Howard Proves He's Yesterday's Man
Former PM John Howard Shows He Is Out of Touch on Indigenous Apology
By refusing to be attend the apology to the Stolen Generations, John Howard is reminding Australia why they voted him out of office and damaging his own legacy.
For nearly 12 years as Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard stubbornly ignored his responsibilities to Australia's Indigenous population, also known as Aboriginals. He paid lip service to their issues, committing himself “very genuinely” to reconciliation in his 1996 election victory speech, but made few attempts at progress. Now, as all Australians prepares to witness a major, bipartisan step forward for Indigenous policy, John Howard is commiting a grave error by deliberately excluding himself from it.
On February 13, new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will offer an apology for the racist and genocidal policy of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families. The policy ran from the 1930s to 1970 in various forms, and was intended at eradicating Indigenous Australians by removing them from their culture and breeding htem out. The apology, which is supported by both major political parties, acknowledges that it was a hateful policy, and will enable non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians alike to move forward in addressing serious problems in wider Australia.
Recognising the significance of the occasion, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has invited the five living former Prime Ministers to attend the ceremony. Paul Keating, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser have all agreed to attend, although Bob Hawke, who in office explored the possibility of a treaty with Indigenous Australians, has cited "longstanding commitments."
But John Howard says no. His argument for over decade has been that the current generation bears no responsibility for deeds it did not commit. The sins of the father, Howard suggests, are not and should not be visited upon the son. He and other conservative politicians have repeatedly stated that today's Australians should not be made to feel guilty for others' sins, and an apology would somehow force them to do so.
The argument is deeply flawed on two counts. The key word demanded by Indigenous advocacy groups, "sorry", implies neither guilt nor responsibility. Malcolm Fraser himself recalls in his book Common Ground that after his mother died, people told him they were "sorry', even though they had absolutely nothing to do with her death. They did not feel either guilt or responsibility, but wanted to express their sorrow at her death.
Secondly, the apology is on behalf of the Australian Parliament, not the Australian people. Today's Australians may not owe a personal apology, though each individual can express their sorrow if they choose. But the Parliament, as a timeless instituion, does owe an apology for holding such a policy for some 40 years. Saying sorry will allow the institution to move forward while remaining mindful of past acts, rather than continuing to wear them like a crown of thorns.
John Howard has no sensible reason to exclude himself from the apology. He will lend credence to accusations of racism. Given the apology now has bipartisan support in the Parliament and widespread support among the Australian community, Howard will only gain the approval of fringe groups. He will confirm the view that he was out of touch from mainstream Australia, and backward-thinking in relation to Indigenous policy.
It is a pity that Howard has chosen this course – last November he was thrown out of office by an electorate that had simply had enough of him. He could have chosen to play the statesman and regained the public's esteem, but has decided to remain a force of division. So much for his legacy.
