Comparisons between the holocaust and the so-called stolen generation are quite unjustified. Such silly comparisons as this don't encourage me to feel sorry. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors, and I am not sorry for them.

There is no future in the past. Let's all just move on!

Having a legal background, I am very interested to know exactly what the ramifications would be if ‘sorry’ was actually said. For example, in what already is an over litigious society, would ‘sorry’ translate to ‘class action’ etc? At university I was constantly told by activist lecturers that there would be no ramifications as such, but they were never able to evidence this position. My reading of the situation in both Canada and America is that saying ‘sorry’ has done nothing to improve relations nor stifle welfare dependency, but has led to huge ‘compensation’ payouts.

On a personal note, I have never understood the need to say ‘sorry’. Why is it so different to ‘deep regret’ or ‘profound injustice’? Furthermore, does anyone seriously believe that ‘sorry’ will be the magical word that fixes years of welfare dependency and lack of accountability? The whole situation is magnified by the fact that an official apology in effect wouldn’t mean much given that only a small proportion of the population is generations removed from the events that took place. Surely the aboriginal leadership should have more important focuses.

not responsible for your ancestors is certainly true, but that doesn't mean the problems they left behind are not your responsibility.

our masters in canberra might, just for instance, offer to hand back land to the original owners if they have remained on it, and maintained some cultural cohesion. it has been done in the united states, and the local autonomy does a lot for native american morale. it also improves their standard of living. it won't happen here- without a bill of rights, without democracy, the pollies have no reason to move.

Shame on Reynard, and thank you Harry for this fine and moving piece.

I am sure that Kevin Rudd has said sorry to our indigenous people, and many times, in his personal capacity as an Australian citizen and Labor politician. For example, he was implicitly saying sorry sorry in his article in The Monthly, "Faith in Politics". I am sure he will say it again in appropriate ways during the election campaign.

The issue is that Rudd has pledged to say sorry as Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Australia, but Howard still cruelly refuses to do so. There is a real difference here, and any voter with a smidgeon of shame for what our white forefathers did to mistreat aboriginal people in building the rich society we have now, will remember that difference when they vote. It is a big part of the reason why so many Australian voters have finally turned off Howard. The man has no love or compassion in him.

I also wonder about the legal ramifications of saying "sorry" and suspect that it is precisely because of those that the present Government has not done.
What is more I would be deeply disturbed if someone endeavoured to offer a "sorry" on my behalf. I have nothing to be "sorry" for and my ancestors certainly have nothing to be "sorry" for. To the contrary they did much to support indigenous rights.
I regret what happened in the past and I also say it was wrong but the idea that we should now be held responsible for actions over which we had no control is to open a Pandora's box - far better to concentrate on current problems and giving the current generation assistance so it does not happen again.
All Rudd is doing is playing politics - those asking for "sorry" are, after all, more likely to vote in his favour.

Kevin Rudd announced he'd make an official apology to Aboriginal Australians for the dreadful treatment so many received, upon being elected PM. The apology on behalf of a nation needs to come form the elected leader, not from any other. He has already apologised as Opposition Leader, as an MP, and as a citizen....as have thousands of others: State Premiers, local councilors, myself.. all across Australia.

Germany apologised for treatment of jews and others during WW2....most Germans living today were not alive then, yet they understood and appreciated what was happening, and why.

Canada, the govt apologised for treatment of its indigenous people, and in many provinces has established far ranging treaties.

South Africa, likewise.

Britain recently apologised, officially and as a nation, for their role facilitiating slavery. Notwithstanding that Britain helped end the practice, and nobody alive today played any part.

Any mother will tell you....saying sorry is important, but it needs to be sincere....and needs to be made by somebody who either did the deed, or is empowered to speak for, and by, the perpetrators and/or their beneficiaries, ie, us. The whole Aussie nation. Therefore it MUST be the elected leader who speaks, and who offers the chosen words to the history books.

John Howard could never do that because it would mean admitting that he's been heartless, or cruel, or just plain wrong, and that many who placed their trust in him and gave him their vote would look bad....in some cases, very bad. This makes many people nervous as they fear the judgement of history. Any comments regarding legalities are no more than code for 'cover my ass'.

BTW, will you be sending the sherrif out again to deal with those pesky noisy drunken dusky faced fellows who hang out at the back of the town rubbish dump and get into fights with the coppers? Lets lock em up, eh? Problem solved....until tomorrow.

Reynard, I think, badly misreads Throssell’s article. Throssell sees parallels in the shameful policies of ‘pure breeding’, the fear and shame of the victims and their need to hide from oppressors. And he was picking up the theme that good people stood by and let it happen in both instances.

Many of us white kids who were taken from their families and incarcerated in orphanages in the 20th century know something of what it must have felt like to be a member of the Stolen Generation. Many of us were told we were guttersnipes, our parents were no-hopers and we would never amount to anything in this world - while being sexually exploited and used as unpaid labour by ‘carers’ accountable to no one. Many of us still suffer from growing up ashamed, confused, neglected and abused. (See Senate Report, ‘Forgotten Australians’, 2004 - http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/report/)

It’s no help to say to those people, ‘There is no future in the past.’ The fact is there is no future without the past – for us our childhood lasts a lifetime.

What’s the worst thing that might happen if the Australian Government says ‘Sorry’ to the Stolen Generation? wre thinks it would result in ‘huge compensation payouts’ (to which I hasten to say claims in the courts have no guarantee of success).

And so what if there were compensation payouts? Would that bankrupt the nation? Just some petty cash. But wre also knows ‘an official apology in effect wouldn’t mean much…’ It must be so comforting for wre to have such divine insights into how Indigenous people feel.

There are many important issues facing Indigenous people in Australia. It would be comforting for them to know that the Australian Government acknowledges the shameful history and supports their search for justice and equality. Saying ‘Sorry’ would be just a start, but symbols of good faith are important in people’s lives.

Frank
Instead of being sarcastic, why not answer some of the questions people have about this ‘sorry’ process. Do you know something I don’t about why ‘sorry’ is so different to ‘deeply regret’? Do you care to enlighten us as to why aboriginal claims will be limited to compensation that ‘won’t bankrupt the nation’? What are the legal ramifications?

In addition, let’s get real about just how bad the aboriginals in this country have had it. Yes, awful things happened. Yes, indigenous Australians were devoid of civil rights up until 50 years ago. Yes, the process of colonization in this country damaged a beautiful indigenous culture. HOWEVER, had the Dutch colonised Australia apartheid arguably would have been in place until the 1990’s. Had Francisco Pizarro and the Spanish Armada sailed in our direction instead of South America’s, there would be no aboriginals left today. In fact, the Japanese would have wiped out the entire aboriginal population had the Rape of Nanking taken place on this continent.

The fact is, colonial times were not great for indigenous populations the world over. However, this country has given the indigenous population the best opportunity to rebound and it has failed to do it. In my view, ATSIC’s failures is far more responsible for the problems within aboriginal communities today than John Howard’s refusal to say ‘sorry’ is.

WRE

You sum up the situation very well. Some of the practices of Aborigines prior to Colonisation would to this day be considered barbaric. Why do we always look at the bad (of which their was plenty) and overlook the good (of which you outline well). To continue to give people the victim status allowing them to be drunkards and child abusers and then blaming others is a crime. Many aboriginals have benefited greatly by receiving an education.

Anyone with any sort of heart is sickened by racism whether back then or now. We should be all sorry for injustices of the past but playing politics with the Prime Ministers role is sickening. We see this sort of politics taking place with Noel Pearson today as he attempts to recitfy in house issues in his community. Because he is brave enough to face up to difficult issues he is criticised by many whose own political agenda is challenged.

wre

I'm sorry you find me sarcastic. (It's not all that hard to say 'sorry'.) If 'sorry' is not all that different from 'deeply regret' as you imply, why not get just it out - if that is what Indigenous people want to hear? Why not? Why is Howard so obstinate? Other governments have said 'sorry' as have churches in some cases. The form of words has often been negotiated between the agencies and the victims or families of victims.

I have seen no evidence anywhere that legal action has been successful by litigants in this sort of historical case using an official apology as a basis of their action. And I have been looking. Can you tell me where to find same?

Quite a few Indigenous and non-Indigenous claims for compensation have already been made against governments and churches and other charities without an apology. Some of these have succeeded - on the merits of the evidence produced. None has led to a government or non-government agency having serious financial difficulties with the payouts. Can you show me contrary evidence?

Your attempt to mitigate your concession that 'awful things happened' to Indigenous Australians by fantasising that worse things would have happened had the Dutch, the Spanish or the Japanese invaded Australia is contemptible. Are Indigenous Australians meant to feel gratitude that it was the British who did all those nasty things more efficiently than other foreigners would have done?

That kind of nationalistic jingoism is so outdated - and no consolation to people who were badly treated.

Finally - more twisted sophistry - your allegation that "ATSIC’s failures is [sic] far more responsible for the problems within aboriginal communities today than John Howard’s refusal to say ‘sorry’ is" serves only to pander to racists who infest OLO.

One has just written: "Anyone with any sort of heart is sickened by racism whether back then or now" moments after writing: "To continue to give people the victim status allowing them to be drunkards and child abusers and then blaming others is a crime."

Hypocrisy lives.

Well stated, Mr. Gol. As a non-Australian, I have read these comments and see quite different responses to a serious injustice that took place in your country. It is not up to me to suggest what you should do. At various times and in many lands, new settlers resorted to horrible treatment and genocide to original inhabitants throughout the world. But that the abduction of children continued until a such recent period is surprising to me. And yes, I only learned about this a few years ago. We don't know much about what goes on beyond our shores! What is most disgusting to me, however, is the motive of Mr. Neville! Imagine wanting "whiteness" to be universal in Australia. My my!

The Hawke-Keating camorra lasted for in excess of 4,300 days. I find it odd that their diaries were so crowded that not one day was set aside to issue an apology to aborigines. Not only that but they along with many who have now discovered their voice are calling on Howard to issue an apology. What further astounds me is that I can find no record in our newspapers from 1983 - 1995 of an upwelling of public anger at the lack of an apology by Hawke or Keating.

To those who have now found their voice I say bravo. Where have you been?

I didn't know Howard's first name was Reynard.

WRE thinks exactly the same. There are no "legal ramifications" to saying SORRY. This is the sort of fear engendered by failed lawyers like Howard and "people with legal background". They have no idea except some vague legal, white idea.

If you knew anything about Aboriginal history and culture you would know that saying sorry allows both parties to move on. It stems from pioneer days when whites and blacks actually did say this dreaded word, sorry, and it was accepted. As a comparison it's essentially the same as a Catholic confessing his/her sins and being forgiven. Bad comparison but the idea is the same.

When are you bigots going to understand the indigenous people don't think like greedy white people do?

Another here asks what is the difference between "sorry" and "deeply regret" is. sSmple. The word SORRY is signifacant in the aboriginal culture and deeply regret is not. Howard knows that. That's why he says one and not the other.

As to bankrupting the nation, what fool actually believes this?

As an example do any of you know of the massacre, genocide, of aboriginals in Tasmania? I'm sure you do. It's fact, acknowledged by all and yet there has been no legal claim for "compo" in the years since.

Stop thinking like Howard and think like a human being. Say sorry and we can all move on. Before you other failed lawyers start bleating about land claims etc do read up on it. Totally different issues. Do you know what the saying sorry is actually for? What piece of our history does it relate to. I bet none of you actually know.

I'm white by the way but not proud of it on this issue.

Any Leader of this country without the balls to say sorry on behalf of our nation is Gutless.

No one denies that Aborigines have endured countless horrors for hundreds of bloody years. These are the facts. Look up the mile creek massacre, close to where i grew up, and look at how some towns in Northern NSW completely eradicated systematically their aboriginal people, eg Bingara and Warialda. It is nothing short of disgraceful.

The fact is is that sorry is just a word. To me and realistically to most, deep regret and sorry is all the same and saying the word 'sorry' will not open pandoras box of outcomes.

The fact that John Howard knows how important this word is to both admit to our actions and apologise for disgraceful government policies as a nation, and to the generations of people that have been ruined and abused, and yet wont give them the satisfaction of hearing it, is absolutely disgusting and to the point where he almost must be proud of it. (can you give any other reason why he would not take on the chin that Aboriginals were mistreated and apologise)

For crying out loud, it may not have been the current Australians who committed many of these acts, but have some Guts (which as Australians we pride ourselves on) and provide some satisfaction to a dessimated people.

Apologies realistically can be empty and can be said with ease, but in this case the more it means to hear it both symbolically and for the benefit of a peoples, the less likely Howard is to say it. Well good on him, it is to his peril and if Rudd on the day he is appointed PM holds a conference and provides a moving speech to the nation and to the aboriginal people, he will start off on the best possible footing.

Saying "sorry" is not going to solve present problems. Our present PM has recognised that fact and, rightly, endeavoured to concentrate on that and do something about it. Others are living in the past, some in the hope of "compensation", others because it suits their political purposes.
Let's face it saying "sorry" is about politics it is not about being sorry. Personally I would far rather have Howard saying he "deeply regrets" and meaning it (which I believe he personally does) than Rudd saying "sorry" because it suits his political purpose (which, if he does it, is why he will do it).
As one correspondent has already pointed out - the Hawke-Keating era was a chance to do much and nothing was done but no blame has been attached. Howard has repeatedly expressed his personal view (as have others in his government) and been given no credit at all.
That's my quota for the day so now you can all give me a hard time - which some rabid Labor supporters no doubt will.

Is saying "sorry to hear that your mother died" an expression of empathy or does it make you somehow culpable in her death?

Better be careful what we say from now on.

DAVO: John Howard must be a failure-he only became Prime Minister after all. For further reference I’ve included a couple of sources for your perusal- they were provided by other ‘failed lawyers’ called ‘judges’ who obviously have no idea what they’re talking about either.

For starters you can read the judgment of the court in J.W.R. v. Canada (Attorney General) [2000] Manitoba Judgment No. 250. This matter has close parallels to the stolen generation, in that it was alleged that the government at the time sanctioned the churches role in the removal of children from their homes and turned a blind eye to subsequent abuse. The government was thus held ‘vicariously liable’ (look it up) for the churches breach of duty. The court relied heavily on admissions of guilt (ie official apologies) by the Canadian government.

Secondly you will note that in 1998 former Canadian Indian affairs minister Jane Stewart offered a “statement of reconciliation”. In the direct wake of that statement courts approved a class action settlement. More than 80,000 people in total are entitled to benefits. The settlement includes a “common experience” average payment of $24,000 (that’s over $2 billion AUD in damages alone). As a result of the deal, it’s expected the Canadian government will fork over as much as $5 billion in restitution. [See full article: http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/12/15/2807222.html]

FRANK: I (and I suspect the majority of Australians) resent being labelled a closet racist for merely pointing out that the indigenous people of Australia have had relatively good opportunities to improve their lot over the past few decades. I do not accept that it is invalid to point out that many indigenous groups around the world were treated worse for longer but have rebounded better. Both of these points merely serve to illustrate that the indigenous communities in Australia have been plagued by poor leadership, a corrupt ATSIC which squandered billions and shocking government policy during the Hawke/Keating years which only encouraged greater dependency on the system.

Wre

There are important parallels between Australia and Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples. In 1999, Canadian commentator Patricia Bedwell said: “The abuse of children was so widespread, that it has formed part of Canada's general history. [The compensation costs will be heavy] but the cost in human life, in human suffering - is beyond any words that I can write.” (http://www.ptla.org/wabanaki/Webshu.htm

In 2005, Canadian Justice Minister Cotter called the decision to house young native Canadians in church-run residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history."

The difference between the Canadian and the Australian Governments is that the Canadians are resolved to make amends. In 2006 the Government set aside C$1.9 billion for compensation and the Deputy PM predicted it "…will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy." Time will tell whether this will be a significant component of ‘the best opportunity to rebound’ (your words).

No one is alleging that the compensation payments will cause serious financial problems for Canada’s economy. Nor is there any political party claiming the payments are not justified. Why do you use the pejorative term ‘fork over’ in respect of compensation funds legally won?

Everyone acknowledges that an apology and $ compensation will be just a start towards reconciliation - other measures are in train too - but at least the Canadians have made that start.

I have already said ‘sorry’ to you for my passionate language. But you continue to demonstrate your mean-spirited values with unfounded allegations that Indigenous Australians have only themselves to blame for what you call ‘awful things’ that happened to them – and would have been somehow worse off under other foreigners. However, I notice that in your continuing search for rationalisations you now include the villainous ALP.

You claim that “many indigenous groups around the world were treated worse for longer but have rebounded better”. Maybe you could produce the evidence and a proper analysis of causes rather than merely blaming the victims for the ‘awful things’ that happened to them?

Frank

I never attempted to blame the aboriginal people for their plight and current circumstances today. I laid the blame firstly at the feet of previous ALP policy which encouraged welfare dependency as opposed to property ownership and personal responsibility. Secondly I blamed the now defunct ATSIC for squandering tens of billions of dollars which, if used legitimately, had the obvious ability to make a difference.

A new report has found that ‘the majority’ of aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are plagued by the rampant sexual abuse of aboriginal children. The report has directly linked this abuse to alchol. When governments have tried to implement alcohol free ‘dry areas’, the biggest opposition has come from aboriginal leaders, many of whom had sole interests in the hotel and liquor industry in aboriginal communities.

It seems to me that many of you, including you Frank, feel that saying sorry will be the warm and fuzzy tonic to everyone’s problems. In my view, handing out billions of dollars of guilt money has done nothing to fix any of the problems. The pragmatists in society, and I am one of them, would love to see the money pumped into schools, hospitals and rent as you buy housing in aboriginal communties rather than the share price of Lion Nathan and Bundaberg Rum.

wre,

Today you claim: “I never attempted to blame the aboriginal people for their plight and current circumstances today.”

How are we to interpret your (Tuesday) words: “…this country has given the indigenous population the best opportunity to rebound and it has failed [sic] to do it. In my view, ATSIC’s failures is far more responsible for the problems within aboriginal communities today than John Howard’s refusal to say ‘sorry’ is.”?

And how do we interpret your words today: “When governments have tried to implement alcohol free ‘dry areas’, the biggest opposition has come from aboriginal leaders, many of whom had sole interests in the hotel and liquor industry in aboriginal communities”? (In passing, I notice you make no reference Aboriginal-initiated dry areas. Just as you make no reference to current reports about alcohol abuse rampant among young whites.)

On Wednesday your position was: “…the indigenous communities in Australia have been plagued by poor leadership, a corrupt ATSIC which squandered billions and shocking government policy during the Hawke/Keating years...”

Today - revising history within three days must be some kind of record - you claim: “I laid the blame firstly [sic] at the feet of previous ALP policy which encouraged welfare dependency as opposed to property ownership and personal responsibility. Secondly [sic] I blamed the now defunct ATSIC for squandering tens of billions of dollars which, if used legitimately, had the obvious ability to make a difference.” Read your Wednesday post again.

On Wednesday I said: “Everyone acknowledges that an apology and $ compensation will be just a start towards reconciliation - other measures are in train too - but at least the Canadians have made that start.” Today you say: “It seems to me that many of you, including you Frank, feel that saying sorry will be the warm and fuzzy tonic to everyone’s problems.”

You deliberately distort my position – you won't let inconvenient truth won’t get in the way of your prejudice.

You twist more than a pit of snakes. And you’re just as difficult to mix with.

Well interpreted Frank, especially like the snake analogy.

wre, as always, your ignorance gets in the way of any worthwhile comment.

Frank/ Rainier
It’s been a pleasure as always- the ‘snake in the pit analogy’ gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling, especially as it comes from you two- I readily concede it’s just the beginning in our path of reconciliation!
Looking back over my posts, I’m finding it very difficult to understand why you’ve labelled me a revisionist Frank. To clarify, I’ve never levelled blame at individuals within the aboriginal race. Only at their ineffectual leaders and at previous ALP policy which quite blatantly has done absolutely nothing for anyone.
In summary, I refuse to acknowledge that ‘sorry’ is the key to moving forward. Actions and real solutions have to speak much louder than words. In my view, I would much rather see $10 billion allocated to health and education in aboriginal communities than divided into $28k Christmas bonuses to individuals and pissed up against a wall.

Hard-hearted non-Indigenous Australians defend our current PM's refusal to say "sorry" to Indigenous Australians on the basis that it all happened a long time ago, and that contemporary members of the dominant culture are therefore not responsible for the appalling injustices that led directly to the current disadvantage suffered by our Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

This may be so, but this rationalisation conveniently overlooks the fact that non-Indigenous Australians have all benefited enormously from prior acts by their forebears, that resulted in the expropriation of Aboriginal lands and the near-decimation of Indigenous cultures and societies. For example, the oft-cited 'great Australian dream' of home ownership is a direct product of the theft of Aboriginal land and the removal of Aboriginal people from it. Every suburban home is built on what was Aboriginal land, whose owners were either exterminated or removed from it.

Further, every factory, office, shop or farm is located on Aboriginal land that was in most cases simply taken from its owners. What is most sadly ironic is the fact that Indigenous people have been systematically excluded from the 'great Australian dream', and also from benefits such as employment in the businesses and industries that are now located on former Aboriginal lands.

Contemporary non-Indigenous Australians may not have directly engaged in the shameful acts upon which our nation was built, but we have all benefited from them. That is why our current PM's small-minded and mean-spirited intransigence on the "sorry" issue is so disgusting, and also why those who vote for him or support his stance should feel ashamed of themselves.

What ignorant comments from Raynard 'Comparisons between the holocaust and the so-called stolen generation are quite unjustified. Such silly comparisons as this don't encourage me to feel sorry. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors, and I am not sorry for them.' Attitudes like this are what allows the past to be repeated. If we do not examine our past and correct errors how do we evolve as human beings. The 'actions of my ancestors' are not the only actions in question in this country it is current Government policy and actions of ordinary Australians now, that are responsible for the take over of sovereign land in 2007. The forceable removal of children of light skin was a deliberate act in an effort to slowly get rid of a race of people. (Read the White Australia policy). Whether people are killed quickly in gas chambers or slowly by hidden posions it is the intentions of the elite powers that are comparable and that was the attemped extermiantion of a race of people. I'm sure if it was your Mother that was taken from her family and sexually abused by her guardians you may feel very differently. I am shocked that you are not sorry the stolen genreation may be in the past but the effects are very much felt by people today.

Bravo Noel Pearson. There’s a man with pride, social conscience, and pragmatic leadership.

Reynard ,
of course you are not "Sorry" for he events of yesteryear.

And my guess is that with your attitude, you are probably not Philosophically inclined to say "Sorry" for anything you did yesterday either !