Twitter: Joshua Gans- @jodiecongirl Actually, it says more about you that you've heard of them!
- @jodiecongirl I think it says that economists don't just assume rational agents but are attracted by them too. Talk about a value conflict.
- @jodiecongirl Why uninteresting? Think of Alex P. Keaton, Quark , Sheldon and Dogbert.
- RT @freakonomics: Freakonomics Movie is released via iTunes tomorrow: http://bit.ly/9YveA3 [I'm gathering the kids for a Friday night movie]
- Am I to understand that we are now in the path of a Hurricane? http://bit.ly/daitO9 This aint the tropics.
Readership
Nov
16
Authority to apologise
November 16, 2009 | 20 Comments | Sam Wylie
At lunchtime today I heard a part of Prime Minister Rudd’s public apology to people who were abused whilst wards of the state. The so-called “forgotten Australians”. Previously, Mr Rudd apologised to the “stolen generation”, again for their mistreatment by the state.
There is something that these apologies say about Mr Rudd himself — he believes that he has the authority to apologise on behalf of all Australians. There are two problems with this belief. First, the “forgotten Australians” and the “stolen generation” have suffered at the hands of the State. For the egregious actions of its representatives, the State should apologise to the victims, and the apology should come from the head of the State. But Mr Rudd is not the head of state in Australia. He obviously thinks of himself as being first citizen of the nation; however, in the our “Washminster” system the Prime Minister can only give advice to the head of state and cannot assume that role. Rudd should have asked the Governor General to give the apology.
Second, quite apart from technical authority, Mr Rudd does not have the moral authority to apologise on behalf of the nation. We have a representative democracy in which a parliament is elected to pass laws and provide government. The parliament elects a prime minister to form and lead a government. Nothing in this social contract gives the prime minister a moral, ethical or spiritual leadership over the people of Australia. It is true that the prime minister speaks for our country in international forums. But in a purely domestic conversation between one group of Australians, the victims, and the rest of Australia, in what sense does the PM speak for you or me? He does not have the authority to apologise to anyone on my behalf.
I also find Mr Rudd’s apologies somewhat hollow because of the absence of action to go with them. The apology to the “stolen generation” was made nearly two years ago now. What has the PM done to improve the conditions of indigenous Australians, especially those who live in remote communities? — very little. Apologies are important, but what could the PM point to as follow up action? Where is the improvement in education, health, domestic violence and social capital. This is not an easy problem, so huge leaps forward cannot be expected, but I feel as though Mr Rudd got up on his moral pedestal to make his apology and then forgot about those victims.
The apology to Aboriginal Australians was a bit unsatisfactory in another way — it seemed to deliberately fudge the question of whether the PM was apologising for the treatment of the ”stolen generation” or whether the apology was for all the mistreatment of indigenous Australians since 1788. As bad as the “stolen generation” episode was it is only one chapter in the full story of our mistreatment of our indigenous population.
Comments
20 Responses to “Authority to apologise”
My sentiments exactly Sam, however, mine were not so well articulated.
You are being a bit harsh Sam. If the GG had made the apology to either group, the PM of the day would be sidelined if not criticised. Remember he is a politician after all! And for the past 18 months just about all his priorities have taken a back seat to the GFC.
Keep in mind also that neither Rudd nor anyone seems to have a clear idea of HOW to raise standard for aboriginals. This is a big and intractible issue. Any proposed “solution” falls foul of the culture wars which, despite what some people claim, is not over.
I’m sorry you said ‘our’ mistreatment of the aborigines? At the same time saying Rudd doesn’t have the authority to apologize for you…. I agree Rudd has no authority to apologize for such things…. but you have no authority to include me in your ‘our mistreatment’ bit…. I haven’t mistreated any aborigines… I’ve barely even met any in my life, hardly any live in my city…. so how have I mistreated them?
I’m a descendant of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles who were the first explorers of the civilized word to settle this continent. I’m very proud of this fact. The unorganized and unincorporated previous sparse inhabitants of this continent, have been given extraordinary affirmative action treatment in education and welfare, public housing in the modern advanced western civilization of Australia, that the descendants of those indigenous to the British Isles settlers, established here on this continent.
We have provided ample opportunity for these aborgine inhabitants to live their traditional way of life on reserves, and provided them with assistance should they wish to join in the modern civilization we have established here.
I don’t know about you, but I am very proud to be descended from the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and if it hadn’t have been us that settled and established an advanced civilization on this continent, it would have been someone else, maybe the Chinese. Either way, any people that live on a continent, have a whole mineral rich continent to themselves for 40,000 years and fail to even invent the wheel, or the written word, or agriculture… are and were sitting ducks.
I’m not sorry for anything ‘we’ have done… I’m sorry they, failed to invent the wheel or gunpowder. If they invented all these things, maybe the aborigines would have been the ones shipping explorers all over the globe settling places. Unfortunately for them, they failed to achieve the level of civilization necessary to remain custodians of this continent, and so it goes.
Signed, a proud descendant of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.
Ouch Jennifer. You have a point, but have some compassion too. Both cultures have been through plenty of upheaval, plenty wars, and have plenty to learn from each other. Let’s make our 21st Century one we can all be proud of. For the care we provide for each other. For the best use of our own talents. For the way we face and overcome our own challenges.
That being said, symbols (like apologies) matter. The PM also represents the power. The G-G has mostly ceremonial power and very little actual power. Though the Queen making the apology, at the request from PM Rudd would have been quite a sight to see. I can imagine the heavy symbolism of the Queen apologising for the suffering of the Aborigines. I heard on the First Australians doco last week that when first settled Victoria had 60,000 aborigines, but thirty years later, there were only 2,000. Diseases such as small pox perhaps killed many, but how many suffered more direct indignity. If someone were to do the same to us today, Australia’s population would shrink to 750,000. Ouch!
You miss that Rudd is the one elected to exercise effective leadership over the Executive government, which is the branch whose authority those responsible for the mistreatment of both groups were exercising. It wasn’t laws passed by Parliament or Judicial directions that authorised the abuse, it was the delegated representatives of the Executive.
Maybe it is time to to get an Australian head of state to apologize on our behalf for past, present and future misdemeaners? (I have a sneaking suspicion that Rudd would covet the Presidential role if he could keep his hand in foreign policy.)
I can’t see how having the GG give the apology could have been appropriate. Most Australian’s wouldn’t have a clue who she is. Rudd is the true head of state in Australia, the position of GG is an anachronism.
As for whether the current nation can apologise for actions of the past, I suppose it depends on whether a nation is an entity of its own, or is merely a collection of individuals. Can a nation feel pride, or does a single person feeling shame invalidate it?
<!– @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } –>
Jennifer,
You own the past actions of the ascendants to whom you are entirely unknown no more than I own the virtuous behaviour of the founders of the Turkish Republic, or Nelson Mandella. The present generation of convict-descendants in Australia did not bring wheels and civilisation here. For them to have pride in the actions of their forefathers is the exercise of illogical emotion.
The dangerous aspect of your argument, though, is not from its appeal to chest-thumping British pride, but from the extent to which it distracts from the real policy issue: one of insiders and outsiders. In labour markets, education `markets’, legal `markets’, and the great `market’ of society, many indigenous Australians and former wards-of-the-state are outsiders, who face, from no choice of their own, greater constraints on their individual choices.
The measure of virtue is the set of choices one makes given their available choices. Unfortunately, due to the fault of no individual but from the fault of Australian society, the available choices to outsiders are limited. They begin with the choice of parents—no choice there. Then the choice of school—try enrolling in University High School if you live in Flemington flats just down the road. The choice of friends? The choice of work? Even if one makes all the right choices along the path, one born to bad parents (or raised without parents) faces an immense inherent disadvantage relative to one born into a loving (and rich) family.
So the real question is: what policies make it easier for outsiders to access the same range of feasible choices as insiders?
By Kevin Rudd apologising to the Stolen Generation or the Forgotten Generation, some aggregate value is created. No Australian is worse off from his doing so. Whether or not he has the technical or moral authority to apologise on behalf of the state or the nation is irrelevant: he is the de facto president, and we implicitly elected him with full knowledge of this fact.
What apologies do not improve are the set of feasible choices available to outsiders. This is a far more worthwhile avenue for your energies—not whether or whether not apologies should be given by whom.
Oh, come on. Appealing to the Governor-General as nominal head of state merely compounds the Australian public’s generally pre-Bagehot comprehension of the political system. If you read the Constitution Act, yes, the GG is head of state (unless the Queen is in the country, of course) if only because in that text the parties, the cabinet, and the Prime Minister don’t exist, but the Australian constitution is both the Act and the conventions that apply, and in that broader constitution the PM is the head of the executive and the GG has whatever crumbs the PM wishes to throw them.
The special nature of apologies makes Kevin Rudd’s actions problematic. People understand the notion of apologising in different ways. Many people think of apologising as taking responsibility and recognitiion that the aggreived party’s protestations are legitimate.
In contrast I understand apology has asking the aggreived party for forgiveness. That’s how I understand it — you may disagree. Can Kevin Rudd ask for forgiveness on my behalf? No. He thinks he can, because he thinks he is the pastor to the nation, but he is not.
The way that society as a whole should recognise the greivance and ask for forgiveness is for individuals within society to retell the story of the aggreived and in that ask for forgiveness.
A national consciouncess is built by the ongoing internal conversation that we have. Each individual can contribute to the embedding of the wrongs done to the “stolen generation” and the “forgotten Australians” into the national consciousness by retelling the story, and asking for forgiveness, if they seek it. But no individual can seek to represent all of us in that.
Jim,
I like your point about no Australian being worse off by offering an apology. However, to show some true contrition on the subject should the government (the public) compensate the victims? Is there a moral or ethical case for which a real cost is to be borne. Goes to the heart of whether current generations bear responsibility, and what is the extent of that responsibility, for past actions.
Hopefully without sounding sour, apologies do seem to have a real emotional effect on the victims, but without compensation they are rather easy to make these days.
DP,
I agree. I like to ask myself: if X happened today (taking children from their parents, establishing a new Israel in another country, etc.), what would be the legal consequences?
I disagree with those who say Australians are no worse off when the government apologizes on behalf of Australia. I am worse off, because I’ve been dragged into the pit and tarred with some of the responsibility for something I had nothing to do with. And not to mention it just fuels the fire of the white guilt problem and sends the message to Aborigines that they have the right to blame me and my current living people for some grievance that had nothing to do with us.
Oh and Jim said… to me…
“The present generation of convict-descendants in Australia did not bring wheels and civilisation here. For them to have pride in the actions of their forefathers is the exercise of illogical emotion.”
Jim the Convict descendant myth needs to be laid to rest. Yes, there are many Australians who are descended from Convicts…. however this brief period was also coupled with a huge amount of free settlers, and administrators, and when this period ended, there was an enormous amount of decades convict immigration free, where many, many, many more white free settlers indigenous to the British Isles settled and established this advanced western civilization that we find ourselves in. It is truly a pathetic, and cynical myth, this ‘convict settlers’ crap. You need to cut it out, it’s disrespectful to the overwhelming population of Australians who are descended from peoples indigneous to the British Isles who settled here as free settlers and pioneers.
And yes Jim, my descendants did bring wheels and the vestiges of advanced civilization here to this continent… they didn’t magically appear here. The Aborigines certainly didn’t develop any of technology on which modern Australia was founded. Like I said, they had 40 millennia undisturbed, and failed to even progress from the most primitive hunter gatherer state. Eventually a tide of civilized settlers would arrive, and I’m thankful for it, and proud that they were my descendants. It was quite an achievement, dragging a whole continent that had been sitting in the cave man era, kicking and screaming into the shimmering advanced western civilization we see before us today in the space of a few generations.
And Richard said to me….
“You have a point, but have some compassion too. Both cultures have been through plenty of upheaval, plenty wars, and have plenty to learn from each other”
Again, this is the word you incessantly hear about Aborigines…. the word ‘culture’… it seems when you fail to create your own civilization, you have to settle for a ‘culture’…. I’ll take civilization any day… a set of dreamtime stories and dances around a fire, and some hunting techniques…. isn’t something I feel I can learn a thing from. Even if I wanted to learn how to live like a traditional Aborigine… that choice isn’t open to me… Arnhem land is for blacks only, as a member of the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles who settled this great land, I wouldn’t be welcome to come and live like a tribesman on a reserve now would I? And as for doing it anywhere else, well, every patch of land in Australia is now owned isn’t it… I’d have to buy my own land to do it on, and that would require money, which would require not living a traditional Aboriginal life now wouldn’t it. So no, I don’t think I have a thing to learn from any vague ‘culture’ that is being packaged and marketed to me by some white left wing guilt movement.
Sam,
Your response is both mean-spirited and inaccurate. The Child migrants specifically, and many of the “forgotten australians”, were placed in their situations as the direct result of commonwealth government action. The government had a duty of care which they comprehensively failed. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and apologised in that capacity.
Several inquiries, including bipartisan senate inquiries, have unanimously recommended an apology from the Commonwealth Government. You don’t think they would have picked up on any constitutional issues?
As a constitutional scholar and moral philosopher, you make a good economist. Oh wait, I forgot your apologetics for untaxed, untrammeled financial markets.
Jennifer,
If you have the right to claim pride in the good actions of your ancestors, then you have the responsibility to be ashamed of their bad actions too. It’s as simple as that. You can’t take the good and leave the bad.
James Haughton said…
“If you have the right to claim pride in the good actions of your ancestors, then you have the responsibility to be ashamed of their bad actions too. It’s as simple as that. You can’t take the good and leave the bad.”
James don’t conflate the actions of my ancestor settlers, and the individual policies of various transient governments throughout Australia’s history. I’m ashamed of many government decisions, past and present… I disagree with apologies being made on my behalf when I did not have a hand in the decisions…. and you know what… I don’t claim for a second that I had a personal, direct hand in bringing civilization to Australia…. that would be nonsencal since I’m not two centuries old.
I don’t take the good and leave the bad. I simply acknowledge the good, which isn’t done often enough in this country. The black armband is alive and well. Of course I’m ashamed and feel sorrow for past bad decisions of government, I’m not about to claim responsibility for them though…. as you’d have me do… and I’m not claiming responsibility for any good actions of my ancestors either…. I’m simply acknowledging that I’m impressed with the actions of ancestors by and large, and it is truly something I take great pride in.
Yes, I’m ashamed of any bad actions, I’d feel that shame more acutely if my great grandfather was a cabinet minister, or if I’d voted for governments that did harm in the present or past… which I haven’t done (voted for them)…. In terms of feeling pride… there is one key thing that needs to be understood, powerful decision makers, did the things that are being ‘apologised for’… but the entire citizenry the man on the street, was the driving force behind the settling of Australia and establishing the advanced western civilization we find here now…
Oh, and anyone who thinks the government doesn’t fail thousands of times per day in its duty of care in one way or another, right here in 2009, you’re kidding yourselves.
Jennifer
In more than 200 years of European settlement the only native Australian plant that Europeans have turned into a crop is the macadamia nut, not much to build a civilization on. There are no domesticable native Australian animals – the dingo probably being introduced about 4000 years ago. Even we descendants of the” indigenous settlers” of the British isles haven’t yet got around to herding kangaroos.
And of course, most of us descendants of the indigenous settlers of the British Isles are actually descendants of people who lived in northern Spain until about 11,000 BC and then walked to the British isles without having to cross any water.
I suggest you read Jared Diamond’s ” Guns, Germs and Steel” and “The Origins of the British
A Genetic Detective Story” by Stephen Oppenheimer.
I also recommend
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
Jennifer,
Any person who truly thinks, for the smallest smidgen of a moment, that any single aspect of their actual life will in any way be changed by one person (whom they possibly voted for) apologising to some other people (that they do not know) for the actions of some other people (to whom they may or may not be descendants of) with no prospect of there ever being reparations paid, is delusional.
Jennifer,
How can you claim pride in the past achievements of the people of the British Isles without also accepting responsibility for theirs sins? It’s either both or neither. You’re either a decedent of the peoples of the British Isles claiming pride in their achievements and accepting shame for their crimes, or you’re a modern human no better or worse than any other modern human being. And in the case that you do conceive of yourself as a modern human being, you shouldn’t be too bothered by the _nation_ of Australia expressing remorse for institutionalised mistreatment of some of its inhabitants.
As for your claims about the inferiority or superiority of Aboriginal civilisation, as others point out geography tends to be the biggest determiner of how a civilization evolves. I.e. How much water is available to it, What crops and live stock are available and are they connected with a wider network of civilisations allowing transfer of innovations. Aborigines ultimately were on the wrong side of the stick. On the other hand maybe you can feel proud that your descendants beat the French, Germans .etc. to the punch.
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
It might be a god idea if some of you actually read the transcript of the apology. PM Rudd apologises on behalf of himself the government and the parliament. He actually points out that it was not the fault of those that carried out the laws but the parliament itself that gave effect to those laws and was ultimately responsible for the stolen generation. I assume that those detractors do in fact accept that children were taken, stolen, kidnapped from their parents up until the early 1970s. in a form that the UN Human Rights Commission describe as genocide, the planned destruction of a culture, and that is during this generation of politicians.