SORRY can often be the hardest word. But when it comes to the treatment of Australia's indigenous people, Prime Minister John Howard regards it as a word he will not utter on principle.
Instead he prefers to stress the achievements of the nation as a whole. While maintaining that he is committed to reconciliation, he refuses to apologise for the misdeeds of previous generations of Australians. There is some logic to his view. But in the controversial arena of race and the legacy of discrimination, logic rarely gets a hearing.
No one can imagine that an apology would be enough, or that it would put right all the ills of the past. Even if Mr Howard uttered the right words, there would be the inevitable debate concerning his sincerity. What is far more important are practical measures to tackle appalling standards of health care, education, and unemployment among aborigines.
Parliament started the so-called reconciliation process 10 years ago, with the aim of finishing its work by 2001 - the centenary of Australia's federation. Perhaps the concept itself is fundamentally flawed; the idea that genuine reconciliation can take place to some kind of timetable is difficult to grasp.
Mr Howard's appearance yesterday at the Sydney Opera House, where he accepted a document from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, did not go well for the Prime Minister. The report details the methods of taking forward the reconciliation process, and a key issue is a government apology. Mr Howard faced a small but vocal protest from the crowd who jeered and booed and drowned out many of his remarks. And today, upwards of 100,000 people are expected to march across Sydney Harbour bridge to mark 'reconciliation'.
Opinion polls reveal that 80 per cent of the population back the marchers' views. That, however, does not necessarily mean they feel compelled to apologise. But if saying sorry would at least heal some of the rancour the issue has caused in Australian politics, Mr Howard may yet be forced to make the gesture. After all, his argument with the members of the reconciliation council over the wording of their document is nugatory.
