• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The significance of saying sorry

by Simon Longstaff

While the recent apology to Indigenous Australians was warmly endorsed by a large majority of Australians, a few remained implacably opposed to Mr Rudd’s early move to help right an historic wrong, writes Simon Longstaff.

Typically, opposition was couched in a couple of distinctive arguments. First, that the removal of children from their families was in many cases well-intentioned and most importantly, judged to be right at the time. Second, that the current generation should not be held responsible for the policies and practices of the past.

Such arguments deserve to be answered. However, before doing so, it is important to identify the particular wrong that was done to Indigenous people as this will show why an apology was essential – achieving something that was always beyond the reach of ‘practical reconciliation’. So, let us begin with the Stolen Generations – whose story symbolised and in many cases exemplified the particular wrong for which an apology was due.

In the past (as in the present) there have been times when the safety and welfare of a child can only be assured by removing the child from their family. To do so is a terrible thing. However, there are times when such things must be done – the lesser of two evils. There were times when Indigenous children were objectively at risk of harm from their own parents – either as a result of abuse or neglect. In such circumstances, the removal of a child from their family would have been justified – as it is today. However, many of the children removed from Indigenous communities were taken from loving families who cared for them. The reason for their removal had nothing to do with their health or safety – but instead was simply due to their ‘race’.

Government officials, like Western Australia’s former Chief Protector of Aborigines, AO Neville, considered that Australia would be better placed if the Aboriginal people were to assimilate – completely through the process of ‘biological absorption’ – with their way of life, their distinctive languages and culture, disappearing under a wave of European progress. As he said in his evidence to the Moseley Royal Commission of 1934:

 ... they have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon’s knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patient’s will.

That is, people acting on behalf of the governments of the day contemplated and then engineered the possibility that the Indigenous people of Australia might cease to exist as a distinct element of humanity. In effect, the judgement was made that the quality of humanity of Indigenous people was of a lesser kind than that of their enlightened dispossessors. Thus, perfectly healthy and happy children were removed from families. Often born of mixed parentage, the assumption was made that nothing could be worse than growing up in the midst of a race doomed to absorption and extinction.

It is against this background that the idea of an apology must be set. The thing about an apology is that the mere act of saying sorry – sincerely – reverses the deep wrong done in rejecting the intrinsic worth and dignity of Indigenous Australians. This follows from the fact that you cannot apologise to just anything. It only makes sense to say sorry to a being capable of bearing the apology and of responding accordingly. For example, every apology invites a possible response of forgiveness. Yet, only a person can forgive another. Thus, in the act of offering an apology and perhaps, in accepting forgiveness, there occurs a mutual recognition of the fundamental and equal human dignity of all those involved.

The provision of water, health, housing, education and a whole host of material benefits to Indigenous people are all important things to do – not as ways of righting wrongs but as due to our fellow citizens. However, it should now be clear that for all the good that practical reconciliation might have done, it would never have repaired the harm inherent in that most fundamental wrong of all.

Finally, the fundamental wrong was done by our governments – in the name of the Crown, which has endured, unchanged in constitutional form, for all of the period leading up to the apology. To the extent that the Prime Minister offered an apology on behalf of the Government and Parliament – he was, in fact, speaking both for past and present. As to the issue of the current generation taking on the burdens of the past – we gladly accept the benefits and honour the memory of those who acted well. If we are prepared to accept the fruits of the past when they are good, so we should accept a fair measure of responsibility when they are ill.

discuss this article

---