Social Justice Report 1998 : Chapter 2: Non-Indigenous Community Responses

Social Justice Report 1998

Chapter 2: Non-Indigenous Community Responses

• Introduction

• Media coverage

• An apology

• Shame/guilt

• Criticisms of Bringing Them Home

• Genocide

• Compensation

• Native Title

• Other voices

• Contemporary separations

• How should non-Indigenous people respond?

• People's movement

• Sorry Day

Introduction

You would be hard pressed to find a newspaper, television or radio station that did not make mention of Sorry Day activities and National Reconciliation events over the past week.

But it is not until you put a human face to the issues, speak to someone to whom these events are all-important, that they become more than politically correct rhetoric.

Faye Moseley, elder of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, is one such woman. She opened her speech at Kurri Community Centre on Sorry Day with the words: 'I am a stolen child'. Suddenly the label had a face.

She asked the crowd to consider the importance of history to peoples all over the world.

'History is a very important part of culture,' she said. 'It doesn't feed us, or provide us with shelter. It doesn't keep us warm at night and it has little practical use, yet people in every culture in the world value their history.'

For Faye, history is the stories people of all nationalities tell the next generation to explain who they are, where they come from and why they are here, about pride and self-esteem, battles lost and won, hardships and survival.

'Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.'

Emilie Manning, 'Helping to put a face to need for reconciliation', The Maitland Mercury, 5 June 1998, p. 4

Radical though it may be, I respectfully suggest to the House that an Aboriginal man and an Aboriginal woman be invited to a joint sitting of this parliament to tell their stories of unimaginable pain and anguish that too few Australians have heard and even fewer understand. The reason I suggest that is that, like that young member of the Liberal Party who told me that he thought this was all a load of nonsense until he actually heard it, I think there are many people in this place who actually have to hear these stories told, not through the prism of some of the activists in the reconciliation movement but by the very people who lived this pain. The symbolism would be powerful, and it might just play a catalytic role in healing wounds deeper than the current national psyche can allow to easily heal.

Dr Brendan Nelson, Federal Member for Bradfield, extract from debate in House of Representatives, 2 June 1997, p. 4597, GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Twelve months on since the release of Bringing Them Home , we can look back at the public debate on the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, and reflect on the impact of the Report and its implications for future understanding of issues affecting Indigenous Australians. For the non-Indigenous community, Bringing Them Home has challenged how we define ourselves and our country as Australian. For many people it has meant a questioning and often a denial of our contemporary responsibility as a nation; a reassessment of what we were taught about our country's history; a challenging of former and present leaders and decision-makers; and a greater awareness of our collective legacy.

There have been distinct patterns of debate since the launch of Bringing Them Home , such as whether individuals and our national leader should apologise; whether there should be a national Sorry Day; the understanding of words such as 'guilt' and 'shame'; the Inquiry's finding of genocide; the issue of compensation and reparation; the intersections with debates about native title and reconciliation; and the reassessment of Australian history and identity for which the Inquiry was viewed as a catalyst.

This chapter does not seek to revisit or justify elements of the Inquiry or Bringing Them Home . Rather it explores the diversity of responses by non-Indigenous Australians over the 12 months since the Report was released. Using letters to the editor and media reports of events in major and regional newspapers as the primary sources, this chapter canvasses the variety - and often the similarity - of reactions to what became widely known as the stolen children or stolen generations Report.

From the time Bringing Them Home became public property, many individuals and groups have spoken out to acknowledge, to apologise and to attempt to address publicly the injustices experienced by Indigenous Australians. This has been a community movement, played out in regional and national media, influencing public debate about Indigenous issues, as well as our Australian identity for decades to come.

Even before Bringing Them Home was tabled in Parliament, the existence of the Inquiry itself and its background research and hearings began the process of non-Indigenous Australians learning what Indigenous communities have always known: that generations of Aboriginal children were forcibly removed and alienated from their families under past laws, policies and practices, specifically because they were Aboriginal. Over the last 30 years there has been an increasing awareness in the non-Indigenous community of injustices experienced by Indigenous people. The strong reactions to the findings of the Inquiry were not so much based on an inability to conceive that such events took place but at the vast scale of forcible removals and the often abusive experiences of those taken from their families.

Reactions have ranged from outrage and sadness to disbelief and dismissal of the findings of the Report. Many non-Indigenous Australians could not understand how such events could ever have taken place in this country, while others strongly defended the actions and intentions of those who sanctioned the forcible removal of Indigenous children. Some people felt that the Report dwelt on the past, and others believed that the Inquiry had only focused on negative experiences of removal. Overwhelmingly, however, non-Indigenous Australians have gained an unprecedented insight into the legacy of institutionalised racism for Indigenous Australians.

From many younger Australians, or those born overseas, came a questioning of those who were able to remember Aboriginal children being taken from their families of 'how could you not have known?', or 'why didn't anybody do anything to stop it?'.

Drusilla Modjeska, the Australian writer who migrated to Australia with her family in the 1960s, spoke at the 1997 New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards about her experiences at a Women for Wik meeting in Sydney in July last year. Although a group formed primarily in response to the ten point plan in the wake of the High Court's Wik decision, this community action group, like many others, saw the issues of native title and the stolen children as inherently enmeshed.

When we left the meeting, the friend I was with, who had grown up here in the fifties, said that she was thinking of all those Germans who kept saying they didn't know anything. She says she remembers, a whispy sort of child memory, that she did know, and when she enquired she was told 'oh well they're orphans', or 'they're neglected', or 'they're getting an education'. (p. 4)

... the moment at which I felt an acute kind of personal shame, or perhaps I should say the moment at which I felt the stir of history, as if a dark bird had flown over me and I'd been cast in its shadow, was when Jean Carter spoke of being born on the salt pan at George's River. I felt it as a shock: the enormous disjuncture between her Sydney and mine. And I felt it most uncomfortably when she and Marlene Wilson both talked about being taken to Bidura Children's Home in Glebe where they were dipped in lye and had their clothes removed with tongs; and when they talked of walking along Glebe Point Road calling out to the boys in their crocodile on the opposite pavement for news of their brothers.

I lived in Glebe when I first came to Sydney, twenty five years ago now; I was a student on the then generous Commonwealth Scholarship, with no need to work anywhere other than in the library. You could still rent a room for ten dollars, food was cheap, it was the seventies, we all had heaps of love affairs and nobody locked their back doors. Glebe was heaven. To me. And almost certainly to the kooris who lived on Blackwattle Bay in 1787. But not to the children in Bidura which was there when I was a student; we walked past it, smooching along with books under our arms. And it certainly wasn't heaven for Jean Carter and Marlene Wilson who were there not so many years before, for no other reason than the colour of their skin, separated from family, mother, culture, land.

It is a shameful story, and we all feel it in different ways. I felt it that day as if another map had been laid over streets I'd mapped for myself in the most egocentric and naive of ways. (p. 5)

... All of them, all of you, all of us, are mapping and remapping our streets, our country, our past. (p. 6)

Whether non-Indigenous Australians need to re-learn, or to re-map, the history of their country, and how they should go about doing that, has been widely debated since the release of Bringing Them Home .

Many Australians have denied the need to substantially re-evaluate the balance of Australian history. There have been protests against the incorporation of the history of forcible removal of Indigenous children into school curricula and to the commemoration of a national Sorry Day. The process of acknowledging, apologising and making reparation to those Indigenous people affected has been regarded by some as a betrayal of conventional heroes and their achievements: an unhealthy dwelling on negative aspects of Australia's past, or privileging a 'black armband view of history'.

Yet remembering and commemorating Australians who have suffered in the past is by no means an alien concept in this country. Reluctance to acknowledge and pay respect to the stolen children then is quite inconsistent with the clear support given to the importance of understanding the past in informing the present in relation to other issues. Shortly after the tabling of Bringing Them Home , the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Queensland National MP Bruce Scott, speaking about the depiction of Australian prisoners of war in the film 'Paradise Road', said:

We must never underestimate the importance of telling history as it really was. ... Current and future generations of Australians need to understand history. It is only through the accurate recording of history that we will ensure that it never happens again.

Ian McPhedran, 'Minister's history lesson irks ALP', quoted in The Canberra Times, 6 June 1997, p. 6

There has been much debate about whether or not Bringing Them Home was an 'accurate recording of history', particularly as a result of viewpoints published by certain social commentators. [1] However, there was little contention that past laws, policies and practices which forcibly removed Indigenous children from their families have not been part of Australia's official history, and that there were events that took place that should never be allowed to happen again. While a distinct strain of response to the Report was to contextualise the policies of removal in the values of the times and to extenuate the extent of damage done, there developed an increasing awareness throughout the non-Indigenous Australian community concerning the importance of acknowledging and apologising for Indigenous suffering.

I am sure every parent must have some sympathy for families that were broken up in this way. There are many other ethnic groups of people living within the community that have had terrible wrongs done to them in the past.

But Aboriginal people are the original indigenous population of Australia and it would be a good move towards reconciliation to admit that they as a people have suffered.

The situation that saw children removed from their parents is not the fault of individuals today and Aboriginal people should understand that many white Australians have not been told the truth about our history as a country.

Deborah Botica, 'Healing the wounds of the past', Kalgoorlie Miner, 19 June 1997

The personal stories in Bringing Them Home of the experiences of Indigenous people who had been taken away from their families became living history, the voices of proof. It is perhaps one of the most important repercussions of the Report that an environment was created for Indigenous Australians to speak directly of their experience to other Australians.

Through personal contact with Indigenous people who had been taken from their families, many non-Indigenous Australians in the 12 months since the release of Bringing Them Home began to gain a better understanding of the discrimination experienced by Indigenous people, and an insight into damage done by policies based on racial stereotypes which reinforced and perpetuated the very stereotypes underpinning these policies.

This writer should declare an interest. At primary school, my best mate was a boy called Peter. We sang country songs as a duo, and spat on our hands and told each other we'd always be brothers. But one day, he disappeared. The next time I saw him, many years later, he was an alcoholic. In the intervening years, he had been taken from his family, fostered to a wealthy city family, placed in a leading private school and given the benefit of social opportunity.

When he came back, finally, he had little in common with the brothers and sisters he hardly knew, and his mother was dead. And he was still an Aborigine, unable to fit into the white world that had been fitted around him, and which still did not accept him as an equal. Like many thousands of others, he sank his loneliness and his grief and his anger in a bottle.

Tony Wright, 'For Pete's sake, it's time to right the wrongs', The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 May 1997, p. 5

The approach which justified removal of Aboriginal children from their families - that it was 'for their own good' - continued to prevail in some comment on this issue. This rationale has been strongly repudiated by historical analysis and recorded personal experiences that show the main principle behind the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children was not concern for the individual child's well-being. The majority of children were removed because they were Indigenous. It was thought that Indigenous peoples of Australia were a 'dying race', and that children of 'mixed descent', particularly those with fairer skin, could be assimilated into the broader community.

However, most Australians - as a child or a parent - readily understand that, irrespective of race, the effects of past policies and practices which removed Indigenous children from their families were harmful and misguided. In the debate about the Inquiry's finding of genocide and the use of words such as 'shame' and 'guilt', there was a strong empathy for those Indigenous Australians who were deprived of the right to grow up with their family, and whose experiences had for so long had been silenced.

There was an immediate public response to the stories of Bringing Them Home from individuals all over the country who felt compelled to comment, to express their own perspectives, and to apologise.

The mail has become much easier to sort. Two piles - one for the broad topic of Aboriginal and race letters, and the other for The Rest (the latter being comparatively few). Wik and Mabo were knotty subjects. They could be discussed in terms of principle but many found it difficult to come to grips with what the court rulings would mean in practice.

No such difficulty arises with the 'Stolen Children'. Every parent can understand the aching void of having a child snatched from you. Everyone can imagine what it would be like not knowing who your blood family was or where to find it. There were no legal niceties in the letters, just words from the heart. Space prevents us publishing the many individual apologies from those who feel beholden to do so in the absence of a figurehead apologising on behalf of the nation. We have given the gain-sayers (they constitute about 1/8), those who have tended to say the separations were a good thing in the long run, a disproportionate representation on the letters page.

Geraldine Walsh, Letters Editor, 'Postscript', The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 June 1997, p. 16

Overwhelmingly the initial response to Bringing Them Home was one of empathy and sorrow. Many non-Indigenous people felt compelled to express their opinions and emotions in an unprecedented and public way. There were those people who maintained the line that Indigenous children had benefited from being removed from their families and communities, and this perspective, as noted above, was given due attention in the media coverage of the debate. However, the clear majority of opinions expressed in the major and regional newspapers were in favour of an apology to Indigenous people. [2]

Media coverage

There is no doubt that the findings of the National Inquiry generated a substantial amount of public interest and debate reflected in widespread and sustained media coverage. The high media interest in Bringing Them Home has not been restricted to Australia.

The Federal Government has failed to understand the impact of issues such as the stolen Aboriginal children or Pauline Hanson on Australia's image abroad, according to international media services.

Wire service Reporters have been run off their feet filing stories on race issues with a particular focus on the stolen children and Pauline Hanson. Those stories have the potential to reach up to two billion people. According to the Canberra correspondent with the Associated Press [a major international agency], Alan Thornhill, the stolen children story was the biggest of the year.

Ian McPhedran, 'PM not in the foreign affairs race', The Canberra Times, 3 June 1997, p. 2

A detailed analysis of the media coverage of Bringing Them Home after tabling [3] considered the attitudes expressed in the print media, (editorials, columns, opinion pieces, feature articles) in handling this issue. In particular, it included an analysis of the proportion of media coverage of the issue that was supportive, and the extent to which the media considered the conclusions of the Report proved rather than controversial or open to question. (p. i)

The role of the media in shaping or reflecting public opinion is always arguable. However, there is a defining role that daily newspapers across the country play in raising awareness, informing readers of different perspectives, making comment and providing a public forum in which the issues are discussed.

the probability of achieving the objectives of educating the public, and creating a higher level of sympathetic awareness to a problem or situation within the community, will be greatly enhanced if the material contained in the media Reports is sympathetic to the subject and indicates that a high level of credibility can be placed on the information being conveyed, and on the organisation and persons conveying that information. (p. iii)

Newspapers surveyed for the media analysis were the Australian/Weekend Australian , the Sydney Morning Herald , the Daily Telegraph , the Canberra Times , The Age , the Herald Sun , the Courier-Mail , the Advertiser , the West Australian , the Mercury , and the Australian Financial Review .

All the newspapers examined carried editorials on the subject, often more than one. All agreed that the assimilation policies were a blot on Australia's past, virtually all called for a formal apology, and most were critical of the Prime Minister when he gave only a personal apology at the Reconciliation Convention. ...

Many papers editorially had trouble with some aspects of the Report, such as the use of the word 'genocide' to describe the separation policy, and the subject of compensation. However, there were many articles on the opinion pages which supported, often very strongly, these elements of the Report. (p. iv)

Most of the writers - full-time journalists, regular columnists, and people who contributed articles due to their expertise or interest in the subject - were sympathetic towards and supportive of both the Report and the adverse effects that forcible removal had on Indigenous people.

Across the newspapers over the period which was analysed, the great majority of writers of comment and opinion pieces accepted the truth of the material in the Report, welcomed the bringing to light of the events described, supported the idea of a formal apology and were critical, often scathingly, of the Prime Minister when it was not given. (p. v)

Many commentators also made the connection between understanding and acknowledging the past forcible removal of Indigenous children and current issues such as health, housing, education and reconciliation.

The inquiry was needed to give the nation a better understanding of the continuing social consequences of forced removal of children from their families. The evidence and the Report show that governments routinely broke up families, disrupted the continuity of Aboriginal heritage and created lost generations of adults without awareness of their identities. ...

The best compensation governments can offer to Aborigines is effectiveness in helping them to overcome the shameful disadvantages in health, education, housing and employment that make their communities the most deprived in the nation. This is not a matter necessarily of more money, but of political will and determination. A commitment by the Government to achieve significant improvements should be part of the negotiations for reconciliation.

Editorial, 'Aboriginal progress is the answer', The West Australian, 26 May 1997, p. 12

The Prime Minister's speech at the Reconciliation Convention after the tabling of Bringing Them Home was a catalyst for much media debate:

Personally I feel deep sorrow for those of my fellow Australians who suffered injustices under the practices of past generations towards indigenous people. Equally I am sorry for the hurt and trauma many here today may continue to feel as a consequence of those practices.

In facing the realities of the past, however, we must not join those who would portray Australia's history since 1788 as little more than a disgraceful record of imperialism, exploitation and racism. ... Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions over which they had no control.

John Howard's speech to the Reconciliation Convention, quoted in The Australian, 27 May 1997, p. 1

The problem with such a conditional expression of sorrow is that the practice of removing children from their parents is not something which was done in the dim, dark past, but something which was pursued as government policy until very recent times. The Stolen Children are still with us, except now they are adults who were deprived of their childhoods, their parents, their extended families and their culture. This is not ancient history. And there is no convenient moral statute of limitations for culpability over what was done.

Editorial, '30 years on and still no reconciliation', The Canberra Times, 27 May 1997, p. 8

There is little point in Mr Howard's comments of Monday that 'Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control.' There is little to be lost from issuing an unconditional national apology for undoubted past wrongs which linger in their effects today. Rather than looking backward, this would provide a foundation from which to base a national commitment to cooperatively address current problems.

Editorial, 'The business of reconciliation', Australian Financial Review, 28 May 1997, p. 22

The issue is not, at this stage, about compensation. It is about expressing white society's apology that, for most of this country, many Aboriginal children and their parents were treated as little more than convenient breeders.

It would be a marvellous act, a sign of true white concern rather than mean spirit, if the Parliament of Australia could find the words to frame an apology for those deeds. Then both sides, black and white, could get down to real negotiations with the assurance that printed in the Hansard, for current and future generations, was one government clearly stating that past actions were wrong.

Editorial, 'The value of making an apology', The Advertiser, 3 June 1997, p. 10

The Federal Government's Reported offer of $50 million to the Aboriginal community is an unsatisfactory response to the tragedy of the 'stolen generations'. It is a minor amount in the context of government expenditure and, although welcome, meaningless against the backdrop of generations of suffering.

The lesson of the past 25 years is that the problems that beset the indigenous people of Australia cannot be addressed by money alone. If that were the case, the massive amounts spent over recent decades would have given indigenous Australians the same standards of health, happiness and opportunity enjoyed by all other citizens. ...

Some of the language surrounding the 'stolen generations inquiry' and its revelations has been unnecessarily emotive and difficult to digest for many Australians who played no role in the events of previous years. Accusations of genocide and the liberal use of words such as 'shame' contribute nothing to sensible discussion and do nothing other than offend white Australians and drive some of them into the arms of extremists.

However, it is idle to pretend that great wrong was not done to Aboriginal children removed from their families: at most times with the very best of motives. The policies of yesteryear were harmful but they were well-intentioned, if crude, attempts to give Aboriginal children a chance to advance themselves in white Australian society. There is no reason for Australians of today to feel or express sentiments of shame. The same arrogant assumptions led to the removal of many white children from their families and their subsequent adoption.

However, that should not preclude us, through our Prime Minister, from acknowledging those wrongs of the past, accepting that good intentions can have unforeseen tragic results, and expressing our apologies. Anything less would demean the $50 million to be offered by Mr Howard and be a betrayal of the 'stolen generations' and generations of Australians to come.

Editorial, 'Stolen Generations deserve apology' Courier Mail, 15 December, 1997, p. 10

The Prime Minister continued his stance on an official apology throughout the community debate leading up to Sorry Day on 26 May, 1998, and maintained the distinction between addressing concrete issues such as health and housing and the symbolic act of apologising.

Prime Minister John Howard will today announce a $10 million expansion of the Army assistance program for remote indigenous communities.

The announcement coincides with the start of Reconciliation Week and follows the Government's rejection of National Sorry Day.

Instead Mr Howard repeated his commitment to Aboriginal health, housing and education and today will double funds to a program he believes reflects this approach.

'It is the view of my Government that a formal national apology of the type sought by others is not appropriate,' he said.

Helen McCabe, 'Reconciliation not sympathy: PM', The Mercury, 27 May 1998, p. 19

An apology

Much of the debate since the release of the Report has focused on whether or not non-Indigenous Australians should apologise to Indigenous people stolen from their families, and in particular, whether the Prime Minister should have offered a national apology. The manner in which the Prime Minister delivered his speech at the Reconciliation Convention in May 1997 sparked controversy, and made him a personal target in the debate.

The strong feelings about the Australian Government's response to Bringing Them Home should not begin and end with a particular individual. The issues are wider and more fundamental. There were, for a variety of reasons, many other Australians who supported the Prime Minister's refusal to apologise as elected leader of this country.

Acting in his capacity as Prime Minister an official apology presented at the Reconciliation Convention may have reshaped the environment of debate about this issue. As it was, debate became sharply polarised over the issue of an apology, and of a day of commemoration.

This polarisation represented a loss in many ways. It was not only a loss of a particularly apt symbolic moment, it also obscured the Government's own commitment to concrete action in health, housing, employment and education by presenting it as an alternative to any symbolic gesture of apology. The Prime Minister's position on this was not one of isolation. Other politicians, commentators and members of the public echoed the view that 'practical measures' and an apology were somehow mutually exclusive.

In one of the most significant speeches of his prime ministership, John Howard yesterday laid out a practical program for reconciliation between Aborigines and other Australians. It was a program based on cooperation rather than confrontation, progress in areas such as Aboriginal health rather than ideological grandstanding. ...

Many at the Australian Reconciliation Convention in Melbourne booed and heckled the Prime Minister during his speech yesterday. But many more Australians outside that venue will applaud his commonsense commitment to real change and disregard of superficial gestures.

Editorial, 'Black and white go together', The Daily Telegraph, 27 May 1997, p. 10

Many non-Indigenous Australians remained divided over the issues of compensation and reparation, but a great number of people - reflected in part in the level of support of community events and letters to the editor - were united in the understanding of the need for acknowledgement and apology in order to move on, to begin to right the wrongs, and to attempt any kind of meaningful reconciliation.

The reconciliation compromise is assisted by an apology. It is mutually exclusive of nothing else. It reinforces Howard's practical moves to attack disadvantage. It is nonsense to say these approaches are mutually exclusive. ...

The past treatment of indigenous people is, as Sir William Deane says, 'a matter of national shame'. This is the fact; it is the history. Reconciliation is incomprehensible without an acceptance of history. Howard insists that Australia must look forward. But Australia cannot look forward until it confronts its past. The reality is that many Australians are unaware of this history or don't want to confront it.

Paul Kelly, 'Say sorry and heal the gash', The Australian, 28 May 1997, p. 13

South Australians have endorsed calls for a formal apology to the Aboriginal 'stolen generation' - but have backed away from compensation.

An Advertiser survey has shown that while 38 per cent of respondents do not believe apologies are necessary, a 58 per cent majority supports apologising to the stolen children. But only 16 per cent of those people believe compensation should be paid. Four per cent were undecided on the issue.

The poll of 400 voters, conducted on Wednesday night, comes two weeks after State Parliament formally apologised to the stolen children and their families for government policies until the 1960s that saw the removal of Aboriginal children from their homes.

The survey showed more women (65 per cent) than men (52 per cent) believed an apology was necessary. By age group, about 80 per cent of respondents aged between 18 and 39 believed apologies should be made, and 40 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds also calling for compensation. In contrast, 49 per cent of people aged over 55 did not think apologies were needed, compared with 47 per cent who did.

'Most back apology, says poll', The Advertiser, 16 June 1997, p. 4

As ever, it seems, 'apology' letters prevail over all others...

Geraldine Walsh, Letters Editor, 'Postscript', The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 December 1997, p. 8

Shame/guilt

A core issue in people's feelings about whether or not an apology should be made to Indigenous Australians, either on a personal or collective level, turns on the difference between the concepts of shame and guilt. There were those who expressed the opinion that they personally had done nothing wrong, so there was no need for them to apologise. There were many others who felt strongly that publicly recognising collective shame is inherently linked with sharing national pride.

Australia is very much a reflection of the achievements of the past, a treasure trove which generates great pride. No Australian, recounting why they love their country, can do so without drawing on the examples set by the nation's heroes. It is a pride which is part of a nation's heritage is accepted as such. [sic] We do not lay claim as individuals for the achievements which created this pride. This is as it should be. If we can feel pride for the great moments of our past, and celebrate them, isn't it reasonable that we should feel shame at the dark things which occurred?

Feeling ashamed for yesterday's actions by a nation does not mean each individual of today is guilty of what happened. Such an apology does not mean today's Australians can be blamed for shameful events; it means no more than that they are sorry that these events occurred. An apology is required by many of Australia's Aborigines. It is at the heart of the hoped-for reconciliation between black and white Australians.

Mr Howard, at the first national convention on reconciliation in Melbourne, made a personal apology to Aborigines 'who suffered injustices under the practices of past generations'. He should extend the scope of that apology and make it on behalf of all Australians. If Mr Howard cannot make such an apology, it should be made by the Federal Parliament. Australia will be the better for it being offered. Shame and pride are the opposite sides of the same coin. Our pride in our nation will be shared by more people, will be more honest in its expression, will be strengthened, when the shame of the past is openly acknowledged.

Editorial, 'Pride and shame', The Mercury, 28 May 1997, p. 18

In the wake of the release of Bringing Them Home , there was a sense in many of the letters to the editor in both the major and regional newspapers of Australia being at a crossroads in its national identity. With Wik and reconciliation also being widely debated, there was a demand from many non-Indigenous Australians that these issues be addressed and resolved so that future generations would not have to keep re-visiting them, and that the nation could move into the next millennium united, rather than divided.

Sir Ronald Wilson, who for many came to represent the non-Indigenous face of Bringing Them Home , spoke at the Reconciliation Convention about his own journey during the process of the Inquiry, and the personal effect it had on him. In particular, Sir Ronald conveyed the need for responses to this Report to be from the Australian community as a whole, both in acknowledging past wrongs and apologising as fundamental steps towards reconciliation.

Let me speak personally. I have been changed by my exposure to the stories of my fellow Australians, Australians for whom I have now unbounded respect because of their courage, their dignity, their suffering and through it all their generosity of spirit. ...

I knew very little about the stolen children when I took up this inquiry, but as I heard more and more I recognised that the suffering has gone so deep and is still being felt today that the stolen children issue and its healing by a full hearted response from all Australians is fundamental to the success of the reconciliation process.

The laws and policies of non-Indigenous Australia divided the nation. Our denial of that truth, our continued denial of that truth holds the division in place and without our sincere and frank acknowledgement, without a willingness to say we are sorry and to implement that sorrow in deeds, coupled with a longing for reconciliation, we can not find freedom from the shackles of a divided and deeply wounded nation. It is in the national interest that we do so, it's the interest of all individual Australians that we do so.

Sir Ronald Wilson, then President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, speech to the Australian Reconciliation Convention, 27 May 1997

Criticisms of Bringing Them Home

As was to be expected, given its subject, there were strong criticisms of the Inquiry, its findings and its Report. It was said that the Inquiry was biased, that it only focused on the negative stories of removal; that it was not representative of most people's experience; that it did not require corroboration of witnesses' evidence; that it judged past legislation and practices by current standards.

The 'stolen generations' hype gives the impression that all those part-Aborigines who were placed in foster care suffered emotionally from the experience. No effort appears to be made to establish the conditions in which they would have been raised in their natural families. ...

Like so many debates today, we receive only the sensational side. The politically incorrect view, no matter how factual, is rarely presented.

Ron Fischer, 'Stolen generations received new life', Wimmera Mail Times (Horsham), 16 June 1997.

It is not the purpose of this review of responses to Bringing Them Home to engage in debate, to defend the methodology of the Inquiry or the findings of the Report. However certain criticisms were directed to matters beyond the control of the Inquiry: such as its scope.

Why did the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the previous Labor government confine the 'stolen generation' inquiry to the fate of Aboriginal children, ignoring the deplorable history of white child migration to Australia?...

It seems to me that children brought to this country by an Australian government scheme and who suffered the horrors and mismanagement of that scheme are as deserving of an apology, monetary compensation and other assistance as Aboriginal children who suffered separation.

Any Report tabled by the Government which fails to address the travesties perpetrated on white as well as black children will be flawed and properly condemned as racially biased, favouring one section of the community - Aborigines - for reasons of political correctness.

Gordon Walsh, 'More than one 'stolen generation' suffered', Letter to the editor, The Courier Mail, 27 May 1997, p. 14

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission did not determine the subject matter of the Inquiry. The terms of reference set by the Attorney-General were unambiguous in directing examination of matters affecting 'the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families'. The rationale for this is clear in that while any child may be separated from its family for a variety of reasons, only Indigenous children have been subject to separation on the grounds of their race.

The failure to prosecute those who may have committed criminal offences against children within their care was another ground of criticism. Yet the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission does not have a prosecutorial function. Where evidence received by the Inquiry disclosed the potential commission of a criminal offence the pursuit of the matter appropriately lay with the relevant State, Territory or Commonwealth police and prosecution authorities.

... Because the issues at stake in the 'stolen generations' inquiry are so important, and because these involve a number of matters of ongoing and heated contention, it was imperative that the Inquiry did everything in its power to ensure that its accounts of past practices and its conclusions were beyond any reasonable question. Otherwise the painful experiences which the Inquiry sought to make known could be easily dismissed or ignored, as could their contemporary implications. But the Commissioners unwisely seem to have interpreted their role as being that of advocates, providing the media with emotive commentaries on evidence as it was presented and indicating that they would be promoting the findings irrespective of the Government's views.

And, unfortunately, anyone who expects to find a rigorous, sober and factual assessment of the past in Bringing Them Home will be sorely disappointed. The Report is a most unworthy and tendentious document.

Amongst its many faults, it is poorly argued, it demonstrates considerable intellectual and moral confusion, it applies inconsistent principles at different times so as to create a 'damned if you do/damned if you don't' situation, it misrepresents a number of sources and ignores crucial information, and it readily makes major assertions which are either factually wrong or unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is immaterial whether these defects are a result of a deliberate attempt to distort, or whether they stem from the Inquiry's inability to bring the requisite judgement and analytical skills to its task. When accounts that purport to make people aware of injustices misrepresent events, or omit relevant matters for reasons of partiality, or make unfounded claims, they dishonour the very people whose interests they claim to uphold. Bringing Them Home betrays the Aboriginal victims of the past almost as surely as would a Report which attempted to deny their experiences completely.

Ron Brunton, 'Betraying the Victims: the 'stolen generations' Report', IPA Backgrounder, February 1998, Volume 10/1, pp. 2-3

In response to Ron Brunton's analysis of Bringing Them Home , extracts of which appeared in several major newspapers, there was much discussion about the validity and accuracy of the Report and its political ramifications.

... The tremendous emotional impact of the Report, the fact that it is an attempt to tell a story that Australia long repressed, and that it is a call to the nation to redress a great wrong, all make criticism of the Report difficult and suspect. Yet, precisely because it is such an important step in coming to terms with the past, and in achieving reconciliation, it is important that it be subject to fair-minded criticism. It is not the last word on a difficult and painful subject, but a foundation which ensures that the voices of those who suffered can never again be ignored.

In particular, the Report is not a definitive and rounded treatment of the protection and assimilation eras, and could not have been, given the Inquiry's limited time and resources. Ordinary experience tells us, as indeed the Report itself occasionally hints, that the problems perceived by administrators, the motives which determined their responses, the changing content and practical effects of their policies and practices over the years, and the differences between jurisdictions, were more complex and significant than the Report allows.

It is not my task to review the Report, and my comments are simply to emphasise that it is not as its uncritical champion that I have agreed to review Ron Brunton's booklet, 'Betraying the Victims'.

I would be the first to applaud a critical appraisal of the Report, pointing out its limitations and sometimes excessive pretensions, and seeking to open up and debate some of the important issues it takes for granted. Why then do I find myself angered by 'Betraying the Victims'? To put it bluntly, this booklet is a 'hatchet job' that, quite unfairly, paints the Report as a dishonest piece of work that no self-respecting person would have anything to do with. Far from opening up discussion of the Report, it stifles it, polarising people into being either for or against the Report. ...

The very pomposity and repetitiveness of [the] claims [made in 'Betraying the Victims'] suggest that the purpose is not intellectual but political. ... [T]he thrust of the booklet is not just to join issue on some of the Report's arguments or conclusions, or to correct some alleged errors. It is to damn the Report as unworthy of attention, to create such an atmosphere of sleaze and suspicion around it that those who want to reject or ignore it feel they can comfortably do so. Others will feel that they cannot give credence to the Report without doing research they lack the time or resources to undertake, so they, too, ignore it. The denigration thus becomes an effective weapon for suppression of the whole Report.

Bringing Them Home ', Indigenous Law Bulletin , June 1998, volume 4/12, pp. 4-5

... In summary, Brunton takes apart the 'stolen children' Report, Bringing Them Home, and shows that despite having been chaired by a former High Court judge, Sir Ronald Wilson, it has shown scant regard for evidence, balance and the credibility of witnesses. While there is no doubt that many of the witnesses wept when they recalled their childhood, and the hearts of many were wrung, there is more than one cause of adult misery than removal from one's parents. Again and again, Brunton shows, the Report fails to distinguish between forcible removal, sending away of children with consent of their parents, total removal and partial (eg, returning to family at weekends) removal, detention imposed for repeated delinquency preceding any removal, spells in hospitals and schools, and the saving of children from physical and sexual abuse within their own family and by others.

While the evidence given by witnesses to the commission cannot be ignored, neither can it for the most part be checked against other sources of evidence. Most of the witnesses were anonymous. Little or no attempt was made to cross check their evidence with what is on official record. ...

Everybody accepts that many terrible things were done to our Aboriginal peoples by European settlers and colonial societies. But to demand an apology and compensation for a policy which has yet to have been established to have been universal, without fair and judicious examination of what actually happened, is conducive to neither reconciliation nor the future welfare of Aborigines.

Padraic P. McGuinness, 'We need a closer look at the stolen children', The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 1998, p. 17

I agree with the headline of Padraic McGuinness's article, 'We need a closer look at the stolen children', but not with his comments on Bringing Them Home. He needs to look more carefully at the Report himself, because the quotes he has given from Brunton's book collapse on reading what is actually written in the Report.

The inquiry dealt only with 'forced removals'. Removals which occurred after the free consent of parents or guardians were not considered. The children were not 'returned for the weekends'. Throughout the Report extracts from relevant government Reports, parliamentary debates and official statistics are juxtaposed with the personal testimonies of the people appearing before the commission.

The witnesses were not 'anonymous' to the commissioners but their identity is protected in the public domain of the written Report. Bringing Them Home records only a fraction of what has happened to Aboriginal people in this country; it is far from being 'overstated'.

Read Bringing Them Home. Ask any Aboriginal family about their experience, and then do a reality check on Ron Brunton's claims. Do take a closer look.

Rosemary Kinne, 'Look closely', The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 March 1998, p. 14

Genocide

Perhaps the most contentious issue raised by Bringing Them Home was the finding that the policies which forcibly removed Indigenous children from their families constituted genocide.

Genocide is a crime against humanity. The crime of genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate physical destruction of the group. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and ratified by Australia in 1949, defines genocide in Article II:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm of members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the groups (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Inquiry's examination of historical documents found that the clear intent of removal policies was to absorb, merge or assimilate children so that Aboriginal people, as a distinct racial group, would disappear.

Policies and laws may be genocidal even if they are not motivated by animosity or hatred. The Inquiry found that a principal aim was to eliminate Indigenous cultures as distinct entities. The fact that people may have believed they were removing Indigenous children for 'their own good' was immaterial. The removal remains genocidal.

For most Australians, the popular understanding of the term 'genocide' conjures up images only of deliberate, mass killings. In that context even those who acknowledged that past practices of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families were destructive and racist, found it difficult to accept that Australia had engaged in genocidal practices.

The commission, unfortunately, does the cause of reconciliation over this issue a serious disservice when it describes the removal programs as amounting to genocide. ...

The effect of this sort of extremist embellishment will be to make it easier for unsympathetic people to reject the Report - and make it harder to develop a political and community consensus that an act of reconciliation is appropriate.

Editorial, 'Recognition of a past disgrace', The Australian, 21 May 1997, p. 12

The story of the separated families, now finally coming out, is, I think, the one experience of theirs about which other Australians can feel the way Aborigines do. ...

Bringing Them Home has immense power as a cry of anguish but many flaws and imbalances as history. It cannot be considered as more than raw material in the process of public decision-making. Pedantic discussion - without considering the question of ill-will - of whether removal of children from their families constitutes 'genocide' under United Nations conventions is sensationalism that detracts from the gravitas of the report. ...

This said, the brutality of the assault on Aboriginal families should never again escape public awareness and must surely influence future efforts at reconciliation. Critical parliamentary study of Bringing Them Home might appropriately culminate in a fervent expression of regret passed unanimously by a joint sitting of the two houses.

Frank Devine, 'Yes, cry for the children but no more sackcloth and ashes', The Australian, 2 June 1997, p. 13

... I am confident that we will eventually have a more complicated history than is given in the stolen generation report, and that it will somewhat redeem this dark period of our history. We know already that the actors in the program include those with a clear and brutal genocidal intention, those whose intentions were not genocidal, and those whose intentions were uncomplicatedly good. We do not know their proportions. Let us hope that there are far more of the last category than Bringing Them Home suggests. Even so, it will not alter the fact that a terrible evil was committed against our indigenous peoples and that its rightful name is genocide.

Raimond Gaita, 'Peace Crimes', The Weekend Australian, 5 July 1997, p. 24

Compensation

During the Inquiry and after the report was released, many people - Indigenous and non-Indigenous - said that what was required first and foremost was a recognition of the racism of past laws, policies and practices that forcibly removed Indigenous children from their families, an acknowledgement of their devastating effects on the Indigenous community, and an apology. The primary importance of recognition and apology was not intended to exclude further, more tangible compensation. However, for many non-Indigenous people acts of acknowledgement and apology became both paramount and exclusive. Ironically for some the very depth of emotional trauma suffered was taken to put the issue beyond compensation.

The issue of monetary compensation remains highly contentious. While many non-Indigenous people had no difficulty accepting that past policies and practices which removed Indigenous children from their families were racist, it seems that the issue of compensation taps into more deeply held prejudices about Indigenous people. Myths about government handouts and 'special treatment' for Aboriginal people have fed into the argument that compensation to the stolen generations would be 'divisive'.

The report is clearly well-intentioned but misguided in its recommendation that a tribunal should be established to work out compensation payments to people affected by the former policy.

Such payments would expose Aborigines to the unfair but highly probable criticism that they want to exploit their emotional traumas for financial gain. There is already an unacceptable level of antagonism in Australian society towards Aborigines because of the special help they get from governments. The compensation plan would broaden and intensify this. ...

The best compensation governments can offer to Aborigines is effectiveness in helping them to overcome the shameful disadvantages in health, education, housing and employment that make their communities the most deprived in the nation. This is not a matter necessarily of more money, but of political will and determination. A commitment by the Government to achieve significant improvements should be part of the negotiations for reconciliation.

Editorial, 'Aboriginal progress is the answer', The West Australian, 26 May 1997, p. 12

The endless outpourings of moral outrage over John Howard's refusal to say sorry has again served to distract Australians from the fundamental issue of compensation for the stolen generations of Aborigines.

No amount of illusion over symbolic gestures should be allowed to disguise this. The simple fact is that the quest for cold hard cash has driven the stolen generations agenda ever since the week-long Going Home conference in Darwin in 1994. ...

David Nason, 'No apology, just a big bill: Australia will be sorry indeed when it must pay for the policies that created the Aboriginal stolen generations', The Australian, 2 June 1998, p. 13

The Government can't be expected to take blame for something a past government did. ...

This is not to say that the majority of Australians, black or white, do not feel sorry for injustices suffered by their fellow citizens. But saying I feel sorry for you is different from saying I apologise.

The only reason an apology is being pushed for is so that it can be relied on as an admission of guilt and grounds for monetary compensation - make no mistake about this.

If our politicians, so-called Aboriginal leaders and other reconciliation enthusiasts want something to cry about, or hold a minute's silence for, they should get out and look at the appalling health conditions, lack of housing and the shameful level of education among our black fellow Australians.

G. Guidice, 'An apology means money', The West Australian, 13 June 1997, p. 12

Native Title

Unlike native title, the legal technicalities of which many non-Indigenous Australians find overly complex and confusing, the issue of the stolen children affected many people very strongly. They were able to make an act of personal identification with the issue, and to recognise that both raise fundamental questions of human rights.

Links between the two have arisen. Many non-Indigenous people have come out strongly in support of native title in the past 12 months through becoming involved with the reconciliation movement because they felt strongly about the stolen children. The activities of Women for Wik and ANTaR most clearly demonstrate this linkage.

Even those Australians overwhelmed by the complexities of Mabo and Wik could not fail to grasp the human tragedy set in motion by the decisions of state governments decades ago to remove Aboriginal children from their families and forcibly assimilate them into white society. While 'terra nullius' and 'native title' remain for many people obscure terms for lawyers and politicians to quibble over, it requires no special insight to appreciate the anguish caused by the enforced break-up of families. It is time for the Federal Government to acknowledge the psychological and, in some cases, physical harm that was done to the stolen generations and to offer them the nation's apology.

Editorial, 'A page of our history too dark to ignore', The Courier Mail, 24 May 1997, p. 22

Other voices

In the wake of the Inquiry it was not just the voices of those who were stolen from their families that affected non-Indigenous Australia, it was also those of the non-Indigenous foster and adoptive parents, church and community leaders speaking of their experiences.

Julie Lavelle's pain as one of the 'stolen generation' (Herald, May 20) may never be recognised by the Government, but as an adoptive mother I can acknowledge her pain. I have seen it in my own children.

It has been very difficult for me to accept that no matter what I did or how 'good' a mother I tried to be, the loss my children felt would still be there. My daughter has tried to fill the emptiness with things that almost destroyed her. Thankfully her wonderful spirit has pulled her through.

Our children have always known they are Aboriginal and adopted and we have tried to bring them up to be proud of who they are, but the great tide of ignorance and racism now being unearthed by Pauline Hanson has taken its toll.

When we adopted our children in 1977 and 1980, we believed their mothers wanted them to be adopted. Now I am not so sure. I find the TV programs on the 'stolen generation' almost too painful to watch and I am filled with guilt. However, I am also coming to believe that adoptive parents were also victims of the system.

I want my children to find their natural families, to clean the wound and fill it with hope, and peace of mind. I acknowledge your pain, Julie, and the pain of my children, and the pain of mothers who had their children wrenched from them. And I acknowledge my own grief and pain as an adoptive mother.

Sue Olsen, 'Time to right such terrible wrongs', Letter to the editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 May 1997, p. 14

There are Indigenous people removed from their families and communities in circumstances which fall outside the Inquiry's terms of reference, but their experiences were similar to those of the stolen generations. These individuals serve to highlight the fact that even without legislation specifically directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Indigenous people were adversely affected by the child welfare system. Their experience raises the question of the degree to which the practices of past removals continue in current practice.

Contemporary separations

Much of the debate following the tabling of Bringing Them Home focused on past removals. The debate has overshadowed the large section of the Report on contemporary separations of Indigenous children from their families and communities. People find it easier to acknowledge and confront historical wrongs which do not implicate them personally, rather than to take responsibility for current discrimination, such as the vastly disproportionate rates of Indigenous juvenile arrest and detention.

Acknowledging the past for whatever reason is not about guilt, it is about history.

No self-respecting democracy can deny its history. It is not a symptom of guilt to look reality in the face, it is a symptom of guilt to look away and pretend that it does not exist. How can anybody hope to gain an insight into the present if they have no understanding of the past?

How can we, as a nation, hope to move forward if we continue to say, 'I was not there, I was not responsible'? It is now on our shoulders because it will be our great grandchildren who will blame us for not being responsible when the opportunity arose.

No doubt the same words will be spoken: 'I was not there, I was not responsible'.

A. Weston, 'No denials', Letter to the editor, The West Australian, 10 June 1997, p. 12

How should non-Indigenous people respond?

Since the release of Bringing Them Home , many non-Indigenous Australians have been looking for ways to personally respond to the issue of the stolen children and injustices experienced by Indigenous people in general.

Today I sent a sympathy card to the parents and the children of the stolen generation, care of Mr Mick Dodson, inquiry commissioner, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

I sent it on the premise that if a neighbour lost a parent or a child, I would send a card to indicate that they had my sincerest sympathy in the hope that they would be comforted by my support.

At no time would my neighbours assume that this meant that I was in any way responsible for their loss. Nor would I be expected to compensate them in any way. But I would give them any assistance within my means to help them through their sorrow so that they could progress through the grieving process.

There is very little that I, as an individual, can do to assist with the reconciliation process. However, if many other like-minded individuals also sent a sympathy card, c/- Mr Dodson, the Aboriginal community will hear as offering our sympathy and our emotional support.

The Prime Minister is between a rock and a hard place. He has offered his sympathy as an individual, but, as PM, he will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. This is not a political issue, it is a social issue. Perhaps a show of sympathy and support will help our society progress to the next step.

I shall also ask schools if they will inquire about the possibility of Aboriginal elders coming to the classroom to educate our children in regard to Aboriginal culture in the hope that the reconciliation process will flow more freely in the next generation. We can't erase the past, but perhaps by educating our children about the destructive ramifications on the Australian community we may prevent it from happening again.

Perhaps the Aboriginal elders will then follow our lead and with education help their community to overcome its ingrained prejudices against our white society so that their children will be free to live in both cultures with success.

I hope that somewhere out there are other individuals who want Australia to have a better future and who are prepared to give this idea a chance to work.

Michelle Dodd, 'Send a sympathy card', Letter to the editor, The West Australian, 11 June 1997, p. 13

Many Australians have sent messages of sympathy and letters of apology to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission since the release of Bringing Them Home . In particular people wanted to respond personally to former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Dodson, and former President, Sir Ronald Wilson, who were closely identified publicly with the Report and the individuals who spoke about their experiences to the Inquiry.

People's movement

The responses of many non-Indigenous people to Bringing Them Home have constituted a strong and active people's movement.

People power to urge the holding of a national 'sorry day' is one way for us ordinary people to respond to the stolen children Report. ...

We can say 'sorry' in a meaningful way to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who have been separated from their cultures, their lands, their communities and their families, without having to feel personally guilty for what has been (and still continues to be) inflicted on them by our public institutions. ...

Where the people lead, the leaders will follow.

M. Lane, 'We'll have to lead our leaders', Letter to the editor, The Canberra Times, 1 November 1997, p. 6

Liberal backbencher Peter Nugent joined forces with two Opposition colleagues yesterday to launch a public fund to help implement the recommendations of the stolen children Report. He denied the fund was needed because of Government neglect.

The brainchild of Labor senator Margaret Reynolds, the fund would provide counselling and education for the children forcibly removed from their families, their descendants, and the broader community, Mr Nugent said.

'We look to government to do its part as well, but clearly you can't expect government to do everything, and I think there is a responsibility on the broader community to get involved, and I think this gives them an opportunity to do just that.'

Aban Contractor, 'Stolen children bring all parties together', The Canberra Times, 28 August 1997, p. 5

Many events organised by individuals in their local community had a powerful effect on the Indigenous and non-Indigenous people involved.

Perth car dealer Denis McInerney has a one-word answer to any suggestion that churches and governments are doing enough to make amends for the damage done in trying to assimilate indigenous people into Western culture - bull....

'They are part of what happened and they have an obligation to stand up and right the wrongs of the past,' he said.

The head of McInerney Ford is one of the community members who have joined forces under the banner of the Stolen Generations Action Group to ensure former human rights and equal opportunity commissioner Sir Ronald Wilson's Bringing Them Home Report does not gather dust.

'Lobby group urges church, State action', The West Australian, 16 February 1998, p. 10

There was standing room only as 350 people crowded into the Uniting Church hall on Tuesday evening to hear Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, and Barbara Nicholson, a local Indigenous woman, speak of the past policies of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families and to share stories of their own removal.

The meeting was organised in order to present Mr Dodson with a petition that had been signed by over 2,500 local residents to formally apologise for the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their family homes. The apology was signed in the spirit of sincere contrition and national reconciliation, the signatures having been collected since the release of the 'Stolen Children' Report - Bringing Them Home - in May this year. The Report has so far failed to elicit an apology from the Federal Government.

Southern Highlands News, 5 December 1997

We, the undersigned citizens of the Southern Highlands, in the absence of national leadership wish to express to the Aboriginal people of Australia our deepest shame and sincere regret for the harm and distress caused by the policies and actions of previous governments and religious and community groups in the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their family homes. We extend this heartfelt apology in a spirit of sincere contrition and national reconciliation.

Statement of apology by the Southern Highlands community, 2 December 1997

Don't use me as an excuse, Mr Howard. I am one of the 40 per cent of Australians born overseas.

On December 2, at a public meeting in Bowral, I stood up before Mick Dodson, Betty Little and other Aboriginal people and said I was sorry for the pain all Aboriginal people suffered these past 200 years.

This was not an admission of guilt but an expression of empathy for their suffering. I will only feel guilt if now, having learned about the stolen generations and the dispossession of their lands, I do nothing to help Aboriginal people overcome the past and build a better future.

I became an Australian out of affection and pride in my new country. Right now, Mr Howard, I feel I want to renounce that citizenship.

Jane Pollard, 'Sincere apologies cost nothing', letter to the editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 December, 1997, p. 16

Sorry Day

Just how emotive can one two-syllable word be?

In the case of 'sorry' it can prompt a gamut of feelings from profound sorrow, sadness and regret to bitterness, anger and in some cases, disdain. At least that was the response from Herald readers last week during the big Sorry Day debate which dominated the page for four days.

Readers were divided between those who called for an apology over the Stolen Children so that reconciliation could be achieved between black and white Australians and those who doggedly maintained that they were in no way responsible for the actions of others and that no apology was needed or justified. One feeling was that those who removed children acted only out of the best intentions. Another suggestion was that Aborigines themselves should express forgiveness for injustices done against them as a step towards reconciliation.

In the end, more people wrote in favour of Sorry Day than against it.

Kerry Myers, Letters Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 June 1998, p. 18

Although Sorry Day was the subject of a recommendation in Bringing Them Home directed at the Federal Government, the original idea and the result came from the community. The idea initially came from Link-Up (NSW), and in the absence of Federal Government endorsement of the recommendation, national and regional committees of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people made it happen on 26 May 1998. The Commission was not formally involved in the planning of Sorry Day, and the decision for the day to be held on the anniversary of the tabling of Bringing Them Home was a decision of the National Sorry Day Committee. [4]

The national Sorry Day reignited much of the community debate about the stolen children.

I have received a letter from the East Waikiki Primary School explaining that an assembly will be held to commemorate the 'First National Sorry Day' at the school.

Would someone please let me know why this is being held at a primary school? There are children aged between five and 12 who are being forced to participate in a function which has nothing to do with them. They can't understand or care what it is all about.

Most of the children who attend this particular school are of migrant or mixed parentage and their ancestors had nothing to do with the infamy that was carried out by a racist government. They are all pure Australians, but for these children to be made to stand up and say sorry is absolutely appalling and tantamount to being discriminated against by the [Western Australian] Government which, as the letter says, fully endorses such an action.

I will not allow my child to participate in such an assembly and from the reaction of more than 70 per cent of the parents who have complained to the headmaster, neither will they allow their children to participate. ...

The Government has a Sorry Book which can be signed by anybody who cares to. Surely a better idea would be to circulate this book to all schools and have those who want to express their sorrow sign it rather than have baby students, such as my daughter, participate in what can only be described as a vote-seeking, headline-grabbing exercise?

S. Dale, 'Sorry Day assembly at a primary school?', Letter to the editor, The West Australian, 25 May 1998, p. 12

It was with disbelief that I read the letter from S. Dale about Sorry Day. It is the attitudes of people like them that our children and our children's children will be apologising for in the future.

Surely, even if we don't directly owe the Aboriginal people a personal apology for what our ancestors did, just think for a moment about what you may have done.

Maybe they deserve an apology for every time you crossed the street in the city to avoid them or every time you sat on the other side of the train to avoid making eye contact. What about all of the racist jokes you have laughed at or all of the times you have made some comment about the Aboriginal dole bludgers buying booze.

It is our generation that should be sorry. We can't hide behind the facade, which our ancestors did, of not knowing any better. We know that the Aboriginal people deserve better than they get, but so long as people like S. Dale are depriving their children of taking part in educational activities such as Sorry Day, nothing is really going to change.

Kerren O'Dea, 'We can't hide any longer', Letter to the editor, The West Australian, 27 May 1998, p. 12

The commission's report suggests that there should be an annual 'sorry day'. This is unrealistic: it is asking too much to expect governments to display their shame continually; they, with some reason, will want to put the problems of the past behind them and move on with the business of governing. If 'sorry day' is to become a regular occasion, it can only be as a community event.

Editorial, 'Recognition of a past disgrace', The Australian, 21 May 1997, p. 12

So honest John's Government has rejected an annual Day of Sorrow... even before tabling the Stolen Children Report for popular discussion.

Well, to hell with the politicians. Let mainstream Australians join in a voluntary Day of Sorrow - or Day of Acknowledgement if you prefer. Take leave without pay for one day a year to gather in the streets and acknowledge the devastation our governments wrought on our fellow citizens from 1883 to 1969.

The day is not a grovel for the past but an opportunity to celebrate a bright, united future 'for all of us'.

Paul Mason, 'Three little words: we are sorry', Letter to the editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 May 1997, p. 40

The 'sorry book' for the Aboriginal people tells a story of its own. It tells of a race of people demanding an apology from another race of people for something that happened long ago that only the people involved in the original 'offence' can possibly correct or apologise for.

Instead of seeking an apology from a prime minister of a country who has absolutely nothing to do with what happened (therefore being vindicated of any need to say sorry on behalf of the people of history), I wonder if there is another answer to the problem?

If the Aboriginal community so desperately desires a release from a wrong to their people some years ago so as to build a bridge of unity between races, why does it not think of the obvious answer which would show the nations of the world how to live in unity and in peace?

The solution - the leaders of the Aboriginal communities should publicly declare to the world and themselves that they forgive the people who offended them and robbed them. This would show two things: That the Aboriginal race deserves respect and recognition as a people and that the people transgressed against will not flow down a path of bitterness or resentment but will rather embrace today and let the past die. ...

Yes, the Aboriginal people were blatantly abused - to demand an apology shows nowhere near as much maturity as would be displayed with a public declaration of forgiveness. The world would applaud with respect.

D. Barnes, 'Forgiveness is a beautiful solution', Letter to the editor, The West Australian, 30 January 1998, p. 13

Criticisms of the call for an apology to the stolen generations often seek to polarise the issue as an Indigenous/non-Indigenous one. This disregards the strong support from many non-Indigenous Australians for personal and national apologies. Indeed, the most strident calls for a national apology appear to come from the non-Indigenous community.

It is astounding that so many objected to the concept of 'sorry books'.

None of my ancestors actively participated in the deaths or oppression of Aboriginal Australians, but they did belong to a society that permitted such atrocities to occur.

I am sorry that up until 1968, the year before my birth, Aboriginal Australians were not permitted to vote.

I am sorry that children were systematically removed from their homes, simply because of the colour of their skin and economic status.

I am sorry that a society in which my ancestors lived enslaved, raped and murdered countless Aboriginal Australians.

Finally, I am sorry that there are still people today who believe they have nothing to apologise for. I truly feel sorry for these people.

Melissa Baker, 'Plenty to apologise for', Letter to the editor, The Daily Telegraph, 2 February, 1998

Sorry books for the blacks! Fine. But if sorry books for the whites aren't also available at councils and elsewhere, then this approach is indefensibly a very sorry one-sided handshake and, transparently, very discriminatory and Deane, very transparently, is not for all Australians.

S.A. Millar, 'What about sorry books for the whites?', Letter to the editor, The Australian Financial Review, 20 April 1998, p. 18

Essendon footballers will wear black armbands in support of the Aboriginal stolen generation when they meet Melbourne at the MCG on Saturday.

The gesture is seen by players as part of the reconciliation process and the apology by white Australians to Aborigines.

'Footballers to mark Sorry Day', Northern Territory News, 20 May 1998, p.3

Football commentator Eddie McGuire said it didn't matter that present generations were not responsible for the acts.

'We've got people who are fellow Australians who have been aggrieved and I think it's just a good way for all Australians together as one nation to apologise to those people who did suffer,' he said.

'We want to say sorry', Herald Sun, 22 May 1998, p. 18

The decision, which at heart was a grassroots one, to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Human Rights Commission report on the 'stolen generations' (Bringing Them Home) with a Sorry Day produced controversy and, it must be said, division. But that does not mean that it was a futile exercise. On the contrary, the fact that Sorry Day itself became a discussion that dominated much of the week will have focused attention on past policies towards indigenous Australians and on the more general issue of black-white relations. From that kind of attention often come insight and agreement. The division over Sorry Day has not vindicated the Federal Government's decision against an apology on behalf of the nation to the stolen generations. Nor has it justified that position.

Editorial, 'Hardest word', The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 May 1998, p. 46

1 . For example, see Brunton, R. 'Betraying the Victims: the 'stolen generations' Report', IPA Backgrounder , February 1998, Volume 10/ and McGuinness, P. P., 'We need a closer look at the stolen children', The Sydney Morning Herald , 5 March 1998, p. 17.

2 . For example, see also 'Most back apology, says poll', The Advertiser , 16 June 1997, p. and Mervyn Smythe and Associates, 'An analysis of the media coverage of Bringing Them Home : The Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families', conducted for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, funded by the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, June 1998.

3 . Mervyn Smythe and Associates, 'An analysis of the media coverage of Bringing Them Home : The Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families', conducted for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, funded by the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, June 1998.

4 . Carol Kendall and Greg Thompson chaired the National Sorry Day Committee. A transcript of the Sorry Day statement is found in Appendix 3.

3 April 2003.