULKNER —Anyone who claims to have spoken to as many Aboriginal people as you do would know how divisive, upsetting and outrageous the document is that you have provided to the Senate committee. A competent minister for Aboriginal affairs would not have signed off on the report. In fact, a competent minister for Aboriginal affairs would have put the submission right through the shredder and would have asked for more empathy from the Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and a more appropriate response. You stand condemned because you did not. You have been exposed. You are a fraud and a disgrace as the Aboriginal affairs minister. You ought to get out and resign. (Time expired)

Senator Herron —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask Senator Faulkner to withdraw the statement that I am a fraud. I do not mind any other comments he makes, but I am not a fraud and I would ask him to withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID-ENT —Senator Faulkner, I would ask you to withdraw the statement that Senator Herron is a fraud.

Senator Faulkner —If that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.