Kevin Rudd's National Apology

In Kevin Rudd’s 17th of February 2008 speech, the Australian Prime Minister apologises to the Indigenous Australians for the stolen generations. With this speech, Rudd attempted to ease the disadvantage that affects most Indigenous Australians by pledging that the government would improve their health, education, living conditions and their lifestyle overall. Rudd claims that he is apologetic and remorseful for the treatment the past Indigenous Australians received. He strengthens his speech by using several language techniques to convince the audience that Australia is remorseful for the past events and wishes to amend. the techniques he used include such as his choice of vocabulary and references to time to mention the historical struggle

After many years of European settlement in Australia, many Aboriginal people had been removed from their families and placed into schools with white Australians. This was due to the ‘protection policy’ laws that encouraged the removal of Indigenous children. Because fewer indigenous children were able to learn about their own culture, there was a slow decline in the culture of the indigenous people. As a result of this, there were continued tensions between the free settlers and Indigenous people as they had no roles in the government and couldn’t vote. This made them feel as if they were excluded from greater society and had long term negative impacts upon their sense of belonging to the new

Only in recent years have we seen the recognition that the stolen generation deserves and the essential part it has play in the struggle of Aboriginal rights. Since the end of the stolen generation, numerous organisations and government agency has come out and said sorry for what happened for seventy years and as a result Aboriginal rights are becoming more apparent. The famous “I’m sorry” speech said by Kevin Rudd was the first Parliament apology to the Stolen Generation and was seen as a huge leap forward in the recognition of the Stolen Generation. The Bringing Them Home Report in 1997 was a strong campaign for The

Mr Rudd opened his speech in parliament with the words “We honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history” (2012). It is true that Mr Rudd took the first step in reconciliation however he has not progressed as far as hoped. There has been little compensation made to the stolen generation. Was the apology a sincere one? Perhaps? His intentions were clear and precise. Rudd had said he would apologize and he did. He did not say he would compensate the Indigenous Australians in any form which would have gone a long way to begin the healing process. Especially due to the inconceivable horrors that were enacted against the Stolen Generations.

In each instance the individual has been separated from family, it also means a fracturing of their identity. The Identity of Aboriginal people links family and land. The land connection is like a bond to family in a parental capacity; the land is our mother and deserves our respect. Separation from family is also separation from cultural belonging. The family is there to reiterate identity and culture.

Kevin Rudd’s apology was to the Aboriginals; but in particular, to the Stolen Generations. From 1909-1969, the Australian Government forced a policy know as assimilation upon the Aboriginals. Assimilation is the forced integration of minority groups onto the dominant society. Inhumane acts were inflicted upon these proud people because of the ‘Aborigines Protection Board’ which entailed that the Australian Government had full rights to forcibly remove half-caste children from Aboriginal care without parental consent nor a court order.

This is where assimilation comes into play I believe. Aboriginal people were expected to give up their own culture and traditions and adopt the Western way of living, with the expectation that they would all assimilate (Stanley et al. 2002). This was further developed as a formal government policy in 1951 (Gerrer 2013). I believe what really triggered my outrage was what happened to the children when they were taken away. It was shown to us in class that most children were not put into better households, with a better support system. In fact they were made to be white peoples slaves, with some cases of sexual abuse and other terrible acts of sinfulness (Lousy Little Sixpence 1983). These Aboriginal families were told a lie that their children would be sent off to gain an education but instead were not aware in actually their innocent children where soon to become the slaves of a rich Caucasian families, with no where to escape (Lousy Little Sixpence 1983). I feel as if I’ve been fed false information about the history of the country I live in.

Canada today is known for the pride it carries for being multi-cultural, inclusive and combination of many cultural, races and religious backgrounds, but for decades in the past Aboriginal children were abducted from their homes unwillingly to go to these Residential School enforced by Canadian government and laws. The goal of the government at the time was to destroy Aboriginal people and their existence overall. Fast forward in 2008 the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a public apology to Aboriginals regarding their role in residential schools as he quotes “We are sorry. The treatment of children in Indian residential school is a sad chapter of our history” ("Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Statement Of Apology"). Although many Aboriginals considered this a historical day and had a sense of relief “the apology was necessary but insufficient... Apologies once given, are only meaningful for the action that follows” ("Harper Apologizes For Residential School Abuse"). The official apology to Aboriginal Canadians who suffered in the residential school system for policies and actions of the government in the past have been explored in “A Sorry State” article by author Mitch Miyagawa. Sitting government apologizes for past government is appropriate to the mistreatment that occurred to interned, excluded and systematically neglected people, the accountability for past mass atrocity and human rights abuse and democracy for the victims, as well as acknowledging what

Contentious debate continues to rage in present society opening a floodgate of ethical issues which can have detrimental effects on all parties involved. Ethics vary from each individual and tend to stem from their own belief systems external to that person (Dosen, Harris, Brock, Imariso and Smith 2007:336). These ethics give rise to conflicting arguments in present society. 50 years ago, Indigenous Australians were not entitled to enter a bar, cafe, swimming pool, or a cinema, if that deprivation of basic rights wasn’t enough; they then took children from their mothers later on known as the ‘stolen generation’ (www.creativespirits.2008). The stolen generation, estimated at over 100,000 children were taken from their homes and placed in missions, reserves or dormitories (www.creativespirits.2008). “I feel our childhood has been taken away from us and it has left a big hole in our lives” an Indigenous Australian part of the stolen generation (www.creativespirtis.2008). The loss of ones culture and identity was deemed worse then being poor and living in sub standard living with their families.

Reconciliation is the process of building respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community. It is about understanding and respecting their culture and heritage and signifies ‘coming together’ to become one nation without racism and with equality for all. There are still vast differences in health, education, employment, and standards of living of the Indigenous peoples as compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Even today Indigenous peoples have a significantly lower life expectancy, up to 11.5 years for men and 9.7 years for women . The infant mortality rate for the Indigenous peoples is double the rate for non-Aboriginal Australians. Understanding these inequalities is the first step to reconciling the differences. Policies such as the stolen generation and assimilation policy destroyed Indigenous identity and culture and justified the dispossession of Indigenous people and the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. We can’t change the past but we can make a better future by understanding and learning from the mistakes of the past, reconciliation is about that. Many practical and symbolic strategies have been implemented over the last 50 years to achieve reconciliation such as ATSIC, Northern Territory Intervention and the Mabo decision. However, the most significant ones are the 1967 Referendum, Closing the Gap framework in 2008 and the ‘Sorry speech’. The aim is to improve the five dimensions of reconciliation: race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity, unity, and historical acceptance.

I would like to begin this speech by recognising the owners of this land, the true ancestors of the country we call ‘ours’. To the Indigenous peoples of Australia, I acknowledge you, I thank you and most of all I apologise to you for the deep suffering and remorse you are put through. I am ashamed of this country’s treatment towards you. Past and Present.

Government policies authorising the removal of Aboriginal children have caused extensive and unrepairable damage to every aspect of Indigenous culture. It could be argued that the emotional turmoil which occurred as a result of this policy, is greater than any physical abused ever faced by the Australian Aboriginal people. The act of child removal would be a scarring experience for parents and children of any race or culture. This policy had a particularly damaging impact on the Indigenous people as their identity is based within a set of strong traditional guides and teachings. These lessons are not recorded, but can only be taught through speaking with elders and learning through a connection to others within the mob, connection to art forms

After this time, many atrocities occurred, such as the fact that Aboriginals were often killed for sport, and massacres such as Myall Creek were occurring, where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered near Myall Creek Station in 1838. There was also the problem of the Stolen Generation, when Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes to be raised as though they were white. It was only recently in 2008, that Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, apologised for the actions that the government had undertaken. In another apologetic move, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a powerful speech regarding the fact that Aboriginal Communities were still segregated despite the fact that laws had been changed a number of years ago. This shows that the idea of atonement by Australia is quite a new topic. Does this prove the challenges that Aboriginal’s faced nearly 200 years ago are still present in today’s society? It was enough to force the Aboriginal men, women and children to begin act in support of their rights.

This article gives the reader an inequitable view of Indigenous Australians, defending Tony Abbot’s point of view and the audience is encouraged to agree with mainstream media in regards to whether or not Tony Abbott is racist. Article B from the Koori Mail condemns Tony Abbott’s viewpoint as not only racist but he is insulting the very culture that he is representing. Article B states that Tony Abbott does not understand Indigenous culture and how important land is to them “Connection to country is everything to Aboriginal people – defines Aboriginal people and sustains us in a cultural and spiritual sense and can play a vital role in building economic independence, self-determination and healing” (Greg Cromelin, Article B). With Article B the audience is encouraged to get angry at Tony Abbott’s comments and make him out to be racist.

‘The Sapphires’ by Wayne Blair was the trigger that led my research into the effects of the Stolen Generation on Aboriginals in Australia. This film is about an Aboriginal singing group who want to make a name for themselves, but find it difficult because of the racism against them. This film also tells the stories of their cousin Kay, who was a half-caste and was stolen from her Aboriginal family at a young age to be taught the ways of white people, and forget her culture. This film made me realise that I am lucky to live in a country where racism of such an extent in which children are stolen from their indigenous families, isn’t part of our history, and has not affected me personally. From my research, I have found six main sources that have helped me to understand how large this problem was and continues to be. My sources: ‘The Sapphires’ by Wayne Blair; a film about a group of Aboriginal singers who are affected by racism which is based on a real life singing group; ‘The Sorry Speech’, by Kevin Rudd who was the Prime Minister of Australia in 2008 who explains the damage and apologises for the way that the actions of past governments tore apart the lives of their indigenous people. Then there is ‘Blind Eye,’ the documentary in which people who were stolen are interviewed and tell their stories. The film, ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’ this tells the story of two girls who were stolen and gives us insight into how brutally that they were treated after being ripped apart from