Cue the sorry chorus

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 2nd, 2017 at 07:42 am

So much for never, never again:

Welfare authorities in the Northern Territory are refusing to return an Aboriginal child to his mother …

Posted by Tim B. on 02/26/2008 at 12:18 PM
    1. I didn’t watch a tape of Rudd’s apology, nor did I read a transcript of it.  So I’ll just ask the commenters here.  Did Rudd condition his apology or include a proviso to the effect that if authorities in good faith believe it’s in the best interest of a child to be removed from the custody of his or her parents or guardians, the government retains the right and, indeed, duty to do so?

      If not, Rudd has effectively led the government into this untenable position.  Irresponsible.  Utterly depraved and irresponsible.

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 26 at 12:46 PM • permalink


    1. #1 – I only read the transcript but there was nothing like that in there. He’s dug himself a hole but thank goodness good people like those welfare authorities in NT aren’t letting him drag them down into it.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2008 02 26 at 01:07 PM • permalink


    1. Nothing at all like that, wron. It was ‘never again’ from start to finish.
      Why do I hear the voice of Bob Hawke inside my head?
      “By 1990…”

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 02 26 at 03:27 PM • permalink


    1. “Oops!”

      A unconfirmed quote attributed to Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, after hearing about this.

      And while it may not be truth, it does sound truthy, so I am posting in the sense that it could be true.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 26 at 04:22 PM • permalink


    1. Oh that will never do!

      Meanwhile “By 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty” … ah yes, whoops – wrong timing—a little hindsight.

      Posted by Wand on 2008 02 26 at 04:30 PM • permalink


    1. Nelson was widely criticised at the time for his sorry speech, partly for saying that many of the people who caused the stolen generation ‘were well intentioned’ and that it was done for varying reasons and motivations. In other words, his speech was carefully qualified in a way that Rudd’s was not. It’s interesting that Nelson’s lefty critics don’t now notice the irony, given the recurrence of stories like the one linked.

      Posted by TimT on 2008 02 26 at 04:49 PM • permalink


    1. Difficult to draw a firm conclusion on this one. The Age presents the case as though it was most likely an accident, electing not to detail the registered nurse’s reasons for concern, which makes you wonder what they’re not telling. At the very least the mother is guilty of gross stupidity. You have to be bonkers to hold a baby and a hot cup of tea at the same time. Failing to take basic safety precautions with your child is neglect, though one relatively minor example like this is not sufficient grounds for removing the kid. I wonder if her decision to take the Fifth during the subsequent interview was construed as obstructive arrogance and riled the department so much it decided to keep her boy out of spite.

      Posted by Dminor on 2008 02 26 at 05:38 PM • permalink


    1. May I add that The Age has taken an ethically dubious stance here. Let’s say the situation is unclear – on one hand, the basic story is consistent with an accident but on the other you’d think the department would be treading very carefully in these sensitive times so must have reasonable cause for concern. The Age should be strictly neutral. By advocating the child’s return to his mother, it’s promoting cultural correctness ahead of child welfare. I doubt, were this a white mother and son, that the Age would be so keen to criticize the department when the facts aren’t certain.

      Posted by Dminor on 2008 02 26 at 05:49 PM • permalink


    1. Dminor the DPP and FACS operate on different criteria. FACS operates more on suspicion due to the vulnerability of the children. I know that is a tough call but a balance between the rights of children and parents needs to be drawn in favour of abused children.

      The DPP operates on evidence. It appears the compelling factor is the nature of the burns – a flight from a hospital was deemed necessary. That is a serious burn. Maybe there was a misdiagnosis or maybe the child burns easily. The case would be hard to prosecute for the DPP.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2008 02 26 at 06:33 PM • permalink


    1. I think some people are barking up the wrong tree here, by trying to bring facts, logic, reason, EVIDENCE even, to the ‘debate”. This whole “apology” is about warm gooey feelings, self-hatred, blah blah blah. The process was the whole deal, an end in and of itself. Sorry cures all ills…what is actually happening on the ground brings back memories of Chimpy BushitlerhoWARd’s fascist invasion, last year, of indigenous sovereign territory, so as to steal resources and maybe pick up some second hand building material, and busted 4WDs.
      Decent, progressive people like me don’t want to be reminded of that dark period….and the Dear Leader has said sorry…I am sure that is the end of the abo’s our indigenous siblings demands

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 02 26 at 08:11 PM • permalink


    1. This is what we should be sorry for.

      “..The case highlights difficulties authorities face when trying to deal with Aboriginal parents who have little or no understanding of English…”

      10 years of compulsory schooling and an Australian still cant speak functional english.
      Therefore condemned to a life restricted by tribal boundaries. It wouldn’t matter if she was the Aboriginal version of Gandhi, no-one outside her tiny language group would ever know.
      Thats shame.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 26 at 09:27 PM • permalink


    1. I s’pose the authorities will now be charged with starting another “stolen generation.”
      At least the kiddie is still alive, and not being abused; which is something to be thankful for and would have been a serious possibility if he had not been rescued.
      Nonetheless, I bet there will now be another claim or compensation somewhere along the line.

      Posted by jorjac on 2008 02 26 at 10:52 PM • permalink


    1. My god, I missed the Ruddles Sorry Speech. Thanks for pointing it out to me.


      I can only hope that Ruddles hasn’t spilt any of your Ozzies’ money with that speech.

      What drivel. What absolute BS. Such self-important, patrobnizing and insincere hog wash. What a pathetic ….  contd. on page 94.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 02 26 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. But we musn’t impose our white, neo-imperialist totalitarian values upon those of other, equally, if not more valid (by virtue of their closeness to nature) cultures. For these folks, no suburban bourgois touchy-feely; no for them life is cheap. A spear in the leg is natural justice; a wife beating the result of gasoline guzzling the effects of our neo-colonial disruption of their natural habitat and advance, yet delicate, societal normes. Or it may have been a means of birth control, I can go on in this vein, I’ve read the holy screeds.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 02 27 at 12:01 AM • permalink


    1. Obviously, progressive sensitivity demands that the child be RobertMannehandled and left exactly where it was – in the care of its alleged abuser. A dead child cannot be stolen.

      Posted by larrikin on 2008 02 27 at 12:31 AM • permalink


    1. Shouldn’t that headline read “Screw the Ruddi Chorus”?

      Posted by andycanuck on 2008 02 27 at 01:16 AM • permalink


    1. Labor again creates more problems.
      Where would we be without the Labor Party?

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 27 at 02:57 AM • permalink


    1. I think all those children should be entrusted to Kevni’s personal care. It’s the only way to go.

      Posted by PW on 2008 02 27 at 03:42 AM • permalink


    1. #18 – as long as they pee in the right place and don’t dig up the lawns.
      Liberal backbencher Concetta Fierravanti-Wells asked Senator Faulkner whether there was any additional budget for lawn restoration now that Abby was roaming the grounds.
      Parliamentary Committee Chat

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 27 at 06:37 AM • permalink


    1. If you don’t do stuff to be sorry for, you’ll run out of reasons to apologize.  And what kind of lefty wants to be in a position where he has nothing to be sorry for?  No self respecting leftist – oops, that’s an oxymoron.

      Sorry (with head tilt).

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 02 27 at 07:33 AM • permalink


  1. If you’re white, you’ll never run out of the things to say sorry for

    Posted by arbee on 2008 02 27 at 09:54 PM • permalink