Saying Sorry

On Wednesday the 13^th of February, 2008, the Prime Minister of Australia got up in parliament and said sorry to the Stolen Generation, indigenous Australians that were forcibly removed from their families and communities because they were children indigenous Australians (of which one or both were parents), taken and placed in foster care, where, in some cases, they were subject to physical, sexual and mental abuse. This policy, borne in a time of the ideas of eugenics and master races, was only ended in the latter half of the 20^th Century, when thousands of lives had been affected and people across the nation have been touched by these actions, a new dawn has arisen in the step towards a complete reconciliation between mainstream and indigenous Australia. For the two centuries of Australia’s settlement by Europeans, this relationship has been not one of equals.

Thus, the act of an unconditional apology has far reaching impact and consequences. Above all, the expression of a genuine regret and sorrow, contrition, and repentance for the actions of the past has shown its immense power. Not only does it acknowledge the damage and hurt caused, it allows the process of moving forward, a process of healing that may have been stalled or never started to begin or continue. The scenes of people in the Gallery of the House of Representatives hugging each other, crying, and of similar scenes on the Federation Lawn outside Parliament house are indicators of the depth of such an act. The resultant feedback has been very positive, whether it is from children at school, or older people that lived through the years of this policy. Years of anger, resentment and campaigning washed away as the nation was united in self reflection.

Two examples spring to mind, both from talkback radio. The first was from a teacher at a primary school that had organised for their children to watch to apology live. Afterwards, a child asked where this actually happened. When the teacher replied “Australia” the child burst into tears. The second was from a music producer that toured an indigenous band around Australia in the 1970s. When this band arrived at Melbourne they asked for a white band manager. When asked why, they said that they wouldn’t get a hotel room without one. From two aspects, we can reflect on the power of what occurred.

However, it was indicative that not all agree with what actually occurred that morning. This was made clear in the response from the Leader of the Opposition, and it shows how divisive this issue has been within Australia itself. While most of his reply was in the same mould as the Prime Minister, parts of it contained qualifications and reasoning behind the policy itself. Furthermore, the speech served to highlight the current problems that still affect indigenous Australia, and the current intervention itself. There are problems with the response that resonated through the audience.

The first is the qualification of the agreement to the apology. Consider which is more powerful from your friend: an apology, or an apology that comes with a “but” attached to it. Qualifying or reasoning why you were wrong by attempting to justify your actions does not display the same amount of contrition. The same goes for those that were providing excuses for apologising – “Governments should not be responsible for the actions of previous administrations” and “By providing an apology we leave ourselves to the prospect of compensation claims” – these are, in this author’s opinion, words by which people hide behind their own self-centred beliefs of their own correctness in the matter, using words that could be considered in the same mould as war criminals hiding behind the excuse that they were following orders.

The second is whether or not providing the gruesome details of the current intervention actually provided any benefit to the healing process. Describing in detail the number of acts and then attempting to associate them with the process of intervention added to the image of how much more work needed to be done to solve the myriad of problems that still afflicts indigenous Australia, yet was it necessary to remind Australia of this? The fact that this section was concluded by a request that the current intervention plan be continued made it clear that this message was more political than anything else.

Beyond the recognition of the amount of work that was still needed to facilitate reconciliation was the question of compensation and reparations. This question has been raised by various quarters of the community. The problem is the type of compensation that should be provided. Direct compensation for individuals in a monetary form would be frowned upon. While a magnanimous gesture, would it actually provide long term improvements in their lives? It probably would, but a more structured approach would be to ensure that they can provide for themselves and give them medical benefits to cater for their needs (whether it be physical or mental), proper comfortable housing, a good job, along with bigger initiatives and policies that address these long standing problems. What was definitely highlighted was that proactive policies address the raft of statistical gaps between mainstream and indigenous Australia. The inability of the state and successive governments to deal with these issues in a method that didn’t require forceful intervention is not only indicative of the ignorance of the depth of these problems, but also a complicit systemic and premeditated policy of denial. States, governments, societies and communities are all associates and participants in this, whether by active choice or blind ignorance.

These issues of the plight of minorities and oppressed groups should remain a discussion point until the problems are solved. The apology was the first step towards the proper reconciliation, as an acceptance of the past wrongs is the beginning of a way to move on. A form of compensation that addresses the problems that plagues our indigenous populations will be worth more than individual repayments to undoing the past damages. In that, the future will represent the benefactors. No amount of money can heal the past, or bring back the lost years, and no amount of money can account for the damage, but with proper policies, the descendents can benefit and gain the justice so long deserved.