What they said ... `Indigenous people told the inquiry that an apology would make an enormous difference to their ability to overcome the traumas they have suffered and they would then feel their pain was recognised and regretted' ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Dodson
`The Government does not support an official, national apology. [It] could imply that present generations are in some way responsible for the actions of earlier generations, actions that were ... believed to be in the best interests of the children concerned' Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr John Herron
On Wednesday, January 7, 1998, the Canadian Government offered a formal apology to Canada's native leaders for abuses against their people. The Canadian Government apologised specifically for the treatment received by aboriginal children placed in so-called `boarding schools' and thus separated from their culture and their families.
The Canadian Government's apology has rekindled the debate as to whether the Australian Government should also apologise to Aboriginal people for the treatment received by the so-called `stolen generation'. These were Aboriginal children, usually of mixed racial origins, who were often forcibly removed from their families.
The Australian Government has previously refused to offer such an apology and has claimed that the behaviour of the Canadian Government can not shape its handling of Aboriginal affairs.
Background
From the late 1800s through to the 1960s Australian governments developed a policy of having part-Aboriginal infants and children removed from their mothers and extended families. These children were then placed in institutions (often run by one or other religious denomination ) or fostered into white families.
This was part of a policy of assimilation which effectively promoted the absorption of Aboriginal people into the mainstream Australian culture and their disappearance as a distinct cultural or racial group.
In May, 1997, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, released a report titled, `Bringing Them Home'. The report detailed the consequences of forcibly removing part-Aboriginal children from their families.
Children thus treated have come to be called `the stolen generation' or `the stolen generations'. In actuality the period of time during which the policy was in operation meant that sometimes as many as three generations of a family were disrupted by it.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report recommended, among other things, that the Australian Government offer an official apology to those effected by this policy. In December, 1997, the Government formally declined to do so.
At the same time the Government pledged an additional $53 million to help address some of the problems highlighted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. The money is to be spent, in part, establishing a national network of family link-up services; employing 50 new councilors to help those going through reunion; and expanding the network of regional centres for emotional and social wellbeing.
The Government's response formally rejected compensation for children forcibly removed from their families.
Interestingly, the amount of money pledged by the Canadian Government in January, 1998, was much greater, including a $350 million package to form a `healing fund' to assist those placed in aboriginal boarding schools.
Also interesting is the fact that the Canadian Government's apology and fund were rejected as inadequate by most indigenous Canadian peoples leaders.
There are a number of relevant documents dealing with this issue available on the Internet
These include the full text of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's report, Bringing them Home. This report is a strong criticism of the policy of forced assimilation. It is advisable to start from the report's index on the Net. Each section listed in the index can be clicked through to from the index page.
Also of interest is a brief AAP report indicating that at least one poll result shows that a majority of Australians support the Government's decision not to apology to the `stolen generation' of Aboriginal children. This is titled, ` PM's stance on stolen generation finds support says poll'. It can be found at http://www.aap.com.au/news/3512.html
Finally, with reference to the Canadian situation, there are detailed notes from the Address by The Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development re Gathering Strength - Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan.
This explains very fully the policy which the Canadian Government announced on January 7, 1998. It includes the text of the apology that was made regarding the government sanctioned aboriginal boarding schools.
Arguments opposing a official government apology to the `stolen generation'
One of the primary arguments offered against the Australian Government making a formal apology to those affected by forced assimilation policies is that the current Government had no involvement in such policies and so has nothing for which to apologise.
According to this line of argument, wrongs committed in the past are the moral responsibility of those who perpetrated them. Thus, even if possible past mistreatment of Aboriginal people has continuing consequences for those people and their descendants, Government representatives and others not responsible for such injuries should not apologise for them.
Those who hold this view also tend to argue that past mistreatment of one group by another should be regarded as past, except where those directly involved can be called upon to make amends in some way.
According to this line of argument so many groups have been mistreated by others at one point or another in their histories, that to call for apologies becomes an absurdity.
Keith Dunstan, writing in The Age, has made this point by ironically suggesting, `The Scandinavians, and the Danes in particular, could offer juicy and meaningful apologies for the raping and pillaging they conducted in Britain from the 8th to the 11th centuries ... The Spaniards and the Portuguese could apologise for what they did to South America ...'
It is also argued that an apology is not appropriate as governments, churches and others which conducted forced assimilation did not do so with any intention of causing harm to those children they took from their parents.
According to this line of argument, it was believed at the time that part aboriginal children would have better lives if they were taken from their Aboriginal parents and placed with white Australians or in institutions.
Thus, it has been claimed, those responsible for devising and administering Australia's past policy of assimilation believed they were acting in the best interests of the children concerned.
This view has been put by the deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer.
Mr Fischer has stated, `a lot of the steps taken by the churches ...were ... what they believe[d] was in the best interests of Aboriginal children at that time.'
It is also the position which has been explained by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr John Herron. Mr Herron has claimed, `The Government does not support an official, national apology. Such an apology could imply that present generations are in some way responsible for the actions of earlier generations, actions that were sanctioned by the laws of the time and that were believed to be in the best interests of the children concerned.'
Professor Geoffrey Blainey, has attempted to explain why some people with worthy motives may have supported forced assimilation.
Professor Blainey has noted, `Many [Aboriginal children] would have died if they had not been separated, because infant mortality was very high, and is still high in outback Aboriginal settlements.'
Further, there are those who argue that if an apology were offered that was not supported by a real political commitment to improve the position of Aboriginal Australians, then it would be a hollow gesture.
This position has been put by Duncan Campbell, a current affairs commentator for The Australian, who has observed, `No matter how much desired, an Australian apology offered without adequate policy and political back-up runs the risk of being not just a symbol but an empty one.'
According to this line of argument, an apology which was just a matter of words and was not supported by policy commitments that would benefit Aboriginal people would damage the cause of reconciliation.
Mr John Ivy, an administrator for the Dogrib nation, a Canadian indigenous tribe, has claimed that more than an apology is needed. `Our people need more than that. We need programs. We need self-government and economic self-sufficiency. We need recognised ownership of our land.'
Duncan Campbell has stated, `The political atmosphere for reconciliation will be prejudiced anew and the net result could possibly become a national minus.'
Finally, there are those who argue that a government apology would only be a genuine step toward reconciliation if such an apology, once offered, were likely to be whole-heartedly accepted.
There are those who argue that this is not the case, and that demands for a government apology are merely a tactical manoeuvre to make the Australian government appear insensitive in its handling of Aboriginal issues.
According to this point of view, some Aboriginal spokespeople, seeking a government apology for the treatment of the `stolen generation', may simply wish to see those they regard as their antagonists `eat humble pie'.
This position has been put by Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who has argued that demanding an apology for past mistreatment has become a partisan game, with the group seeking the apology trying to `give the triumphant impression that they stand alone on the high moral ground'.
Arguments supporting an official government apology to the `stolen generation'
One of the main arguments offered in favour of a Government apology for Australia's past policy of forced assimilation is that it is not appropriate to claim that those who were responsible for this policy were simply acting from `good', if misguided, motives.
Robert Manne, associate professor of politics at La trobe University, has argued that many policy makers were acting from a position of racial discrimination and saw the very existence of Aboriginal people and particularly `half-castes' as a problem.
Robert Manne quotes the Perth Times in 1927, which stated, ` Central Australia's half-caste problem ... must be tackled boldly and immediately. The greatest danger, experts agree, is that three races will develop in Australia - white, black and the pathetic, sinister, third race which is neither.'
Some critics of Australia's past policies of forced assimilation argue that it was not always motivated by a concern for the children involved, but by a desire to preserve so-called `racial purity' within Australia by, as Robert Manne puts it, `sever[ing] the cultural connection between the children of mixed descent and their Aboriginal families and communities.'
It has also been argued that, even at the time, there were numerous social critics who were prepared to highlight the inhumanity of the policy and that their criticisms were ignored.
One such critic, cited by Professor Marilyn Lake, was Mary Bennett, who, in the 1930s taught at the Mt Margaret Mission in Western Australia.
Mary Bennett stated, `... mothers with infants and individual children and sometimes whole families are mustered up like cattle ... They are captured at all ages, as infants in arms ... they are not safe until they are dead.'
One of the key administrators of the period has been reported as dismissing Mary Bennett as an `idealist'.
There are also those who argue, that no matter what was believed at the time, a formal Government apology is needed as a way of acknowledging that unwilling assimilation is wrong.
It is argued that whatever motivated it, the destruction of Aboriginal communities and the suffering caused by the forcible removal of children demonstrates that the policy was a mistake. An apology, it is claimed, would acknowledge this mistake.
Professor Martin Krygier has argued, `Public expression of shame ... is appropriate.'
According to this line of argument it is not possible to break with the errors of the past unless we acknowledge them and a public Government apology would be such an acknowledgement.
Professor Krygier has summed up this argument in the following manner, `We develop policies best when we learn the lessons of the past. Otherwise, mistakes and legacies of injustice will endure, unacknowledged and uncorrected.'
It has also been claimed that if such an apology is going to act as an effective national symbol of shame and regret for past errors, then the apology needs to come from those who have the capacity to represent the whole country.
According to this line of argument, it is not sufficient that the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, and the deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, have expressed their personal, individual regret for what happened.
Supporters of a formal Government apology claim that any apology can only function as a national symbol of sorrow and regret if it is made by those who can speak on behalf of the whole country, its people and institutions.
It is also claimed that such an apology is necessary as a way of establishing good will between black and white Australians.
According to this line of argument many Aboriginal Australians still bear the scars of the policy of forced assimilation, either because it disrupted their individual lives and personal identities or because it helped to destroy their broader communities and cultural traditions.
Thus, it is claimed, the consequences of forced assimilation can never be undone and are still being borne today. It is for this reason, some claim, an apology needs to be offered.
It is claimed that an expression of sorrow, regret and acceptance needs to be offered to Aboriginal people by Australia as a whole.
This argument has been put in The Age editorial of January 12, 1998. `We know that past policies, even where they were well-intentioned ... were wrong. Until that shame and that wrong is acknowledged at a national level there is no hope of reconciliation between black and white Australia.'
ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Dodson, has stressed the value that a Government apology would have for the Aboriginal people affected.
`Indigenous people told the inquiry that an apology would make an enormous difference to their ability to overcome the traumas they have suffered and they would then feel their pain was recognised and regretted.'
Further implications
It seems all but certain that the current federal Government will not offer an official apology on behalf of the Australian nation to Aboriginal people over the treatment received by those who have come to be called the `stolen generation'.
The Government has formally stated that such an apology will not be made and it also appears that no financial compensation related to this supposed mistreatment will be offered.
The distance between Aboriginal groups and the Australian Government on this issue has now reached the point where Evelyn Scott, the new head of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, has advised all Aboriginal leaders to abandon the campaign to secure an apology.
Ms Scott has claimed that any apology that had to be forced from the Government and was not offered in `a generous and genuine spirit' would be valueless.
Such a standoff appears to indicate that reconciliation, at least between Aboriginal people and the current Government, is far from achieved. When, later this year, the fate of the Government's ten point plan (designed to deal with the ramifications of the High Court's Wik decision) is further debated relations between the federal government and aboriginal people are likely to deteriorate further.
In the meantime, the Labor Opposition has indicated that it will offer an official apology should it assume office. All Australian states, including Victoria, have offered an official apology, as have a number of churches.
This has left the Government appearing fairly isolated on this issue.
However, in the final analysis, the manner in which the Wik issue is resolved and the effectiveness of the Government's policies to reduce the social, economic and medical disadvantage of Aboriginal people are going to be more significant than whether an apology has been offered.
Sources The Age
19/9/97 page 18 editorial, `Apologies well made'
1/12/97 page 15 comment by Robert Manne, `The solution that left a lasting sense of shame'
2/12/97 page 15 comment (Boyer Lecture text) by Prof Martin Krygier, `Learning from past incivility'
22/12/97 page 9 comment by Robert Manne, `Why past cruelties still plague the national conscience'
9/1/98 page 5 news item by Janine MacDonald, `Canadian apology puts heat on coalition'
12/1/98 page 10 editorial, `Time to say sorry'
17/1/98 page 9 comment by Prof. Marilyn Lake, `Lessons from the stolen children'
17/1/98 page 2 (News Extra section) comment by Keith Dunstan, `All adrift in a sea of sorry'
18/1/98 page 6 (Inside Story section) comment by Prof Geoffrey Blainey, `Giving the big A'
22/1/98 page 4 news item by Laura Tingle, `Labor vows apology to Aborigines'
The Australian
25/10/97 page 26 comment by Ramona Koval, `Value of shame'
17/12/97 page 1 news item by Georgina Windsor and Scott Emerson, `$63m for stolen generation but blacks slam refusal to apologise'
17/12/97 page 1 news item by Andrew McGarry, `Cruel memories foster mother's love'
17/12/97 page 2 analysis by Georgina Windsor, `Dodging the $63m question'
17/12/97 page 2 news item by Georgina Windsor, `Widespread condemnation for "beads and blankets" approach'
17/12/97 page 12 editorial, `Black trauma demands full apology'
9/1/98 page 1 news item by Georgina Windsor and Robert Lusetich, `Canada's apology isolates Howard'
9/1/98 page 15 comment by Duncan Campbell, `Reconciliation needs more than a gesture'
10/1/98 page 5 news item by Fiona Kennedy and Georgina Windsor, `Canada's apology "what we hoped for"'
10/1/98 page 11 news item, `White Canada not sorry enough'
10/1/98 page 11 analysis by Cameron Forbes, `Native title: The secret world war'
15/1/98 page 9 comment by Frank Devine, `Derisory offerings deserve only contempt'
The Herald Sun
25/9/97 page 21 news item by Cheryl Critchley, `Tears greet apology'
4/1/98 page 37 comment by Michael Barnard, `Rights for all in the sorry state'
13/1/98 page 19 comment by Ron Burton, `Making sense of apologies'
Back to previous page
