Thus Spake Mungo: Will Malcolm’s apology get backbench support?

Malcolm Turnbull has always regarded John Howard as some sort of political mentor.

It was Howard who encouraged and promoted him, and Howard who talked him out of giving up when Tony Abbott beat him by one vote for the party leadership he regard as his birthright.

Howard persuaded him that he could and would return, so when Turnbull did, he thought Howard’s judgment was all but infallible. But not quite; even then the protégé had a couple of reservations, and last week he made it clear that on at least one issue he would be his own man.

Turnbull has announced that he will make a national apology; he will say sorry to the numerous victims, alive and dead, of child sexual abuse as revealed by the royal commission inaugurated by Julia Gillard.

In the circumstances this can hardly be called controversial; the crimes, deceptions, conspiracies and cover ups that have been painstakingly and painfully listed in the commission’s report are truly horrendous. An apology is the least that is required, and to his credit Turnbull has also been vigorous in pursuing more concrete remedies, including compensation.

And he appears to be willing to break the secrecy of the confessional, which, coming from a Catholic convert, is a seriously big deal. So there could be some solid substance to his apology. Certainly he is being determinedly positive about it. But a few years ago the government of which he was a part was adamant: there would be no apology to the stolen generations, in spite of an equally damning report from an equally credible inquiry – Bringing Them Home, the report on the stolen generations.

There was a lot of sophistry about just how stolen the generations were, and whether some (but by no means all) of the stealers were well-intentioned at the time. This was hardly relevant to the stolen and their descendants: they had no doubt that their rights had been violated, their families and in some case their very lives destroyed as a result of the policies of the government.

A minimum of decency meant they were due proper acknowledgement and contrition, not some weasel words about a regrettable blemish a from the past, now time to move on. But in any case, Howard was not prepared to argue about it. He was not personally responsible, so there was nothing for him to be sorry about. No apology, not now and not ever.

And this intransigence effectively destroyed any possibility of a consensus over indigenous recognition, let alone a proper reconciliation process. A treaty, of course, was utterly out of the question. Even some of Howard’s conservative colleagues thought his unbending stance was not only cruel, but also bad politics: it would involve eating a shit sandwich, but it would at least get the issue out of the way.

As it was, like Howard’s stubborn refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement on climate change, the veto on an apology was a long running distraction at a time when the rise and rise of Kevin Rudd needed all the concentration he could muster. Even Tony Abbott – another protégé and already shaping as a fierce rival to Turnbull – advised his leader that it would be better to give way – it would do him no harm to be generous for a change.

Will the party room rump seek to embarrass the current prime minster? They can certainly take the Howard line: presumably none of them have been involved in child sexual abuse, so why should they have to be dragged to a public apology?

But Howard stood on what he called his principles, and in the end it was up to Rudd to deliver the long-belated speech. Howard had lost his seat by then, so had an excuse for not attending. But several others from the extreme right of the Liberal Party also boycotted the event. The appalling Sophie Mirabella stated that the stolen generations were a myth – presumably the weighty report she received some years earlier went straight to the shredder.

At which point we have to ask: will the party room rump seek to embarrass the current prime minster on the same basis? They can certainly take the Howard line: presumably none of them have been involved in child sexual abuse, so why should they have to be dragged to a public apology?

It might be a little rash to describe the Royal Commission as a myth, but there are those who have said it was exaggerated, over the top, the evidence was unreliable, there was a suspicion (by the doubters) that false memories were accepted, and of course it was basically a giant conspiracy to discredit the churches, most particularly the Catholics. There will be an opportunity for a well-publicised walk out – it was Turnbull’s idea, and if he wants to wallow in it, let him.

The sociopathic Home Affairs enforcer doesn’t apologise for anything, not ever. He has presided over a string of atrocities in his portfolio – several innocent deaths, much madness, untold suffering for his numerous victims.

Howard, obviously, will again not be present anyway, but one of the most prominent who ostentatiously snubbed Rudd may well be tempted to lead the resistance: no prizes for guessing, step forward Peter Dutton.

The sociopathic Home Affairs enforcer doesn’t apologise for anything, not ever. He has presided over a string of atrocities in his portfolio – several innocent deaths, much madness, untold suffering for his numerous victims. His insistence that asylum seekers are ‘illegal arrivals’ is quite simply a lie – the foundation lie of the vast structure of misery he and his sinister eminence grise, the department’s secretary Mike Pezzullo have diligently erected.

Dutton’s regime is guilty of deceit, deliberate cruelty and the breaking of several international laws and conventions – not to mention trashing Australia’s reputation for standards of fairness and decency. By any rights he should be apologising for what amounts to crimes against humanity. But it obviously does not bother him – as he tells us, those who dissent are dead to him.

His total lack of empathy means that all his emotions – including his loyalty – must be questioned. As a cabinet minister, Dutton cannot easily desert Turnbull as he is making the apology on the floor of the house, but he could – if he wished – gather support for those who can and will, the reactionary backbenchers who probably think that apologies are for wimps anyway.

There is no suggestion that this is happening – yet. But there are more than four months before October 22, the day on Children’s Week Turnbull has selected for his big moment, and as we have seen so regularly, there is an awful lot of mischief to be made before then.


6 responses to “Thus Spake Mungo: Will Malcolm’s apology get backbench support?”

  1. robot says:

    Anyone who has read, or tried to read, Run, Johnny, Run, would know that MacCallum’s objection to John Howard goes beyond politics, journalism. It borders on hatred. And what gives any political leader the right to apologise for a nation. This borders on State supremacism. Tony Koch for the Courier in Brisbane outlined numerous instances of abuse in some aboriginal communities, some, not all. But we are being lead to separate laws. And the acceptance that nothing can be done to protect these children. The Left is bankrupt. Just watched the Post, a good flic with typical Speilberg tension. Could see the theme coming though, freedom of the press etc. We the governed however are also free to question the choice of facts.

  2. David Cooke says:

    Robot.I take it that you dont believe that the victims(Forgotten Australians) deserve an Apology then?Does that mean that you also feel that it was perfectly acceptable for us to be sexually,physicall and mentally abused?You arent a Catholic Priest by any chance are you?

  3. robot says:

    But really though an apology by definition comes from the wrongdoer to the victim, or the sorryfeeler to the one misaligned in a conflict. So how does a political leader apologise for the whole of a country without the sense we were all complicit? I wouldn’t even expect a German leader to take that upon themselves, and there’s no comparison with Australia. Forgotten? Many of us have that feeling from time to time, a part of life I expect. Til the lawyers are involved; they’re never forgotten.

  4. What a sad definition of Australia this article infers…and brought to us by those who believe it is the right to rule.

  5. robot says:

    Australia has had no Stalin or Pol Pot. We just have the Think Police, gradually defining what we should even drink or eat. Forget about national affairs, they’re in our kindergartens.

  6. robot says:

    I’m not a Catholic priest but somehow my life depends on morality: the difference between a wanton thought and a choice. That’s it.

Leave a Reply to robot Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Become a supporter of The Echo

A note from the editorial team

Some of The Echo’s editorial team: journalists Paul Bibby and Aslan Shand, editor Hans Lovejoy, photographer Jeff Dawson and Mandy Nolan

The Echo has never underestimated the intelligence and passion of its readers. In a world of corporate banality and predictability, The Echo has worked hard for more than 30 years to help keep Byron and the north coast unique with quality local journalism and creative ideas. We think this area needs more voices, reasoned analysis and ideas than just those provided by News Corp, lifestyle mags, Facebook groups and corporate newsletters.

The Echo is one hundred per cent locally owned and one hundred per cent independent. As you have probably gathered from what is happening in the media industry, it is not cheap to produce a weekly newspaper and a daily online news service of any quality.

We have always relied entirely on advertising to fund our operations, but often loyal readers who value our local, independent journalism have asked how they could help ensure our survival.

Any support you can provide to The Echo will make an enormous difference. You can make a one-off contribution or a monthly one. With your help, we can continue to support a better informed local community and a healthier democracy for another 30 years.”

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.