The Stolen Children policy was run for a variety of reasons which morphed from directly-stated genocide in the 20s to more “welfare” oriented programs later. It is these few years of “welfare” oriented programs which have given John Howard the chance to refuse to apologise for policies which were done “from the best of intentions” at the time. But he and his mates were around and influencing policy when it was happening (he was in the Young Liberals before he entered parliament) so there isn’t even an issue of generational guilt here – he could have tried to stop it but didn’t care, and for that he should be sorry. At least later generations (e.g. Paul Keating) have made an effort.

(Which is just reiterating a point).

As for urban Aborigines, that’s a thorny one. I don’t think they have the same resentments as Maori because the rural tribes aren’t doing particularly well land-rights wise, and in any case the urban population to which you refer is very transient and moves in and out of tribal areas a lot. I would suspect that a lot of the problems urban Aborigines have are spillovers from rural zones, and that repairing the problems in rural communities will both fix the immediate problems and discourage transience. I wouldn’t be surprised though if the government isn’t preparing a reparations package for stolen children. They criticised the last government repeatedly for forcing stolen children to fight for compensation (which they were likely to get, in spades) through the courts, so I would imagine reparations are on the cards. I haven’t read their policy though, it’d be too much like knowing the area…

… because they aren’t fought with armies.

All right, my ignorance then. For some reason, I’d been under the impression that the apology was being debated as an issue in its own right rather than as part of a package.

A little-noted fact about John Howard and his response to the stolen children is that he entered parliament in the same year that the last child was taken (1973).

It continued into the 1970s? Even after the aborigines were made citizens?

In that case, an apology would be much more in the nature of a reconciliation between participants.

the combatants (and they were combatants)

Agreed. My use of the word “conflict” in this context was deliberate. Stealing children, and resistance to same, are methods of waging cultural combat, and are no less so

Aborigines in need of “practical” reconciliation aren’t middle-class home-owners, so they don’t qualify for government assistance.

Speaking of which (more or less), what does the Rudd government plan to do in respect to urban aboriginal communities? The largest single concentration of indigenous Australians is in Sydney, and from what I gather, their problems are as much those of an urban underclass as those of a dispossessed indigenous people. The rural-urban divide has caused problems now and again in NZ, with urban Maori fighting the iwi-based trusts for a share of the Waitangi reparations. Does the incoming government (or, for that matter, the aboriginal leadership) have any plan for mediating these differences?

You should also bear in mind that, as far as the “on-the-ground” effectiveness of the apology goes, we are very much still in the position that, as you say

the apologists were generally participants in the conflict rather than descendants of participants.

Your last point, about practical reconciliation, was made at the time Howard coined the phrase. Aborigines in need of “practical” reconciliation aren’t middle-class home-owners, so they don’t qualify for government assistance. So exactly what “practical” aid they have received from this government over and above that of previous governments (who were also interested in the symbolic issues) is not clear.

Fair point. I wonder, though, whether an apology might not have the opposite effect: i.e., that rather than regarding it as a historic foundation for reparations, the public might say “they’ve got their apology, now what else do they want?” I’m aware that apologies have facilitated a number of other post-conflict reconciliation processes, but in these cases, the apologists were generally participants in the conflict rather than descendants of participants. Where the connection between the apology and the conflict is more attenuated, it doesn’t always have the same facilitating effect: for instance, I don’t believe that the various apologies for US slavery have resulted in increased support for affirmative action or similar measures.

John, I agree that the economic effect of Mabo and Wik is limited, in the latter case because the package of rights granted by the Wik Court don’t correlate well with modern economic development. Hunting, fishing and camping rights don’t go very far in suburban Perth. Maybe if negotiations do get under way, the items on the table might include expanding the customary-rights package (at least for non-freehold-owned lands) or granting freehold rights to certain non-marginal public land.

(And while I may not understand John Howard’s logic, how is it possible to have “practical” reconciliation that doesn’t include anything material?)

I’ve posted a bit about policies for development on my blog in the past – my general conclusion is that sustained subsidy/protection arrangements are both necessary and justifiable.

jonathan: I agree, it would be a more material step. But part of John Howard’s model for preventing those material steps has been denying the historical reasons for their necessity. Negotiations over Mabo are hard, and involve transfers of land and money. Realistically, people resist them if no reason is proferred. The apology is easy to do, requires no transfer of anything, and sets a solid and clear basis for the practical negotations to follow. John Howard focussed on his laughable idea of “practical reconciliation” which of course achieved nothing, because he simultaneously denied a need for justice, and trumpeted historians like Windshuttle who deny anything bad ever happened in Australia.

Symbolism is important, and easily done before the big important things. (And remember, Labor was negotiating on Mabo and wik-based matters when they were voted out in 1996: they can resuem it now, with an apology to give it some gravitas).

Wouldn’t some kind of across-the-board Mabo-and-Wik-based negotiations on land and development rights (rather than piecemeal litigation or one-at-a-time arrangements in the NT) be a more material step?

I think a lot of Libs are biding their time and letting Nelson do the dirty work post-election, in the expectation that Turnbull, who’s brilliant and prime ministerly, will take over when the dust settles.

We might want to consider what a President Obama with a Democratic congress would do to FOX News in the US.

sort of. the sydney murdoch tabloid was pretty balanced in its coverage of the campaign, and editorialised for rudd. ditto the brisbane tabloid, although mostly because that’s where rudd is from.

the melbourne tabloid was generally pro-howard, as was its election eve editorial.

it seemed to me the election result was mostly a foregone conclusion, anyway. i think rudd doesn’t owe murdoch for his win in the way blair did in 1997.

Brendan Nelson, the opposition leader, doesn’t believe that Australians owe any responsibility for this genocide, even though most of us live on stolen land. He also (ridiculously) claims that modern Australians don’t “own” historical events we are proud of, citing Gallipoli (hardly a reason to be proud). This is silly – we have a national holiday in connection with Gallipoli. But you can see where the debate is leading… The issue will be that when the new government opens parliament they may want to make the apology; obviously an apology with bipartisan support is better; but the opposition may choose to object. A great way to open the long winter of their discontent…