Who should say sorry?

[xalciene]

The debate over whether the government should say 'sorry' to indigenous people is again going through its cycles, and again without much interest from the federal government in apologising for past wrongs. State premiers have, of course, managed to utter the word, but prime ministers have remained silent.

Of course a simple apology is tokenistic and

Comments

[kewpid]

I think that raises a whole series of other issues. Is the Queen really our head of state? Queen Elizabeth has been on the throne for over 50 years, and has not once intervened in matters of state in Australia, other than the periodic rubber-stamping the PM's choice of G-G. A formal recognition from the Queen would rightfully be criticised as an unprecedented (in modern times) intrusion into political affairs by someone who is ostensibly apolitical.

The argument that the federal government was not responsible for the wrongs is mealy-mouthed. Many of the wrongs were committed under explicit government policy, and government institutions were the means by which such wrongs were conducted. An apology does not expose the government to litigation. The refusal to apologise is just bastardry.

[xalciene]

Oh yes, the federal goverment is definately responsible for some of the wrongs. And I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Queen herself (or her predecessors) perpetrated some of the things that have happened -- of course not! My point was the Crown, as a symbol, should be forthcoming with an apology on behalf of all wrongs committed by non-indigenous people in Australia.