First, an apology consists of mere words. One can say sorry without really meaning it. Although this is indeed the truth—as evidenced by the United States’ 1993 apology to Native Hawaiians that, fifteen years later, for the most part still has not translated into concrete action—in this case, the apology appears meaningful.  It was not induced domestically.  There was obviously no pressure from Australia’s previous government. And even though international pressure existed—Rudd’s term began just months after the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ passed—because Rudd put the apology at the top of his agenda (Government business, motion no. 1), such an urgency cannot be interpreted as anything less than meaningful.  

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, Prime Minister Rudd recognized the inherent limitation of a lone apology: “There is nothing I can say today that will take away the pain… Words alone are not that powerful.” [32]  Viewing an apology as words, words as symbols, and apologies as symbolic of reconciliation, Rudd declared: “[U]nless the great symbolism…is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.” [33]  There is something to his words. More than words. For “[i]t is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history.” [34]  In his work on social healing through justice, University of Hawai‘i Law Professor Eric Yamamoto similarly warns of the danger of “incomplete or insincere acknowledgements and ameliorative efforts—how ‘empty apologies’ and words without institutional restructuring and attitudinal changes can mask continuing oppression.” [35]  Thus Rudd’s acknowledgment of “cheap grace” is significant. In this way, his apology recognizes—with sincerity—and takes responsibility for Australia’s wrongdoing and the ways that its transgressions caused current social and psychological harms that weigh down the oppressed community.  

Even with its inherent limitations, the apology nevertheless recognizes Australia’s responsibility to heal the wounds of past injustice, calling the nation to action. Prime Minister Rudd stated that an apology—and ultimately reconciliation—is Australia’s responsibility, because the laws enacted by parliaments made the Stolen Generations possible: “We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible.” [36]  He then painted a dream of the future based on determination, possibility, mutual respect and mutual responsibility—“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, Australia.” [37]  

 

B.  Reconstruction

 

Prime Minister Rudd’s words of apology begin a sort of reconstruction.  A reshaping of national narratives and subsequent transformation of relationships. First, he tells the unsanitized version of Australian history—the truth previous governments failed to tell and hoped the Stolen Generation would forget. Cultural genocide as a means to obtain land and resources.  The racism. The violence. The effects on Indigenous families and communities. The truth. In doing so, he changes the collective memory, [38] returning dignity back to those stolen from their families without the chance to kiss their parents goodbye.

 

This apology also served to restructure the Aborigines’ relationship with other Australians and the government itself. In his speech, Prime Minister Rudd asked the members of parliament and others who would hear his words to imagine if the terrors faced by the Stolen Generation had happened to them.  “Imagine if this had happened to us,” Rudd said.  “Imagine the crippling effect.” [39]  By putting those in power in the shoes of the powerless, Rudd begins to “build[] a bridge,” as he called it, “based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt” [40] —using empathy to transform the power dynamic and help reshape the Australia/Aborigine relationship.

 

Rudd also moved beyond sentiments, offering substantive action to repair the harms of the old assimilation policy and the continuing effects on those connected to Stolen Generation and on society as a whole. The apology itself, while symbolic, was also concrete, “offered as part of the healing of the nation.” [41]  Thus, Rudd asked the opposition to move beyond partisan politics. Although the government—contrary to the landmark Bringing Them Home report—ruled out establishment of a compensatory fund for the Stolen Generation, [42] Rudd suggested a “war cabinet” on indigenous policy led by himself and the opposition leader, the Liberal Party’s Brendan Nelson. The war cabinet would first develop and implement an effective housing strategy for remote communities, ultimately “closing the gap” dividing the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. [43]  But is the war cabinet a poison pill for further isolation of the Aboriginal people of Australia? The leaders of the commission are not Indigenous.  The quick reveal of the cabinet failed to mention an intent to consult Indigenous members. Subsequent announcements, however, indicate that the Rudd government will “undertake discussions with indigenous people about the best process to develop a new representative body.” [44]  

 

The Indigenous community is split with regard to the make-up of the commission. Some want a fully-elected body, others, including prominent activist Sam Watson, is willing to compromise. The government, it seems, is leaning towards this compromise of elected and appointed representatives from urban, regional, and remote Indigenous communities. [45]   Although it is too early to tell—as Australia has offered only an apology and subsequent discussions, not detailed legislation—such details must be scrutinized to keep with the words and alleged intentions of this apology.

 

C. A Brief Assessment  

It is indeed uncertain whether Rudd will follow through on these measures. Nevertheless, the mere fact that he delineates a plan shows more action than other “apologies.” Evidence of Rudd’s follow-through is this February 13 apology itself. On December 11, 2007, newly elected Rudd announced that the Federal government would issue an official apology to Indigenous Australians. [46]  The wording of the apology would be decided in consultation with Indigenous leaders. [47]  One day into his term, Rudd fulfilled his promise, bringing tears to the eyes of the Stolen Generations with the words chosen. Hopefully, this action symbolizes what is to come.
 

Members of the community—both domestic and international—commented on the apology and speculate on possible actions yet to come. Kirstie Parker, managing editor of Aboriginal newspaper, The Koori Mail, called the apology “fantastic.”  She said that it was not just the apology that was significant; more important was Rudd’s retelling of the victim’s stories, bringing the reality of the misdeeds to light and publicly confronting those who deny what happened. [48]  Tamara Mackean, the president of the Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association, views the bipartisan approach as the “key to moving things forward.” [49]  

But for some, Rudd’s apology does not go far enough because he ruled out setting up a government fund to compensate victims as part of a larger reparations movement. Prior to the apology, Les Malezer, spokesman for the National Aboriginal Alliance, said that an apology would be a wasted event without compensation. [50]  Nevertheless, Parker said she has “a distinct feeling…that [Aboriginal people] feel that compensation is an absolute possibility, notwithstanding the prime minister’s very vehement statement about not considering it.” [51]  By one account, Rudd “does not appear likely to budge.” [52]  State governments, however, seem more open to the possibility of monetary compensation.  

Additionally, the Rudd government’s willingness to maintain (with few changes) Howard’s 2007 Northern intervention is questionable at best.  The measure—which Rudd supported in his former governmental post—divides Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.  Some welcome the measure, while others call it paternalistic, amounting to nothing more than a land grab. [53]  Other observers note Rudd’s perspective that the apology is a beginning that will enable the government to tackle other issues [54] —especially Indigenous health. But the apology may “lose its shine” if Rudd cannot “also make inroads into key health indicators—such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates.” [55]  

Despite these domestic concerns, United Nations human rights experts showed their approval. The apology, they said, “will strengthen the moral fabric of the country and reinforce the Aboriginal contribution to Australian society.” [56]  The group also praised “Australia’s efforts to acknowledge historical injustices and to promote reconciliation,” calling it “an example of how to enhance harmonious and cooperative relationships between indigenous peoples and States, in the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” [57]

 

Thus Australia’s apology represents major strides in reconciliatory efforts with its Indigenous peoples. It not only recognizes and takes responsibility for Australia’s wrongdoings, but Rudd’s honest expression of the apology begins to carve out a path towards reconstructing its relationship with the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.  At this point, all anyone can do is speculate on the reparatory action that will follow in the months and years to come. 

 

But a hopeful tone echoes in the ears of those listening and waiting for societal changes that would uplift Indigenous peoples: “If the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation in which it is offered,” Rudd said, “we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for Australia.” [58]  

 

IV.  A New Beginning - Implications for Native Hawaiians?  

Although the United States’ initiation of reconciliation with Native Hawaiians came fifteen years before Australia offered an apology to its own Aboriginal people, the words of the U.S. government—its promise—has remained largely unfulfilled. [59]  Through the 1993 Apology Resolution, Congress apologized for its role in the illegal overthrow of the independent Hawaiian Kingdom and formally committed to reconciliation in light of the resulting cultural devastation, taking of land and continuing socio-economic and psychological harms. [60]  Specifically, Congress “express[ed] its commitment…to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.” [61]  Reparatory Federal legislation has since been enacted, but much has been overshadowed by attempts to undermine Hawaiian efforts to restore a measure of self-determination. [62]    

With Prime Minister Rudd’s explicit recognition of the incompleteness of a mere apology and his seemingly good intentions, perhaps Australia will set an example for the United States’ reconciliation process with Native Hawaiians. As two of the four nations opposing the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the U.S. and Australia have much in common: unfulfilled obligations to their Native peoples.  Perhaps this apology will further rouse and bolster support for Indigenous peoples in the court of international opinion.  Perhaps this renewed sense of justice will exert pressure on leaders of nations to repair the continuing harms of colonization—now, more than ever, an issue of human rights.  In this way, there may be much that the U.S. can learn from Australia’s words and actions taken since the start of 2008.  

And so perhaps this year marks a new beginning—a changing of the tide for Australian Aborigines, Native Hawaiians, and Indigenous peoples everywhere.