[Anna Richardson]
Australia is often cited as one of the most socially and economically stable countries in the world. The “Aussie way” and the qualities that Australians hold dear include “mateship”, egalitarianism and an independent streak. But there is a stain on this admirable reputation. The issue of Indigenous rights has come to the fore once again after Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a long-overdue public apology to the Aboriginal community on the 13th February. However, this must be only a symbolic first step along the road to full reconciliation. In a country where the life expectancy of Indigenous citizens is a full 17 years lower than that of others and child mortality rates are twice as high, a public “sorry” is seen by many as nothing more than playing politics – a way for the new government to distinguish itself from the previous.
The Rudd government must now find a practical way to reconcile the interests of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and reduce the high rates of violence and resentment between the two groups. According to PM Rudd, the ‘darkest and most shameful chapter in Australian history’ is that of the “Stolen Generation”, the officially-sanctioned forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities over the course of the 20th Century. It is for this monstrous abuse of human rights that he was specifically apologising at the Commencement of the 42nd Parliament of the Commonwealth in February.
The first large scale government investigation into the events, a report titled “Bringing them Home” written by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1997, suggests that between 1910 and the early 1970s between 20 and 30% of Aboriginal children were removed from their parents without any proof of neglect. Such a policy was undertaken under the guise of “concern”, in particular at mixed-race children being raised in traditional environments, and the paternalistic idea of the new Australian government that assimilation was key to the wellbeing of the Indigenous population.
As Brisbane’s Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937: “Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of Western Australia] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem is increasing every year. Therefore their idea is to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population.” Such policies led to a whole generation of traumatised children. As adults they had no connection with their culture, language or families and often slipped through the wide net into lives of poverty, unemployment and urban homelessness.
Such an apology is long overdue. Former Prime Minister John Howard argued that a public apology on behalf of the Australian government was neither necessary nor appropriate, choosing to argue that current Australians should not be forced to apologise for past sins, and that such an apology could leave the Australian government open to legal action from members of the Stolen Generation (an argument subsequently shown to be false by examining the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1987).
Indeed, many of the actions were highly illegal according to the ‘Bringing them Home’ report - under international law, from approximately 1946 the policies of forcible removal amount to genocide; and from 1950 the continuation of distinct laws for Aboriginal children was racially discriminatory. However, the vast majority of Australians, including PM Rudd, have accepted how important an apology is, regardless of whether or not the person making the apology was responsible.
An apology is seen by Aboriginal communities as the only way to begin the path to reconciliation: Stolen Generations Alliance spokesperson Christine King said “Sorry is the most important word because it has great meaning in our community and language, it means having empathy and compassion and understanding.” However despite the political symbolism of Rudd’s apology, there is much practical work left to do. The health problems (miserable life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, high mental health problems rate) come hand in hand with deeply troubling social problems.
Alcoholism is very high in rural Aboriginal communities, with subsequently high rates of child abuse and neglect – a 2006 Federal Report suggested that up to 3 in 5 Indigenous children suffer neglect or abuse. Just 4% hold a bachelor’s degree, compared with a national average of 22%, and there are currently no Indigenous MPs. In order to combat poverty and low living standards, former PM Howard introduced “Shared Responsibility Agreements”, making financial benefits for Indigenous communities contingent on the commitment to community standards, such as ensuring children wash and eat regularly, and that they attend primary school. Howard also passed laws to enable the prohibition of alcohol and types of petrol in some high-risk rural areas. These policies have been criticised as paternalistic and dictatorial, but they have had some effect, and when combined with Rudd’s apology they may make some progress in uniting a country that is still effectively two nations living under one flag.
