24 hours ago…
…it seemed we might get bipartisan agreement on the question of an apology to the Stolen Generation, something that should have been settled last century.
Now Brendan Nelson is starting his stewardship true to his past form as an Education Minister when he always followed the most right-wing (and worst) advice on offer.
“We in my view we have no responsibility to apologise or take ownership for what was done by earlier generations..”
Try that as:
“We in my view we have no responsibility to take ownership for what was done by earlier generations…”
So, don’t even think of the ANZAC spirit, Brendan. Past generations, you see…
Or do we only take ownership of what suits us?
I have a post on the subject written 26 November when Malcolm Turnbull said, rightly:
“Clearly we should have said sorry then. Unquestionably that was an error I’d say about a friend, John Howard. I think John got himself into a bit of a semantic tangle there. And you know getting into semantics about regret versus sorry, that’s a waste of time. But having said that it’s one thing to say sorry, you should do that, but the critical thing is getting the substance right.”
Go there for further discussion.
I wonder if Malcolm Turnbull will stand by his convictions.
Wiggle room?
Yes, Dr N did concede on the Kyoto Protocol. 
Looking later at what he actually said in his 7.30 Report Interview, I think I do discern some wiggle room.
KERRY O’BRIEN: And on Aboriginal issues, are you prepared like Malcolm Turnbull was, to say sorry, to join with Mr Rudd in saying sorry to the stolen generations?
BRENDAN NELSON: Look Kerry, we are very proud of what our forebears did at Gallipoli and other campaigns. That doesn’t mean that we own them. Similarly, we feel a sense of shame in some ways of what was done in the past, where with good intentions, but not always with good outcomes, Aboriginal people were removed from what were often appalling conditions.
We, in my view, we have no responsibility to apologise or take ownership for what was done by earlier generations.
KERRY O’BRIEN: So you would repudiate any attempt to say sorry to the stolen generations?
BRENDAN NELSON: Kerry, again that’s a matter that needs to be discussed in some detail with my colleagues, but I think it’s not a simple issue, and it’s a very sensitive one. It’s a very complex one. Symbolism is extraordinarily important. But I think we need to remember, and I think most people know that I have the greatest sympathy and respect for Aboriginal people. I have a portrait of Neville Bonner in my office on the wall opposite me, twice the size of a standard door, the first Aboriginal Australian in the Federal Parliament, but I believe that our generation cannot take personal or generational responsibility for the actions of earlier ones which in most, but not all cases, were done with the best of intentions.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Brendan Nelson, we’re out of time, but thanks for joining us.
BRENDAN NELSON: Thank you, Kerry.
All state and territory governments in Australia and most of the churches who were involved HAVE apologised for the Stolen Generation. Why on earth has this ever been a contentious issue for the Australian government?
READ: World Vision’s Policy Statement on the Stolen Generation (PDF)
Update
Julie Bishop is tight-lipped on ’sorry’ stance. Yeah, that figures. Not the only area where she is tight, I would have thought…
Neil, I warned you about this. I am sure that we will get an apology from Mr Rudd. I am also sure that it will mean less than might otherwise have been the case.
Dr Nelson has quite complicated views, including a previous record of support for indigenous improvement. He is not a one dimensional creature.
I don’t want to go on beyond saying this.
I have been arguing for quite a while now that we need a completely new approach to indigenous development. I also think that we need a new compact with our indigenous people so that all of us can put the past behind us.
I respect your strongly felt views. I just think that you are to locked into the past.
To make my own position clear.
I think that Mr Howard should have said sorry. I think that this could have been done in a way that respected different views. He did not, in part because of the way the debate was phrased.
Jim Belshaw
1 Dec 07 at 9:54 am
I think that Mr Howard should have said sorry. I think that this could have been done in a way that respected different views. He did not, in part because of the way the debate was phrased.
Jim, it appears we agree this is something that should have been settled last century! I don’t think I am locked into the past at all. I think Howard did not put nearly enough thought into seriously framing a solution that would have addressed those worried by possible implications of an apology and satisfied those like me for whom an apology really is a no-brainer. But he didn’t and the issue simply festered. If it was all behind us now we would be in a much better position practically facing the kind of challenges Mal Brough certainly was attempting to address.
What you say about Dr Nelson — though he does not impress me — may be reflected in that “wiggle room” I mention. Let’s hope so.
ninglun
1 Dec 07 at 12:42 pm
I agree with you that the issue should have been addressed once the fact were established.
Now I may be wrong on Dr Nelson. My personal contact with him was largely at a few meetings of the RACO Benevolent Fund in 98 and 99 of which he was chair.
Let me try to disentangle the symbolism issue since this is something that you and Dr Nelson appear to have in common.
Start with the premise that an injustice has been done. This is easy. Is it true or not true? That, to me, is a question of fact.
When this issue first came up my reaction was negative because, having researched child welfare, it seemed to me that we were just dealing with changing attitudes towards the treatment of children.
This does not mean that injustices were not involved and should not be recognised. Rather, that the argument was set in the wrong frame.
Once it was established that there was in fact a special Aboriginal element, my views changed. A different type of apology was involved.
But because the issue had become symbolic things became complicated because of all the overlays.
I can only say that I don’t want to play the symbolism game any more. Yes, Aboriginal people were disadvantaged. I can deal with that. I just don’t want to deal with all the overlays.
Jim Belshaw
1 Dec 07 at 3:24 pm
When this issue first came up my reaction was negative because, having researched child welfare, it seemed to me that we were just dealing with changing attitudes towards the treatment of children.
Yes and no. There is still a good case to be made for the removal of children where their circumstances warrant, so long as we have good alternatives in place for them, an area we could no doubt improve. On the other hand, the removal of part-Aboriginal children was often for other reasons in the past, as you surely know. A O Neville was just one who was very clear on that at the time, but he was not alone.
Further, whatever form the symbolic apology takes — and I have no problem with symbols — it will be a recognition of much wider injustices. I do not see that as a negative thing, as it also should allow for recognition of the historical circumstances which were beyond anyone’s control, and of the good that was also done. But I have argued that before. We engage in symbolism all the time — at citizenship ceremonies, at the opening of parliament, on Anzac Day, on Australia Day. Such symbolism articulates our definition of ourselves. Nothing wrong with it, and not a game. Why should this, or some mention in the constitution, suddenly be different, especially when it is so clearly a core issue in the foundation of our country?
Some of the best articulations I have experienced have come from people like Monty Pryor and Kristina, and so many others who are simply about sharing and raising awareness.
It really can be a bipartisan, unthreatening thing so easily, Jim. And it has already happened at just about all levels except the top! Let’s just hope Rudd and company are well advised and come up with something most people can relate to; I believe in fact they will. I really don’t think in essence we are that far apart on this.
I really do think Turnbull understood the matter very well. There are signs that Nelson is not a total curmudgeon on it; perhaps he is shoring up support from his own reactionaries…
ninglun
1 Dec 07 at 3:38 pm
Neil, I have been stewing on this all afternoon, getting angrier and angrier. Not with you, I hasten to add.
My charge is simply this. When will people stop dealing with abstracts and deal instead with on-ground issues.
While I accept that broad symbolic issues are important, when will people take into account the fact that our indigenous people are just that, people. When will they act to save the things that are being lost.
Localisation is important. You have to give a human, immediate face, to things.
At macro level I have tried to argue that policy has failed, pointing to some of the things that need to be done to fix it up.
But my real concerns are much more micro.
I spent hours trawling through the last census data trying to find out how many speakers were left of New England’s indigenious languages.This is the area in NSW that has the greatest base of original culture. I was appalled at the results.
I have tried to make to the point that the problems of indigenious kids in Kempsey cannot be solved by “Aboriginal” policy but requires broader economic development action.
I have pointed to the problems of basic lack of information about our indigenous peoples, suggesting that a Government funded web site for each language group gathering togetheravailable information would help.
I have suggested that the history curriculum needs to be altered, sketching out one for Northern NSW.
Since I moved back into commenting in this area, I have written perhaps sixty posts. And for what purpose?
I don’t want to talk about sorry or reconciliation (practical or otherwise), important though those things may be.
I want a few simple things.
Even though we now live in Sydney, I want my children to have access to New England’s Aboriginal past.
I want Aborigines in New England to have proper access to and pride in their own history.
I want problems of social deprivation sorted so that all New England Aboriginal kids have the same opportunity as everyone else.
I want every child in New England to understand the sight and sound of the area’s Aboriginal past.
Is this a lot to ask for? I do not think so.
But it will not happen until we can get rid of the crap that surrounds present discussion.
Jim Belshaw
1 Dec 07 at 9:09 pm
Jim, I honestly don’t see your point, except I do agree with all those desiderata you list. If the whole “sorry” issue had been done and dusted by 2001, when it should have been, perhaps the focus could be more clearly on such things. But I don’t see it as an either/or situation as if addressing the one somehow prevents thinking about the other.
I would like to see every Sydney student aware of the area’s Aboriginal past. Take Sutherland Shire, for example; the area is rich with it even though much has been lost. I used to constantly wonder about things I found in the bush as a kid, but there was very little information available then and really people did not like talking aboout it. Now there are things like this, encouraging and quite normal these days, a continuing legacy in fact from the reconciliation movement leading up to 2001.
That is also where the Sydney Boys High/Boggabilla program came from, quite deliberately, as “reconciliation” became less “fashionable” in the years since 2001 and there were those who wanted to do something to keep it alive, as well as to make a practical contribution. It really was a case of “Well if those bastards in Canberra don’t want to know about it, then it’s up to us to do something…” I still often wear the Reconciliation teeshirt the Boggabilla people were selling us. Often this has led to smiles, even conversation, with Aboriginal people around here when they see me wearing it. They actually value its symbolism, even if it’s just shown by a quick “Nice shirt, bro” to me in passing.
My little bit at the top of my sidebars now is partly consciousness raising, preserving/asserting a bit of information about this part of the world that I learned only this year about the significance of Prince Alfred Park. I would like to see more knowledge and more research about that past. I would like such research to be factual and careful. And so on…
And I really wish Howard hadn’t jibbed on the reconciliation issue in his first few years when so many people (witness the Bridge Walk) would have supported it.
But it’s not as if all that is a substitute for what you want.
The languages question would require the language to have status and to be taught in schools. I am sure you know about New Zealand policy on this. About our country: have you seen this site? There’s also an interesting article here from Aurukun. It is such a difficult area because on the other hand the strong pressure on schools to improve outcomes through the Australian Government National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (here) — also important — must have an impact, depending on where people are and how strong indigenous language use is, on the status and continuing viability of indigenous languages. There’s a real tension there, there must be, because for many English is the key to the future, but embracing that without losing the other must be difficult. Yes, there are those who do it, who are able to be bicultural and bilingual, but it still must be hard.
Kristina, for example, re-entered Aboriginal culture by becoming part of the Mornington Island people, having lost her own connection to a considerable degree. I know she used to spend time going back to Mornington (not her original home), and I know she wasn’t the only one in the Aboriginal dance and arts world so to do. I know she can get by in Aboriginal English (a distinct dialect) and I think she knows some Kriol, but I don’t think she has much knowledge of whatever her background language would have been.
LATER
See also State-by-State Language Support.
I’ve in the past spent a bit of time at La Perouse Public School and Matraville High. They do fantastic things there, but it is not as if there isn’t more to be done, obviously, and there’s not a lot I can personally do except raise issues as I see them. The church, of course, in Waterloo/Redfern is involved. There’s a good literacy program going in Redfern for starters. But as one of my extremely well-disposed relatives in Wellington said way back in the 1960s it is often very hard, and very hard to know what is best to do.
ninglun
1 Dec 07 at 9:32 pm
Neil, I sat on this one over-night to restore a sense of perspective. Thank you for taking the time to find and insert the links in your response. I apologise for sounding off in quite the way I did.
I know that a range of things are being done, most within what I have previously called the ghetto created by indigenous policy.
If we take the language question on its own, there are a number of different issues involved.
One is the best way of teaching kids for whom English is a second language. Here one interesting thing in the NT example is the apparent decline in indigenous langauge programs. This, the role of indigenous languages, became an issue during the NT intervention.
A second thing is the continuing decline in the languages themselves.
NSW is apparently the state doing most here. I had looked at this one before. The ALRC site says:
“Today of the 70 plus NSW languages, there are only ten Aboriginal languages that are “healthy” enough to be taught in our schools [See Table 3.3]. Only four have enough speakers to record the language and there is significant revitalisation and education activity in six other languages. All other NSW languages need substantial work by communities in partnership with language professionals to revitalise them.”
Of the ten, four are New England languages, using New Engalnd in its broader geographical sense. If we take NSW as a whole:
“During 2006 there were 46 programs offered in 10 languages to 25 primary, 9 secondary and 3 central schools. Of these, 41 are state schools, 4 Catholic schools, 1 independent school.”
This is not a lot.
Without having fully analysed the data, the last census results pulled me up because it indicated a further and apparently sharp decline in the number of speakers since the previous census.
The third is the accessibility of Aboriginal language and culture to the broader community. I accept that there is more around here than there was, but the picture is still not good and can be very frustrating to someone like me who is interested and wants to find out material on specific topics.
Far too often, things are done on an ad hoc basis or locked into subjects like Aboriginal Studies, itself something of a ghetto area. So much of what is taught or made available is also locked into a frame set by indigenous/non-indigenous relations.
I am not saying that this is not important, but we tend to lose sight of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders themselves except as victims.
The reason I got so cranky is that it seemed to me that, yet once again, debate was being hijacked.
I used New England as an area because it is the one I knew best. The list I provided represented some of the things I am interested in and have talked about.
There was very little discussion on indigenous issues during the election campaign, and that which did occur tended to be locked into a very few topics.
If we take North Coast Voices as an example, a very pro ALP blog from an area with a major indigenous population, the very small number of posts on indigenous issues all dealt with the sorry question.
Maybe things will improve once the Government has dealt with the sorry question. But for the moment, and talking just about New England, my personal fear is that things are going to be just the same in ten year’s time.
Maybe I am being too pessimistic. Individual things are happening like the Bundjulung mapping project, the Gitthabul land title decision, the Estes work in Moree, just to name a few I have written about.
But on so many dimensions, things do not appear to be happening. In many cases the on-ground problems appear as bad if not worse than they were ten years ago, with new problems emerging as well.
In some cases we are just running out of time. Too much has been lost already while we debate broader issues.
Jim Belshaw
2 Dec 07 at 7:57 am
If we take the language question on its own, there are a number of different issues involved.
One is the best way of teaching kids for whom English is a second language.
Now that I do feel qualified to talk about, but not now…
In some cases we are just running out of time. Too much has been lost already while we debate broader issues…
It seems to me that is a really good point in favour of a bipartisan acceptance of a careful and sensitively worded apology.
ninglun
2 Dec 07 at 8:33 am
“It seems to me that is a really good point in favour of a bipartisan acceptance of a careful and sensitively worded apology.”
We are in agreement on this point.
Jim Belshaw
2 Dec 07 at 8:47 am