Who should say sorry?
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 doesn’t fix the gross underfunding of Aboriginal education and health, of poorly serviced and neglected communities, or any of the other very real problems faced by many indigenous Australians. Neither would, or should, an apology undermine efforts to win deserving land rights or to build self-determination and responsibility.
'Sorry' is not for any single act committed against indigenous people in the past, but for all such acts where, throughout the years, the native inhabitants of Australia were killed, mistreated or hurt, and had their ways of life irreparably damaged. No-one is saying than an apology would make everything better or change what happened, but it would help the healing process for many indigenous Australians.
There are many wrongs that have been committed in the past that cannot be rectified. Yet why should the Prime Minister or federal government apologise for these? The federal government itself is not responsible for all the wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous people; indeed it's only existed as an institution since 1901.
Many of the crimes that have been committed before and after that date have been committed under the guise of, or on behalf of, the Crown. As such, it should be Queen who rightfully and morally owes an apology. Saying sorry is not about accepting blame or pretending words alone can fix things; it is about justice. That justice should be recognised formally by our head of state.