Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - I, too, want to recognise the Tasmanian Aboriginal people who are here today. I also want, at the outset, to commend the Government for bringing this bill forward. I, like every other member in this House, have looked at that bill very closely over the past few weeks and I find it to be a very good strong bill, a bill which will help us move on towards reconciliation. Very clearly, having said that, I will be supporting the bill.

The colonial era of European expansion shaped today's world to a large extent and in the process created, in places, legacies of discord that continue today . The world we live in cannot be unmade. However, thinking in the Western democracies has evolved so that, by and large, almost every citizen who lives in our kind of society would agree that the concepts of fairness and due process should be at the very heart of redressing wrongs that provably were done to another citizen.

We live in the world we inherited. We can, and do, refine the laws that govern us. Indeed, Mr President, our intent as legislators can be characterised as a continuous assessment of what I might call the 'fairness factor' of every bill put before us. Time and again we ask: is the proposition fair and reasonable? Where a process is proposed, as indeed one is within the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Bill 2006, the question becomes: is that process a commonsense solution, is it reasonable and is it fair?

Unfortunately where a grievance is old and involves a small minority, as is the case with the stolen generations throughout Australia, there will always be a substantial proportion of society that would prefer to defer any resolution and some will adamantly oppose the very idea that a resolution needs to be discussed at all. I dare say that, put to the test, every critic and opponent would tick the box for a favourable, rapid resolution on any matter where they thought they themselves had been wronged and where they had a provable case for compensation. Justice delayed is justice denied, would be their catchcry, and yes, society is far from perfect when it comes to issues of justice.

The long delay in compensating the victims suffering from asbestosis is a case in point; the years David Hicks has spent jailed in Guantanamo Bay without being brought to trial and the often lengthy and tortuous prosecutions of those charged with white-collar crime are all instances that create cynicism among citizens about our system of justice. Nevertheless, society's goal remains to have a justice system that is just and that change does occur with time. For instance, laws once written to favour property owners over tenants and to favour men over women have been replaced by more equitable principles. In my lifetime execution by hanging was struck off the statute books and the uncompromising rigid opposition that denied women equal pay for equal work was done away with. In the words of the psalm, Mr President, 'there is a time for every purpose under Heaven'. If we are ever to settle the question of the wrongs done to children removed from their families that time is now. I would support the Premier's words that we should do so because it happens to be the right thing to do. I will stand to be corrected but very simple principles apply when there are legal considerations in a claim for compensation. First, is a wrong identified? If so, then an assessment of harm done follows as a consequence and finally compensation is awarded.

Was wrong done? So far as I am aware, since the 1997 publication of Bringing Them Home, otherwise known as the national report on the stolen generations, no critic of that report has argued convincingly against the report's central contention that the State played a role in the forced removal of some Aboriginal children from their families. The State played a role in the forced removal of children. It bears repeating because without this contention there would be no need for this bill at all. Moreover, because the bill itself was introduced by the honourable Premier of the Government, the State, at least here in Tasmania, has admitted that a wrong was done.

The State played a role in the forced removal of some Aboriginal children and a wrong was done. This bill in a nutshell encompasses all three of the principles I spoke of earlier. The wrong is admitted and the bill then proposes a mechanism and a process for resolution, including the method of compensation and it sets aside funds for that purpose. That was clearly articulated by the Leader in his opening speech in relation to this bill.
I congratulate the Government on its powers of negotiation. From comment in the media, it seems that they have reached amicable agreement with spokespersons for the Aboriginal community about the compensation package. However, I do wonder if every claimant who comes forward will accept the amount of compensation they might be offered without further grievance. Indeed, I foresee that some might complain because after assessment their claims might be rejected. I hope that does not occur because it would wither the goodwill so assiduously constructed in the wider community and dash the hopes that this step to compensate the stolen generations here in Tasmania might inject new light into the broader issue of reconciliation.

I have indicated my general support for this bill because I believe that we cannot aspire to have a just society if wrong is done to a group of citizens who are identified and then redress is denied. It follows that if a wrong was done and the State admits that was so then there should be resolution and as rapidly as possible. We are talking about incidents in people's lives that took place many years ago. It remains only to ask if the process proposed by the Government is fair and reasonable. On my understanding of what has been said in the media, representatives of the Aboriginal people are fully in accord with the content of this bill. They have voiced no dissatisfaction that I am aware of about the assessment process, the time in which that is to occur or the details of the compensation package.

I have spoken to a number of the Aboriginal community in my area of Launceston and there has been great support of the bill and the way in which the Government now wishes to move forward. They were very strong in their position that they believe that this will assist tremendously in reconciliation and setting a better direction for the future. Nevertheless, I would appreciate assurances from the Government that my understanding is correct and that there are no outstanding areas of friction between the Government and those with whom they have been negotiating. As I said, I am not aware of any issues that are still outstanding that have not been settled, as it were. Otherwise my own view is that the bill is a reasonable, commonsense document and I would hope that if we are to pass it then it would be better if our vote today in this Chamber was unanimous so that the community would be aware that the members of this House were of one mind in bringing closure to this sad chapter in our State's history.

In conclusion, Mr President, I want to refer to a media release that was made recently in a number of the media, and the heading was 'The greatest historical stuff-ups'. It was in the Mercury and the Examiner and if you go through that list we have at the top, at number 1, loss of life in World War I; number 2 on the list is the stolen generation. Then it goes from there to the introduction of cane toads and it goes on down the list. It was number 2 on a list of 13. So that is the significance of this issue, Mr President.

As I said, I certainly support the bill and I repeat that it is a good bill, in my view. I believe that this will be a tremendous step in reconciliation and again I applaud the government people who were involved in the construction of this bill.