This paper will critically analyse, Isabelle Auguste' chapter "On the significance of saying 'sorry': Apology and reconciliation in Australia". The chapter aimed to argue and persuade the readers of the importance of Kevin Rudd's apology speech. Auguste argued in her conclusion that the apology put reconciliation back on track however, this paper will counter that idea, with the lack of progress in the 10 years since the speech. Firstly, an overview of the article and a background of the author will be provided and secondly an evaluation of Auguste argument will be presented, which will critique the purpose of her paper.
Isabelle Auguste is a researcher and lecturer from Reunion Island. Her interest in Indigenous studies grew from her master's …show more content…
Some of the key events mentioned are: the 1967 referendum, the use of the word 'reconciliation' in 1983 by Minister of Aboriginal affairs Clyde Holding. The development of a council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, 1997 'Bringing them Home' report. Then into the millennium with the Sydney Harbour Bridge walk in 2000 and lastly the 2007 Apology speech by Kevin Rudd. Auguste's states on page 321, "It had in particular, the effect of putting reconciliation 'back on track'… (2009). It is clear that the history specified aimed to create a sense of accomplishment and then emphasis on the great step which the apology was. Yet, the history discussed in Auguste paper, with the goal of persuading, actually had the opposite effect, as it highlighted a history of …show more content…
As the chapter was published only a year after the apology. It is hard to view the impact and long-term effect of an event within a twelve-month period. Undoubtedly, the apology brought on many emotions of happiness, sadness and openness to forgiveness, but Auguste stating, "it signalled changes in Indigenous Affairs policy in the country' (pg. 321), is a misconception that made the importance of the speech slip away as well as her overall argument. If the prospect of slight changes for indigenous policy was the goal, then the apology would have been extremely important, but it was not, the Indigenous community are in need of a lot more. Undisputedly Kevin Rudd will always be remembered for his 2008 apology (Behrendt, 2008) but what needs to be considered when discussing the legacy of the apology is the post-apology actions, which Auguste does not do. Post-apology actions are still failing to this day, PM Malcom Turnbull vowed "I will honour that commitment not by delivering to Indigenous Australians, but by working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders" (2016). Yet, blanket solutions to Indigenous issues are continuously in play and working with Aboriginal communities as promised is neglected. Resulting in, forced, unengaged and often rushed program delivery
Isabelle Auguste is a researcher and lecturer from Reunion Island. Her interest in Indigenous studies grew from her master's …show more content…
Some of the key events mentioned are: the 1967 referendum, the use of the word 'reconciliation' in 1983 by Minister of Aboriginal affairs Clyde Holding. The development of a council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, 1997 'Bringing them Home' report. Then into the millennium with the Sydney Harbour Bridge walk in 2000 and lastly the 2007 Apology speech by Kevin Rudd. Auguste's states on page 321, "It had in particular, the effect of putting reconciliation 'back on track'… (2009). It is clear that the history specified aimed to create a sense of accomplishment and then emphasis on the great step which the apology was. Yet, the history discussed in Auguste paper, with the goal of persuading, actually had the opposite effect, as it highlighted a history of …show more content…
As the chapter was published only a year after the apology. It is hard to view the impact and long-term effect of an event within a twelve-month period. Undoubtedly, the apology brought on many emotions of happiness, sadness and openness to forgiveness, but Auguste stating, "it signalled changes in Indigenous Affairs policy in the country' (pg. 321), is a misconception that made the importance of the speech slip away as well as her overall argument. If the prospect of slight changes for indigenous policy was the goal, then the apology would have been extremely important, but it was not, the Indigenous community are in need of a lot more. Undisputedly Kevin Rudd will always be remembered for his 2008 apology (Behrendt, 2008) but what needs to be considered when discussing the legacy of the apology is the post-apology actions, which Auguste does not do. Post-apology actions are still failing to this day, PM Malcom Turnbull vowed "I will honour that commitment not by delivering to Indigenous Australians, but by working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders" (2016). Yet, blanket solutions to Indigenous issues are continuously in play and working with Aboriginal communities as promised is neglected. Resulting in, forced, unengaged and often rushed program delivery