Apology of Kevin Rudd to Stolen Generations - Essay Example

?How significant was Kevin Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generations? The 13th of February 2008 is marked as a historic day for Australia. It was on this day when the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, apologized to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples on behalf of the whole nation. This apology statement is generally known as Apology to the Stolen Generations. The ceremony in which the apology was read out was observed to be a ‘profoundly moving ceremony’ (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). The Apology to the Stolen Generations has its importance beyond a mere apology statement. It was a very strong political expression that the country expressed towards the acknowledgement of fundamental human rights. The apology statement had very relevant political and social implications on Australia and the outlook of the country towards its indigenous populations. These implications stretch beyond the geographical boundaries of the country as the issue was discussed by the civil society all across the world. The objective of this essay is to analyze the significance of Kevin Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generations. Background of the apology The apology was a political statement which had been awaited for many years. Indigenous children and children of Torres Strait Islanders were forcefully separated from their families by the Australian government. The justification that the Australian government had for this act was the desired objective of upward social mobility and exposure of these children to the predominant modernized culture of Australia (Haebich, 2011). These children were later referred to as the ‘Stolen Generation’. An enquiry commission The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, headed by Mick Dodson and Sir Ronald Wilson, was setup to undertake the “National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families” (Haebich, 2011 p. 1033). They came up with the report titled “Bringing them home Report” in 1997 (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). The findings of the commission, as published in the report, created serious discussions and controversies which later led to the debate that the country must issue a formal apology to the stolen generations. The report confirmed that one to three out of every ten aboriginal children were forcefully taken away from their families (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). The expression ‘Lost Generation’ is justified by the large percentage of children who were deprived of their parents and living systems. The report shed light to disturbing facts that these children were unhappy in the foster homes, institutions and adoptive families they were put in (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). The report also contained evidence of forced labor imposed upon these children. The extensive interviews, conducted by the enquiry commission, observed consequences of separation which included medical and psychological issues, addiction, violence, self harm and even suicides (Haebich, 2011). In light of all these observations there was pressure on the Australian government both from within the country and human rights movements across the world. Moreover, out of the 54 recommendations made by The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, one was that the Australian government must apologize to the stolen generation (Haebich, 2011). Since then, this has been a matter of political debate for all the governments which came to power in Australia. In other words, the apology was much awaited by the world. The Political Importance of the Apology The decision of Kevin Rudd to apologize to the Stolen Generation has its importance as a strong political expression. It must be noted here that after the report thoroughly asserting the need of the apology was published, it was denied for 11 long years. No governments owned up the moral responsibility towards the Stolen Generation and the human rights violations faced by them. The general Australian response to the report was that the observations were inflammatory (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). There was also general concern amongst the public about the huge budgetary layout for compensating the human rights violations faced by the indigenous people. It was argued that these allocations would cause huge burden on the tax payers (Haebich, 2011). In general, the arguments and counter arguments on the legitimacy of the report resulted in a public consensus against the apology demand. This, in turn, resulted in a general displeasure against the aboriginals. Thus, the acceptance to issue the apology was expected to have serious political implications. When the debate had the central attention, John Howard, who was the Prime Minister at that time, directly refused the possibility of a national apology. His statement of refusal was justified by his argument that there had never been a Stolen Generation (Haebich, 2011). The accusations made by the report were completely denied by John Howard. He argued that the children were actually taken to rescue from situations of psychological and physical dangers and they were treated with the highest possible humanitarian standards of the time. He asserted that no compensation would be paid to the victims. Here John Howard, as the Prime Minister, was following a popular politics ensuring a safe political stature. This political position of the refusal, however, is not the single instance with reference to Australia and aboriginals. Haebich (2011, p. 1034) has presented a number of cases in the history in 1930s, 1950s and 1970s, where there were collective refusal and indifference from the side of Australia as a nation towards its aboriginal people. However, contrary to this, Kevin Rudd had stated in his election campaign that, if elected, he would issue a national apology. After being elected, he could win the sentimental favor of the public by extensive mobilization through the media and television events. The political importance of the event is confirmed as the apology speech was organized as a huge function attended by thousands of school children who were brought in to witness the event. There were numerous indigenous people who camped around the Parliament and witnessed the historic event. Thus, in relation with the history of the political stand of Australia towards its aboriginals, the apology to the stolen generations can be treated as a strong political statement which repositioned Australia’s responsibility towards its indigenous people. Even considering the political risk that was involved in the decision, the Apology to the Stolen Generations was a historic political expression. Moreover, the apology directly meant the acceptance of the charges accused on the country by the Bringing Them Home Report. It must be noted here that the accusations on taking the children away from their parents had been denied by the political leadership of the country for many years. The apology, in that context, is the reversal of all these political positions. Kevin Rudd in his speech stated: “We apologize for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (Editorial, 2008). This statement indicates the political ownership of the whole issue. Through the apology, the Prime Minister owned the political mistakes committed by his predecessors. The Importance of the Apology as a reconciliation measure Conflicts between aboriginals and the rest of the population have been frequently reported in Australia. Reconciliation, in the Australian context, has been referred to as the process of improving the relationships between aboriginals and other people in the country (Leigh, 2002; CAR, 1999). It has been reported that out of the total number of prisoners in Australia, 20 % are indigenous people (ABS, 2002). This high level of imprisonment indicates the structural violence against the aboriginals. Moreover, the gap in the equitable distribution of resources and services has been quite evident while comparing the aboriginals with the European settlement of Australia. Data suggest that the social security indexes of aboriginals are much lower compared to the rest of the population. In 2002, it was estimated that the unemployment rate amongst the aboriginals numbered 23%, whereas the national statistics indicated unemployment of 7.4 % (ABS, 2002a). Health Index, Educational Index and Life Span also showed considerable gap between the aboriginals and the rest of the population (Edwards and Madden, 2001). Thus, serious distinction in the resource allocation and utilization existed between the general population and aboriginals. When such distinctions exist between communities within the same country with equal rights to its entire people, it is not surprising to have conflicts. This conflict, however, evidently increased with the policies of Australian governments which largely promoted migration and cultural assimilation. In the process of creating an assimilatory environment, indigenous people and their culture were largely excluded. The Bringing Them Home Report emphasized on the need for reconciliation so that the cultural gaps between communities are filled. The pursuit of reconciliation between indigenous Australians and non indigenous Australians was the central theme of the report. Issuing a national apology automatically meant that the call for reconciliation was accepted by the government. Further, the emotional acceptance of the apology by a large number of people indicated the popular acceptance of the idea of reconciliation. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission interviewed more than 700 indigenous people who were victims of the Stolen Generation (Bretherton and Meller, 2006). These interviews contained experiences of grief and distress. After the report’s release in 1997, the Australians were largely divided on their opinions about the state of the aboriginals. There were significantly strong arguments from the people and, more importantly, the government that the report was inflammatory in its nature (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). This public stand meant that the voices of the aboriginals, which were expressed through the report, were let unheard. However, Kevin Rudd’s Apology To The Stolen Generation in that sense was the acceptance of those unheard voices. Through the gesture of apology, these voices got an equal platform to express and the larger society accepted these voices to a large extend. Therefore, the apology must be considered as a great milestone in the process of reconciliation. The acceptance of the Bringing them home Report would help the Australians to have a step ahead in having a new understanding of their country (Haebich, 2011, p. 1033). This new understanding was perceived through the official apology. To explain it further, the new understanding is basically the broadening of an average Australian’s thought process to have an inclusive approach towards the country’s first citizens. However, this effect was limited to the ideology of Australians. The apology is reported to have produced a ripple effect which spread internationally (Feko-King, 2011, p. 137). The Australian Psychological Society in its media release which asserted the apology as an important step stated that the value of a heartfelt apology and the opportunity for forgiveness is well recognized in both Western and Indigenous cultures, and the layers of meaning to the word “sorry” can enrich our mutual understanding (APS, 2008). The need for reconciliation was realized before the national apology statement was issued. There was a number of apology statements which were issued by different state and territory governments. Several agencies across Australia joined together to sign the ACOSS Statement of Apology and Commitment to the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal children, which was issued to the indigenous people at Yarrabah (APS, 2008). Since the release of Bringing them home Report, Sorry Day was observed and several reconciliation activities were carried out by different groups continuously for many years (Nossal, 2000). However, a gap that existed in these reconciliation processes, was that these were segmented efforts from smaller agencies and did not have the formal ownership from the government. As Kevin Rudd issued the official apology on behalf of the Australian government, all these efforts were culminated into a focused reconciliation strategy (APS, 2008). Malik (2007) opined that political apologies serve the purpose of nullifying the distinctions between various classes in the society. This is very relevant in the context of Australia, as the apology could generate sympathy for the natives amongst others. This, however, is the first psychological step towards reconciliation. Conclusion The apology speech by Kevin Rudd is a very important milestone in the history of Australia. In the form of a political expression, the apology rephrased the acceptance that the country’s leadership and its people had for its first people, the aboriginals. Though the apology is not a complete solution towards bridging the huge gap that exists between the country’s indigenous people and its general population, it would serve as the first breakthrough leap in the process of reconciliation. The apology gained the aboriginals ample acceptability. Moreover, the reports which came out on the human rights violations in connection with the stolen generation were politically accepted through this gesture. With reference to all these factors, it can be concluded that Kevin Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generations has a significant role in the history and future of Australia. Reference List APS, 2008. Prime Minister Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations an important step. American Psychological Association: Media Release, [online] Available at [Accessed 30 March 2012] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002. 2001 Census: Basic community profile and snapshot. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Bretherton, D. and Meller, D., 2006. Reconciliation between Aboriginal and Other Australians: The “Stolen Generations.” Journal of Social Issues, 62(1) pp.81– 98. Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation., 1999. Draft document for reconciliation. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Edwards, R. & Madden, R., 2001. The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Editorial, 2008. Kevin Rudd’s Sorry Speech. The Sydney Morning Herald. [online] Available at [Accessed 30 March 2012]. Fejo-King, C., 2011. The National Apology to the Stolen Generations: The Ripple Effect. Australian Social Work, 64(1) March 2011, pp.130-143. Haebich, A., 2011. Forgetting Indigenous Histories: Cases from the History of Australia’s Stolen Generations. Journal of Social History, pp.1033-1046. Leigh, A.K., 2002. Leadership and Aboriginal reconciliation. Australian Journal of Social Issues,37, pp.131–151. Malik, K., 2007. I’m Sorry, I need to apologize. Bergens Tidende 22, [online] Available at [Accessed 30 March 2012]. Nossal, G., 2000. Symbolism and substance in the surge towards reconciliation. In: M. Grattan, ed. 2000. Reconciliation: Essays on reconciliation in Australia Melbourne. Black Inc., pp. 297–304. Read More