Howard’s end?

Opinion

Will Aust PM’s handling of Aboriginal issues lead to his downfall

John Howard gained political stature when he stood up to the gun lobby in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. Since then, events have shown that the firm and thoughtful leadership was just a minute of political sunshine.

In other areas he has proved himself a small man. His long silence on the views of independent MP Pauline Hanson left countries in Asia and the Pacific wondering whether Australia was returning to its inward-looking Anglocentric approach of the past. Lately, his handling of Aboriginal affairs has revealed him as mean and visionless.

Howard’s approach to the Stolen Children Inquiry is a stark example. The inquiry, conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, looked into why large numbers of Aboriginal children were taken from their families right up until the 19705. Children, from days old to 18 years, were taken to live in training centres or children’s homes where conditions were appalling and abuse, including sexual abuse, common. In many cases, the welfare authorities took light-skinned children, leav ing their dark-skinned siblings. Children had their names changed and were often sent long distances to ensure links with families were severed. In a confidential submission, an Aboriginal woman called ‘Rose’ told her story. She was the old est of five children. In 1958, when she was nine, her mother and father took her out of school because welfare authorities had begun to turn up there and take Aboriginal children. They built a small shelter out of town where Rose would look after her younger siblings while her parents were working. One day, when Rose had left the camp to get help from her mother the welfare turned up. The intervention of her parents did not stop her younger brother and sisters being taken away.

The case came to court and the judge ordered that the kids be sent to children’s homes unless Rose’s parents could find a house and her father a steady job, which was impossible. Rose’s par ents were so upset at losing their family that they took up drink ing and eventually split up. Rose was brought up by other Aboriginal families and didn’t see all her siblings for 27 years.

“We try to make up for all those lost years. But something’s missing. Could you put yourself in the situation that we were put through?” More than 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken from their families. The large number of Aboriginal children still in care or in correctional institutes is testament to a legacy of

mental illness, alcoholism and family breakdown suffered by the “stolen generation”. When the separation of Aboriginal children from their families began, the prevailing view among non- Aboriginal Australians was that the Aboriginal race was dying out and part-Aboriginal children should be ‘saved’ by assimilat ing them into white society. Others justified the policy on the grounds that the children were living in poor conditions or pover ty (conveniently ignoring the fact that much of that poverty had

been caused by dispossession).

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) gave no quarter to these views, pointing out that for the past century there had been those who had spoken out against these practices. Its report declared the removal of Aboriginal children was genocide - defined in international law as “acts that intend to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial group...[including] by forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

The Australian government, it said, should make reparation in a five-part strategy including, acknowledgement of the truth and an apology, guarantees that the situation will not be repeat ed, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and monetary compen sation. Howard’s response was to delay issuing the report and attack the motives of one of its authors. Before the report was tabled in parliament, Howard ruled out monetary compensastion but said other recommendations needed further consideration.

A personal apology made in the last week of May to the land mark Reconciliation Conference held in Melbourne was seen as inadequate and insincere. While Howard said he felt “deep sor row for those of my fellow Australians who suffered injustices under the practices of past generations towards indigenous peo ple” and apologised for the “hurt and trauma” many people con tinue to feel, he did not apologise on behalf of the Australian government and went on to, so qualify his apology as to give it

little meaning.

“In facing the realities,” Howard stressed, “we must not join those who would portray Australia’s history since 1788 as little more than a disgraceful record of imperialism, exploitation and racism. Such a portrayal is a gross distortion and it deliberately neglects the overall story of great Australian achievement... Such an approach will be repudiated by the overwhelming majority of Australians.” No one, including members of the ‘stolen genera tion’, is asking Howard to take on sack cloth and ashes. All they are asking for is official recognition and an apology for one shameful part, something that must be a prerequisite if there is to be any genuine reconciliation between indigenous and non indigenous Australians. Why can’t Howard apologise?

Is it that he thinks that is what the majority of Australians want? In which case, if a recent Newspoll is to be believed, he would be wrong. It found 50 per cent of people believed he should make an official apology while 40 per cent believed he should not.

Is it Howard’s obsession with an heroic view of Australian history or a belief that people at the time thought they were act ing in the best interests of the children?

At the time of writing, Howard was yet to make his full response to the recommendations of the HREOC. Let’s hope that when he does, he understands the appropriate response to an obvious injustice. Who knows, he might even decide to compen sate the “stolen generation” just as he did gun owners forced to relinquish their automatic weapons. ■

Jemima Garrett

Sydney