“Saying Sorry”: The 2008 Kevin Rudd Apology, Expectations, Reactions, and Implications

Why Did I Research This? I became interested in this apology after reading the case study of genocide in Australia in my textbook for PSCI 469- Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. I wanted to understand why this apology was made in light of the genocide.

How Did the Research Process Get Me to My Research Question? Initially researching the apology and was trying to understand how it affected possible reparations for the Aborigines. Took a step further and examined how White Australians and Aboriginal Australians viewed this apology and what they were expecting from it.

Research Question and Hypothesis “How do the different actors view the 2008 Kevin Rudd apology?” Is it an end point, a “lid” on history, or a beginning of a debate on current injustices? Hypothesis; ● There is division within the two groups, White Australians and Aboriginal Australians, in regards to their perceptions and expectations of this apology.

Who are the Stolen Generation?

The Apology – Given in 2008 by PM Kevin Rudd

The Current Literature – Public Apologies State issued apologies: Problem is that they impose, “rigid material and symbolic limits upon apologies” (Barkarn and Karn 2008). Little to no room to bring in and address current injustices that indigenous peoples face. Detrimental due to the “politics of distraction”: the shifting of discourse away from restitution of indigenous homelands and resources and instead focusing on affirmative repair policies (Barkarn and Karn 2008).

The Current Literature – Public Apologies Cont. Accepting or Rejecting Apologies: “Survivors acquire and retain the power to grant or withhold forgiveness.” Not followed up with, “direct and immediate action, such as monetary reparations, official apologies risk seeming meaningless” (Minow 1998). However, money, returning property and religious sites will not make victims 100% whole or “clean the slate” of history (Minow 1998).

Resisting Apology: Political Agendas and Personal Views Prime Minister John Howard (Liberal Party)(Opposed): Disagreed with the 1997 Bring Them Home (BTH) report. Focused on the period of 1910 to 1970 concluded that, “the government’s policy of child removal violated the values of domestic laws and breached several international laws” (Nobles 2008). Vehemently denied the charges of genocide the BTH reported. Knew a formal apology would expose the federal government to legal liability and “endorse views related to Aboriginal rights” (Nobles 2008).

Resisting Apology: Political Agendas and Personal Views Cont. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (Labor Party)(Initially opposed but then Supported Apology). Bringing up genocide would spell a political disaster for the Labor party and demands for monetary compensation would pour in. Acknowledge that Australia violated the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention (Barta 2008). “Apology was pushed into the limelight without the legal argument that had helped place it on the national agenda…striving for maximum consensus, was not about to rub open a bitter controversy” (Barta 2008).

Reactions and Expectations – White Australians Rudd government’s heavy emphasis on affirmative repair policies and avoidance of monetary reparations. “Closing the Gap” Policies. Wished to put “a lid” on history and “move on”. Ironically, crafting policy prescriptions (“closing the gap” policies)“political parties use their ideological orientation to shape their competing views of history”. The “closing the gap” policies show contradiction to the hopes of “moving on” and “forgetting the past” (Nobles 2008).

Reactions and Expectations – White Australians Cont. Civilian Population: Apology is a way to redefine communal morality and expand the conception of social responsibility (Barkarn and Karn 2006). Moral imperative: “An apology is simply the right thing to do” (Whol, Hornsey, and Philpot 2011). Opposition:“It’s unfair for current generations to carry the burden of previous generations” (Whol, Hornsey, and Philpot 2011). Denial: “transgression was not as severe as is claimed” (Whol, Hornsey, and Philpot 2011).

Reactions and Expectations – Aboriginal Australians For some, the apology alone was the only thing they wanted. For others, this apology should have: Included a reparation fund for the Stolen Generation. Could have been a primary step towards recognizing self-determination as necessary for restoring the rights of the Aborigines (Barkarn and Karn 2006). Noel Pearson, who is an Aboriginal man himself, explains that the apology should have been used to set the historical record straight on the Stolen Generation. Warns about the use of simplistic titles such as “the rescued generation” (2009).

Was it Only Words?

End