KEY POINTS:
Kim Beazley, former Deputy Prime Minister and federal Labor leader, always argues that New Zealand played a pivotal role in the frontier wars between Australia's European settlers and our indigenous people during the mid-19th century.
Beazley underlines, in his careful historian's manner of thinking, the fact that British
troops stationed in Australia were dispatched to New Zealand to fight in the Land (Maori) Wars. The heroism and determination of the Maori people during that conflict meant the British military had to deploy all its available resources. With the legendary British regiments gone, policing the frontier was left to Australia's colonial militias or, even worse, to ad hoc groups of armed settlers warring with indigenous tribes, also over land.
The consequences were that the fighting was both very bloody and often unrecorded. No one can be certain of the numbers of people, particularly among indigenous communities, who were killed on the frontier. What Australians can be certain of, thanks to eyewitness accounts of some of the appalling abuses of indigenous people by Europeans, is that these atrocities were still occurring well into the 1930s.
Xavier Herbert, author of the classic Poor Fellow, My Country, saw such abuses and wrote about them first-hand. This is a part of the historic Australian tapestry which serves as the background to the apology to Australia's "Stolen Generations" carried by the federal Parliament this week. It was a campaign commitment by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party. It has been honoured at the first opportunity.
The Stolen Generations, as graphically detailed in High Court Justice Ronald Wilson's groundbreaking 1997 report, Bringing Them Home, is a reference to those indigenous children who were forcibly removed from their parents and families, to be raised within European Australia. Justice Wilson detailed the damage done.
But the previous government under John Howard strenuously resisted an apology. There are still critics.
Indeed, the Australian community is still characterised by three broad streams of thought.
Labor and substantial sections of the Coalition favour the apology, and leading conservatives such as former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull have spoken out openly in support of an apology being offered and recorded. Federal Liberal leader Brendan Nelson came reluctantly to this position. There is broad support within the Australian community for what the Rudd Government has done in a bipartisan way.
Then there are those who argue that an apology is insufficient and that a compensation package must also be offered. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown is the most prominent among those arguing for monetary compensation to be offered survivors. Canada has embraced this option.
Then there are the holdouts. On the far right, centred on certain shock jocks and tabloid columnists, there are those who argue vociferously that an apology is either wrong or unnecessary. Their rhetorical questions continue to flow: Why an apology? What are we apologising for? To whom are we apologising? The Stolen Generations are supposedly a myth in the hard right's world view, and so it goes on.
The far right is really reminiscent of the Bourbon dynasty. They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Politically, they constitute a Flat Earth Society.
The apology, as moved by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, is absolutely straightforward. So straightforward, in fact, that one wonders why the previous Prime Minister had such an aversion to confronting the issue.
The critical word, naturally, is "sorry". This expression of regret has come to symbolise the essence of reconciliation between indigenous and other Australians. Rudd used the word on three occasions in the apology: acknowledging the grief, suffering and loss of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose children were removed from families.
The Prime Minister apologised for the pain, suffering and hurt among the Stolen Generations and their families. Moreover, he apologised for broader injustice: "And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry".
But the Prime Minister did not dwell on the past. He looked to the future, to closing the divide between indigenous and other Australians in education and economic progress and in life expectancy. The Prime Minister finished on an optimistic note, looking to the years ahead: "A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country."
Now Australia has changed as a result of the Prime Minister's statement.
The day itself, Wednesday, became something of a national day of acknowledgement. In Martin Place in Sydney, a screen broadcast events from Parliament House. Not even the wet weather could deter onlookers. Schools rearranged schedules to permit students to watch the Prime Minister's speech and supporting remarks from Dr Nelson.
In Canberra, many hundreds of people, both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, gathered in the Parliamentary galleries and beyond to witness events.
And the "Welcome to Country" ceremony, offered by indigenous Australians at the opening of the federal Parliament on Tuesday, is to be made a permanent feature of parliamentary life.
Around the world, the apology attracted massive interest, from the Bloomberg newsagency and the Christian Science Monitor to the Houston Chronicle. It resonated in Britain, given the imperial ties. It had impact in Canada, given similar policies.
The question now is how to implement policies that attack the appalling circumstances that characterise some Aboriginal communities, in so far as health and life expectancy are concerned. The previous government had embarked on an intervention in a considerable number of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. It came in the wake of horrifying statistics on sexual assaults, including such crimes being inflicted on children, appearing last year. The intervention continues, with the support of outstanding Aboriginal leaders such as Noel Pearson. But more is clearly needed.
What the apology does is to make much easier the forging of a consensus between governments, indigenous communities and other participants, including business, in support of improved educational and economic opportunities. Indeed former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, had been active in encouraging business to play a greater role.
But there is no doubt that Australia will move forward as a consequence of this week's events. The fact that the apology had been denied for so long meant that the Prime Minister's statement had far greater impact, given the build-up of expectations. The word "sorry" dominated the nation's newspapers this week. Challenges still lie ahead. Ultimately, the results of future policies will be the basis upon which Australia is judged.
* Stephen Loosley, a former federal president of the Labor Party and a senator, chairs the business advocacy group Committee for Sydney.
