Stolen Generations Reparation Tribunal Bill
08/06/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:55): I rise today to support the Hon. Ms Frank’s Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill. South Australia does, indeed, have a shameful history when we consider the treatment of Aboriginal people. I am personally of the belief that compensation and equality for our Aboriginal people and the horrors they have suffered are more than just a target or a goal that we, as a society, should share—it is, in fact, a long-overdue debt. The shame that we feel in terms of our treatment of Aboriginal people can be traced back to the 1840s, when the then governor proclaimed ‘An ordinance for the protection, maintenance and upbringing of orphans and other destitute children of the aborigines.’
What is shameful about this, you may ask; surely, if a child is destitute or orphaned the child should be protected? This ordinance was not only about protection; it facilitated the development of the colony through child labour, allowing Aboriginal children of suitable age to be bound by indenture as an apprentice until the age of 21. While the apprenticing of children required the consent of parents, it is certain that Aboriginal parents were at a clear disadvantage in the new Eurocentric world.
At around the same time, boarding schools were set up for Aboriginal children and, while it seemed that parents did have a choice of whether to send them to school, it appears that many parents had no real choice in fact, with the authorities bribing them with blankets and food. I use the term ‘bribe’, as the original people’s traditional means of survival were shattered with the invasion. They were not in a true bargaining position and were, no doubt, desperate to properly care for their children and families, so they were effectively bribed.
During these early days, it is clear that government policy was one of forced separation in the sense that many parents had no choice. If the government had cared about the welfare of Aboriginal people, it would have provided basics to the children’s parents with no strings attached so those who were dispossessed of their land and way of life could have survived without having to choose between the children living a white life or dying a black life.
In 1911, our parliament passed the Aborigines Act, which provided that the protector was to be the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child and half-caste until the age of 21, regardless of whether the child had parents or not. The act provided broad powers to the protector, who was able to remove children from their families. I am certain that some would say, ‘Well, the act was well intentioned. If we knew then what we know now, it simply would not have happened.’ But I draw the attention of honourable members to the words of the Hon. J. Warren, who spoke of his concern for the future of the Aboriginal population, suggesting that child removal would deter women from bearing children. Mr Warren suggested that it would be preferable for the protector to travel the countryside and talk to ‘blacks’ about what they needed.
Aboriginal people also opposed the Aborigines Act, writing letters to the protector protesting the bill. However, the Aboriginal people’s protests fell on deaf ears. Others may say, ‘Well, they had the best interests of the children at heart’, but one need only consider the Protector’s comments that there was too much charity and not enough industry when it came to Aboriginal people. Then came the Aborigines Training of Children Act 1923, which empowered the protector to institutionalise Aboriginal children over the age of 14 and all those deemed neglected. I am saddened to say that the government of the day suggested that assuming neglect as opposed to proving it was in the best interests of children.
This legislation met with vocal opposition from Aboriginal people like Sarah Karpany, whose granddaughter was stolen, although her family lived well, and her two sons had fought in the war. Enlightened media outlets of the day, such as The Adelaide Sun and Daylight magazine noted the unfairness of such laws and denounced the removal policies as akin to the farming of Aboriginal children. It seemed that the public outcry worked, for the protector virtually suspended the operation of the act, or at least his duties under the act.
In the mid 1930s the government consolidated the Aborigines Act 1911 and the Aborigines (Training of Children) Act 1923, and the protector proceeded to remove Aboriginal children who he considered to be neglected. From the mid 1940s, in line with the state’s assimilation policies, Aboriginal children were placed in institutions alongside non Aboriginal children, resulting in further cultural and emotional alienation for the children. However, it was not until 1962 that assimilation was entrenched in our legislation via the Aboriginal Affairs Act, which held that Aboriginal children came under the same child protection legislation as non Aboriginal children. Despite this, Aboriginal children continued to be removed for neglect at the same rate.
So what effect did these policies have on those who were stolen? How can we really fathom how it felt to be torn from your mother’s arms, let alone put it into words? Honourable members have already heard the harrowing experiences quoted in the ‘Bringing them home’ report as raised by the Hon. Ms Franks. The 1991 Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody found that nearly half of the 99 deceased persons had been removed from their families as children and identified links between child welfare practices and the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people in our prisons.
I know that the former prime minister has said sorry, on behalf of the Australian people, for the pain, suffering and hurt of the Stolen Generations, but those who are affected by these polices deserve more than just lip service from us. Words, however powerful they may be in their intent, can fade considerably compared to our actions. I am not sure that any amount of money, counselling services, memorials or centres of culture and history can adequately compensate these people who were removed from their families. However, a Stolen Generations reparation tribunal, if instituted, is another step along the long road to reconciliation.
I therefore support the proposal to establish a Stolen Generations repartitions tribunal and, as such, I can see the benefit of referring this bill to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for further consideration. With those few remarks, I commend the Hon. Ms Franks on introducing this bill and hope that one day such a scheme becomes a reality.
