Right: Australians watch Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deliver his "sorry" speech in 2008. Will the PM's swift refusal to change the Australia Day date lead to a widening of the gulf between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians? Further implications
It is interesting to note that Professor Dodson did not propose a change of date for Australia Day. Though clearly opposed to the current date, the Professor actually called for a debate on the issue. Thus, when the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, indicated that the date would not be changed, what he was forestalling was any debate on the question.It seems likely that Kevin Rudd is seeking to avoid a debate which has the potential to be divisive and which he appears to believe is unnecessary. This seems to mark a decisive change in approach from that which the Prime Minister displayed earlier in his period of office. The Rudd Government began its term with a 2020 Summit which deliberately sought a wide range of community opinions on a variety of issues. The Government also seemed to consider symbolism important, as could be seen in its decision to offer a formal apology to those Australians who were taken from their families as children. As these men and women are not to be offered any form of compensation, the value of the apology would appear to be exclusively symbolic. As such it was seen as a major step toward achieving reconciliation between Australians of Aboriginal and those of British and European descent.
It is therefore worth asking why the Rudd Government appears to have changed its general position on such questions to the point where it is not only not prepared to accept the suggested date change for Australia Day, it is not even prepared to discuss the question.
The Prime Minister was careful to decline politely, as he himself noted, he gave a 'respectful "no"'. However, the speed with which he gave it and his refusal even to debate the matter is unlikely to be seen by Aboriginal Australians as betokening respect.
It seems possible that with a Government heavily preoccupied in trying to steer the Australian economy clear of recession, symbolic issues are now seen as of less consequence and may have the capacity to divert public attention from more pressing issues.
It may also be that the Government believes, as do many critics of Professor Dodson's proposal, that a debate on Australia Day would be seen as vexatious by many white Australians and could even led to the development of more negative attitudes toward Aboriginal Australians.
It is to be hoped that Kevin Rudd's prompt 'no' has not forfeited some of the goodwill that his earlier 'sorry' had created among Aboriginal Australians.