Kevin Rudd was advised against making the apology to the stolen generations at the opening of the new parliament after his election in 2007 and was “worried something could go wrong”, according to Jenny Macklin, then minister for Indigenous affairs.
In a long piece for Meanjin to be published Wednesday telling the inside story of how the Rudd government prepared the landmark apology to the stolen generations a decade ago, Macklin reveals Rudd was counselled internally against delivering the apology as the opening parliamentary gesture of his prime ministership.
Macklin said both she and Rudd were aware that in the heavily contested political context of the time, delivering the apology first up was risky. “I realised what a big risk we were taking, and what a big decision it was to have the apology on the first day of the new parliament,” she said.
“Kevin was understandably worried something could go wrong ... He was also receiving advice from others against the apology occurring on the first day of his prime ministership in the parliament.
“This was not shared with me, though I found out about it much later.”
While Rudd went on to deliver the apology at the opening of the new parliament on 13 February 2008 – a gesture which is one of his most significant legacies as prime minister – Macklin said the politics of the apology were always fraught.
In executing the internal policy work leading up the milestone, Macklin said there “was a concern – which I came up against regularly – that the prevailing politics of the time did not lend itself to generous symbolic gestures to Aboriginal people”.
She said the apology “had to be fought for every step of the way”.
Macklin said the concern about the political implications of symbolic gestures lingered. “This argument reappeared every year throughout our time in government as I argued for the prime minister’s Closing the Gap address to the parliament to be on the anniversary of the apology.
“I didn’t always win this debate. This was a regular reminder that it was not inevitable that the apology would take place, or that it would be on the first day of the parliament.”
Macklin – who led the consultations with Indigenous leaders which informed the scope of the apology, and the discussions with other key figures, like the former high court judge and governor general William Deane, the former Liberal Indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney, and Mark Leibler, then co-chair of Reconciliation Australia – said the strong advice to Labor at the time was if the apology was to be a bipartisan parliamentary gesture, which is ultimately was, compensation could not be part of it.
Labor’s legal advice at the time of the apology was the sorry gesture in the parliament would not expose the commonwealth to financial claims.
But she said the issue of compensation for the stolen generations remains unfinished business. Macklin said stolen generations organisations are continuing to press for the full implementation of the Bringing Them Home report recommendations, including compensation, and she endorses that call.
The Bringing Them Home report in 1997 followed a national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.
Macklin said some state governments had introduced reparation schemes over the past decade, and she said the commonwealth “will also need to take its share of responsibility”.
“Reparation and compensation should be paid,” Macklin said.
Macklin’s contribution for Meanjin was prepared to mark the 10th anniversary of the apology, which is next week. There will be a number of public events to mark the milestone.
