The Apology

[hongi]

Apology to stolen generations applauded

Indigenous men and women gave Australia's federal politicians a long, standing ovation after MPs formally apologised for the pain and suffering inflicted on the stolen generations.

There were emotional scenes across Australia as thousands of people, including some of those forcibly taken from their families, watched the historic, formal apology delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

In Canberra, hundreds packed into the House of Representatives as Mr Rudd moved a motion that the parliament apologise for the "laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss" on the stolen generations.

Some people in the public gallery, indigenous and non-indigenous, wept as Mr Rudd read out the 361-word apology, which was supported by the federal opposition.

At city squares and parks across Australia, and on the lawns outside parliament house in Canberra, people cheered, applauded, hugged and cried after the apology was delivered.

But some also jeered and turned their backs when Opposition Leader Dr Brendan Nelson spoke, at times emotionally, in support of the formal apology.

In his accompanying speech to parliament Mr Rudd said there came a time in history when people had to reconcile the past with their future.

"Our nation Australia has reached such a time and that is why the parliament is today here assembled," he said.

"To deal with this unfinished business of the nation.

"To remove a great stain from the nation's soul and in the true spirit of reconciliation to open a new chapter in the history of this great land Australia."

Mr Rudd told the story of an "elegant, eloquent and wonderful" elderly indigenous woman, a member of the stolen generations, who he visited a few days ago.

Mr Rudd said there was something "terribly primal" about such first hand accounts.

"The pain is searing, it screams from the pages, the hurt, the humiliation, the degradation and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children is a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity," he said.

The formal apology came more than a decade after the release of the Bringing Them Home report, which documented the stories of some of the tens of thousands of Aboriginal children taken from their families by governments between 1910 and the early 1970s.

"Instead, from the nation's parliament, there has been a stony and stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade," Mr Rudd said.

"A view that somehow we the parliament should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong, a view that instead we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon.

"The stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities, they are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments.

"As of today the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end."

The former Howard government, which lost last year's election, refused to issue a formal apology, claiming it would leave the commonwealth liable to a flood of compensation claims.

Some coalition MPs were obviously displeased with the apology and some were absent from the chamber as it was delivered.

One Liberal MP, Chris Pearce, read a magazine during the motion and the speeches, refusing to get to his feet for several standing ovations.

He stood begrudgingly only when MPs were asked to vote on the motion.

Outspoken West Australian Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey was present in the house for a prayer before the apology but left when Mr Rudd rose to his feet.

Mr Rudd said he knew the apology would not take away the pain the stolen generations had suffered.

He said he hoped today would not be just a moment of sentimental reflection, and invited the opposition to join the government in forming the equivalent of a war cabinet to tackle indigenous issues

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson accepted the invitation.

The prime minister said the joint policy commission would first develop and implement an effective housing strategy for remote communities during the next five years.

If that was successful the commission would then work on the constitutional recognition of first Australians.

While the formal apology said "sorry" three times, Mr Rudd's speech also offered personal apologies to the stolen generations.

"As prime minister of Australia, I am sorry," he said.

"On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry.

"On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry."

Mr Rudd's speech was greeted by a prolonged standing ovation from fellow Labor MPs, the opposition and those in the packed public galleries.

Dr Nelson then rose to speak "strongly" in support of the apology, saying the nation had today crossed a threshold.

"We formally offer an apology, we say sorry to those Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families through the first seven decades of the 20th century," Dr Nelson said.

"In doing so, we reach from within ourselves to our past, those whose lives connect us to it, and in deep understanding of its importance to our future."

Dr Nelson called on Australians to focus on the contemporary problems of their indigenous counterparts including lower life expectancy, alcohol abuse, corruption, nepotism, political buck passing, lack of home ownership, under-policing and tolerance by authorities of neglect and abuse of children.

Dr Nelson was clearly emotional as he re-told the stories of some members of the stolen generations.

But as Dr Nelson began speaking, some people in Parliament's Great Hall, outside the parliamentary chamber, turned their backs on the large screen on which the speech was being televised.

They began clapping and yelling "shame", and some started to walk out.

In Melbourne's Federation Square and on Perth esplanade, many jeered or turned their backs as Dr Nelson spoke.

Inside the parliamentary chamber, some were clearly agitated by Dr Nelson's speech, particularly when he mentioned the Howard government's Northern Territory intervention.

Nonetheless, he received a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech.

Mr Rudd and Dr Nelson leant across the dispatch boxes to shake hands.

Speaker Harry Jenkins invited MPs to rise in their places to signify their support for the apology, a move that also prompted sustained applause.

Mr Rudd, Dr Nelson and Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin then moved to greet guests, including Aboriginal leaders and members of the stolen generations, seated in the distinguished visitors' gallery on the floor of the chamber.

Applause again erupted as Mr Rudd embraced one indigenous elder as he and Dr Nelson made their way along the line of guests.

Mr Rudd and Dr Nelson received a gift of a coolamon - a wooden dish traditionally used by Aborigines to carry light objects and even young babies.

They then stood together on the government side of the parliamentary chamber before handing it on to Speaker Harry Jenkins.

"The stolen generation representatives here today have asked me to make this presentation on their behalf to you as the speaker of the parliament," Mr Rudd said.

"I gratefully receive this gift on behalf of the house," Mr Jenkins said.

"It will represent a very important point in the history of not only this chamber but our nation."

Former prime ministers Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were all present in the house for the apology.

John Howard was absent.

[Kanastrous]

If the Australian government follows this by cleaning up places like Emu Field and Marilinga, that would be something, too.

[mr friendly guy]

Suck it down Howard. Screw your legacy. Kevin Rudd already shows why he has more class than you.

Of course the right wing retards will make the usual bullshit statements.

1) I didn't do it, so why should I say sorry?

The sorry is mainly an indication of sorrow. If there is an admission of guilt it would be only on behalf of the Australian government, and not necessary the people.

Everyone who thinks this is a valid argument as opposed to a red herring, can kindly explain why expecting Japan to apologise to our POWs for actions in WWII, or Germany should apologise to holocaust victims, or why the present board of James Hardie compensating asbestos victims is wrong.

2) But we had good intentions.

So bloody what. Religious nutjobs down the ages have also had good intentions when they were harming their victims. When will people learn good intentions unequal to good actions.

3) But some Aboriginal children really needed to be taken, for their own good, and not because you know, they were black.

Prove it.

Currently we had one successful claimant who won money from the South Australian State Government from being wrongly taken from his parents, while he was admitted to hospital for gastroenteritis.

The apologists dipshits were only too happy to make this argument because he MAY have died if they didn't take him away from this presumably negligent mother, (never mind his siblings are still alive, and the original claim borders on being unfalsifiable any way). In any event his parents were judged to be crap because he developed a gastroenteritis. OMG, how many kids need to be seen and given fluids because of gastro. Do they think its some super rare complaint or something?

4) But what about those Aboriginal youths who robbed US ( presumably they mean white folks). And we want to apologise to them. (Variation of the argument seen in the West Australian letters to the editor)

Unless these aboriginal YOUTHs are the same as the members of the stolen generation (people with a grasp of simple arithmetic would be able to say its obviously not), they you have no case. This is just another red herring.

Funny enough people who use this argument are also happy to use argument one, never realising the blatant contradiction.

5) This will reinforce a victims (aka welfare) mentality (Tony Abbott argument)

Irrelevant.

The mentality of other Aborigines are irrelevant when considering whether the Stolen generation deserve an apology. The only thing to consider is was what the government did to them wrong. If the answer is yes, they get an apology.

[K. A. Pital]

WUT? Australian government abducted native children for 60 years strait and didn't think it was something out of order? I guess I'm a little uninformed about that bit of history.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

WUT? Australian government abducted native children for 60 years strait and didn't think it was something out of order? I guess I'm a little uninformed about that bit of history.

Australia was behind the times for a while when it comes to acknowledging the past... It's kind of a much milder form of the S. African Apartheid.

[thejester]

WUT? Australian government abducted native children for 60 years strait and didn't think it was something out of order? I guess I'm a little uninformed about that bit of history.

It was done under the auspices of protecting the children, and its that logic that most conservatives cling to.

[TithonusSyndrome]

WUT? Australian government abducted native children for 60 years strait and didn't think it was something out of order? I guess I'm a little uninformed about that bit of history.

Dude, unless I'm mistaken, you could acquire a license to hunt the aboriginal people of Australia as recently as the 1960's. Natives in Canada here should count their blessings the next time they feel like bleating about how bad they had it, what with their reserves and subsidies and what have you.

[mr friendly guy]

WUT? Australian government abducted native children for 60 years strait and didn't think it was something out of order? I guess I'm a little uninformed about that bit of history.

But, we had good intentions, really.

I remember watching a video about the stolen generation when we learnt about Aboriginal health. In it we heard straight from the horse's mouth (ie Christian wankers who looked after the stolen kids), why they wanted to take the Aboriginal children away. It was based on a belief that Aborigines will die out, and taking them away was part of saving them. Of course, they only did it to half caste, because full blooded Aborigines weren't white enough. But really, it wasn't racist.

These right wing conservatives and their bullshit make me want to spew. Do they understand the concept of compassion or empathy? Compassion? I mean whats that?

Once again I applaud Kevin Rudd for having the decency to do what John Howard couldn't, say sorry. [retard conservative]But that's ok, under Howard the economy was good [/retard conservative].

[weemadando]

To give Rudd his dues, the actual text of it was far better than what I was expecting.

At work though (The C-Link) some shit be going down which makes me think that the government is anticipating some future moves towards "re-coin-ciliation".

[weemadando]

And by shit I mean "cultural awareness" training. Which is nearly always shit.

[hongi]

If Aboriginal people want to claim compensation, I say let them. Work it out in court. Personally I was shocked by the numbers on polls (Yahoo7). People who claim we shouldn't say sorry were much higher than the people who agreed. 'tards.

It seems the government's pushing for the reconciliation thing even if some members of the population don't want it. Excellent. We don't need yet another debate about this, it just needs to be done.

And Nelson's a wanker.

[mr friendly guy]

Brendan Nelson's reply

What a fucking dipshit. The occasion is mainly to apologise to those Aborigines who were taken from their parents, not to talk about problems in the Aboriginal communities, which are a separate issue.

He is saying sorry but at the same time saying but.....

Wilson "iron bar" Tuckey was even more blatant. The fuckwit says the apology won't fix up problems such as Aboriginal petrol sniffing. No shit Sherlock, its not meant to. Its meant to acknowledge the wrong done to the Stolen Generation. What bullshit strawman.

ABC also ran a segment on those who took the kids away who feel no remorse. One of them was a MISSIONARY. Well geez, of course you don't since you have to teach them about Jesus. The bullshit black /white fallacies they throw about giving them more education. News flash, if they need more education we build schools and fund more money into them. We don't take them away from their parents because of this. Children should be only forcibly taken away if the parents is abusive.

I am tempted to ask these guys will they have a problem with a white kid being taken away from his parents on the grounds that he was getting poor marks and given to a willing Asian family (since they like playing racial stereotypes so much). Five bucks they have a problem.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh my god. I never knew the Australian government did something so horrible. Honestly, that's almost inconceivable. The fact that Australia, as a nation, hasn't had its reputation ruined by such an act speaks for how Western nations can often get a pass for doing atrocities while other nations don't.

At least your new PM, and key members of the government, fessed up to it. That's a decent thing to do. Admirable, even. A lot of Western nations, and the Rich Old White Men who hold political power, don't have the decency or the guts to admit to their past mistakes.

With this new Australian government replacing that Howard guy (who I've heard was an asshole) and a potential for great change in US politics as well (Obama), it seems like there is a backlash against right-wing conservative fundie politics. And that's a good thing. Hey, maybe the world might turn out for the better.

What's with this Nelson guy?

[atg]

What a fucking dipshit. The occasion is mainly to apologise to those Aborigines who were taken from their parents, not to talk about problems in the Aboriginal communities, which are a separate issue.

I missed much of Nelson's speech, but others I've spoken to had the impression that he was trying to say the supposed reasons that the stolen generation were taken are still happening today, attempting to give some form of legitimacy to the action taken back then. Good luck with that Nelson...

If Aboriginal people want to claim compensation, I say let them. Work it out in court. Personally I was shocked by the numbers on polls (Yahoo7). People who claim we shouldn't say sorry were much higher than the people who agreed. 'tards.

The reaction to the whole apology thing from most people I know is basically suck it up, who gives a damm, etc.
I'd have to say though that the follow up speech by one of the Aboriginal leaders that I heard today was basically 'we want compo/money', which tends to give a bad impression. I would have thought/hoped that money wouldn't have been mentioned, for today at least.

[K. A. Pital]

I never knew the Australian government did something so horrible. Honestly, that's almost inconceivable. The fact that Australia, as a nation, hasn't had its reputation ruined by such an act speaks for how Western nations can often get a pass for doing atrocities while other nations don't.

Yeah, I was pretty amazed too.

[hongi]

I'd have to say though that the follow up speech by one of the Aboriginal leaders that I heard today was basically 'we want compo/money', which tends to give a bad impression.

I think I saw him on Today Tonight. It was tactless. Actually, I'm glad that it was only one Aboriginal leader demanding compensation. Then again, maybe we'll see a flood of people suing the government in the following months.

[thejester]

With this new Australian government replacing that Howard guy (who I've heard was an asshole) and a potential for great change in US politics as well (Obama), it seems like there is a backlash against right-wing conservative fundie politics. And that's a good thing. Hey, maybe the world might turn out for the better.

Yeah judging from the popular reactions to the apology I doubt that any backlash is anything more than a short-term swing against the political parties in question rather than an a shifting of the deeper attitudes that led to their election in the first place.

I supported the apology, and as Friendly Guy pointed it out it was a purely symbolic gesture, but I think a lot has changed since the marches in 2000 (was that the year?) when people turned their back on Howard. In particular, I think the revelations about the true extent of substance abuse in indigenous communities, combined with well-publicized accounts of how the justice system is failing in the Territory, has soured a lot of the public to the issue and reinforced the right-wing image of petrol-sniffing dole bludgers. That and the conservative victory (temporary, hopefully) in the History/Culture Wars and the resulting stacking of cultural institutions with the Quadrant crew has made reconciliation much, much more difficult.

[atg]

Anyone else note that out of the five ex-prime ministers still alive, Howard was the only one not to attend the speech at parliament house?

[thejester]

Notice? I was told it in about 50 different news bulletins.

The guy is and was an arrogant, blinkered tool. Though to be fair, three of the remainder were Labor and Malcom Fraser is so leftwing these days he's second only to Gough.

[Korto]

Anyone else note that out of the five ex-prime ministers still alive, Howard was the only one not to attend the speech at parliament house?

To be fair, if I was him I wouldn't be in a hurry to show my face either.

Everyone's saying nice things about Rudd, but looking at it from a cynical political viewpoint, this was a pure gift from Howard for Rudd.
Howard and his government painted themselves into a corner of refusing to give a sorely needed apology on the argument that "We're not here to be moral, we're here to run a country".
They kept this line up despite mounting popular distaste with that patently repugnant view, allowing Rudd to grab it as a huge symbolic "point of difference" between the two sides for the election.
Now Rudd can give this proper but essentially costless apology (even if there's compensation, it'll be the taxpayers paying it, not the Labor party) and be rewarded by watching the coalition fall apart.
It's beautiful.

[mr friendly guy]

What's with this Nelson guy?

He used to be the president of the Australian Medical Association, and in his younger days looked like one of those "tree hugging hippies" Eric Cartman refers to. He previously mentioned he has never voted for the Liberal party before.

These days he has turned to the dark side and joined conservative forces. Before he became opposition leader he seemed to have kept a relatively low profile, or perhaps I just never paid him too much attention. From memory his greatest hits was to suggest Intelligence Design could be thought in schools (albeit not in science class even though it claims to be a science, which effectively gives ID a free pass against scientific criticism).

Anyone else note that out of the five ex-prime ministers still alive, Howard was the only one not to attend the speech at parliament house?

LIke thejester said, it was mentioned pretty widely. I am glad he didn't go. His presence and the jeers he would inevitably receive would have detracted from the purpose of Rudd's speech. Not that it didn't stop Wilson Tuckey commenting.

[thejester]

[These days he has turned to the dark side and joined conservative forces. Before he became opposition leader he seemed to have kept a relatively low profile, or perhaps I just never paid him too much attention. From memory his greatest hits was to suggest Intelligence Design could be thought in schools (albeit not in science class even though it claims to be a science, which effectively gives ID a free pass against scientific criticism).

Don't forget his one-man project to buy the Super Hornet!

I'm sure there's analysis of it floating around on Crickey or something, but my guess is that some faction in the Libs picked Nelson early as someone who could go places and has backed him to the hilt, particularly as he's a relatively new Liberal and perhaps not tarnished by the Howard years - similar to Bishop and Turnbull. It was pretty obvious he has powerful friends after he got picked for Defence over Abbot's head (or perhaps is a convenient tool for enemies of Abbot's).

Overall he strikes me as a bit of a flake, both the ID and Super Hornets suggest a spur-of-the-moment judgement that you just can't have in politics. But he's relatively young, reasonably likeable, so my guess is the Libs will keep him as a fall guy until they've rebuilt at the grassroots, 'redefined who they are' (or whatever the fuck it is), lose an election or two, then ditch him for Turnbull or someone even younger.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yeah, I was pretty amazed too.

It's one of those things that's so fucked up that it's hard to believe it's real. And the fact that most (?) people outside of Australia don't know of it...is disconcerting as well.

So, yeah. I'm glad for all Australians that your government has renounced such a deplorable act. The fact that conservative Bush-fuckbuddy Howard wasn't there at the apology - and the fact that he refused to apologize when in power - really makes me think that people like him and Bush and other conservative are actually silent supporters of racist crap.

Those who are in power and in control of the world's richest and most powerful nations scare me.

I wonder what UK's Gordon Brown is like. How different is he from pricks like Blair and Howard?

[Stark]

To be fair, if I was him I wouldn't be in a hurry to show my face either.

Everyone's saying nice things about Rudd, but looking at it from a cynical political viewpoint, this was a pure gift from Howard for Rudd.
Howard and his government painted themselves into a corner of refusing to give a sorely needed apology on the argument that "We're not here to be moral, we're here to run a country".
They kept this line up despite mounting popular distaste with that patently repugnant view, allowing Rudd to grab it as a huge symbolic "point of difference" between the two sides for the election.
Now Rudd can give this proper but essentially costless apology (even if there's compensation, it'll be the taxpayers paying it, not the Labor party) and be rewarded by watching the coalition fall apart.
It's beautiful.

It's not that simple. Most white Australians either don't care or actively avoid/dislike the whole situation of indigenious peoples and the role of the Australian government and people in that situation. It's not just 'apologise, instant sainthood': Howard was really quite against this idea and only the left-wing media chased him on it. It may not be a really popular thing in a lot of circles.

Amusingly, like Rudd's buddies over at Fascist First.

[hongi]

It's not that simple. Most white Australians either don't care or actively avoid/dislike the whole situation of indigenious peoples and the role of the Australian government and people in that situation. It's not just 'apologise, instant sainthood': Howard was really quite against this idea and only the left-wing media chased him on it. It may not be a really popular thing in a lot of circles.

Yeah. It's sad that if it wasn't now, it probably would have been too late to offer an apology to the still living members of the stolen generation. If Rudd had passed this opportunity on, a relevant apology may actually never have been given.