Reconciliation is not about guilt it is about education. It is about understanding the systemic nature of disadvantage, the historical forces that shaped it, and the shared responsibility to build a future where all children thrive,’ writes Debra Zanella and Jody Nunn. Credit: Don Lindsay/The West Australian

In a recent opinion piece in The Sunday Times, columnist Ben Harvey argued that guilt has paralysed Australia’s response to Aboriginal disadvantage.

We disagree. Reconciliation is not about guilt it is about education. It is about understanding the systemic nature of disadvantage, the historical forces that shaped it, and the shared responsibility to build a future where all children thrive.

Harvey suggests symbolic gestures have failed to deliver change. But this sets up a false divide between symbolism and structural reform, as if the two cannot co-exist.

In reality, cultural recognition through symbolism is often a necessary foundation for effective policy. Without genuine understanding of why change is needed, reforms risk reversal between political cycles, leaving communities frustrated and progress stalled.

To grasp reconciliation, we must first understand where we’ve come from.

Imagine:

• Being forcibly removed from your parents or grandparents
• Going to war without being recognised as a citizen of your own country
• Having your wages withheld for most of your working life
• Being denied access to land your family has walked for generations.

These are not abstract scenarios. They are lived realities for many Aboriginal people. And yet, through education, employment, home ownership, successful businesses, and Aboriginal-led policy reform, new generations are beginning to experience self-determination.

We must continue to grow these opportunities across communities and regions. These outcomes are possible because of decades of bipartisan support, advocacy, and community leadership.

At Galup (Lake Monger) during the Walk for Reconciliation, Aboriginal leaders spoke not of guilt but of healing.

They spoke of truth, respect, and building a future where all children thrive. Similarly, at the Pinjarra Massacre site, Governor Chris Dawson offered a genuine apology, unarmed, on foot, standing alongside Traditional Owners. His words were about education and healing, not guilt.

Harvey calls for compassionate, pragmatic policy rather than guilt-driven gestures. We agree that compassion must drive public policy.

But compassion requires education. It requires understanding historical context, systemic inequality, and the need for Aboriginal-led reform. Removing guilt is not the same as removing accountability.

Our disagreement with Harvey’s position rests not on personal bias but on the credibility of political processes shaped through bipartisanship.

When Australians vote in a referendum with only a narrow margin, it signals gravity that transcends partisanship. Millions of voices reflect the seriousness of a national conversation that belongs to all Australians, Indigenous and non-indigenous alike.

This is not the first time bipartisanship has guided reconciliation. In 2015, the Referendum Council was jointly appointed by the prime minister and opposition leader, reminding us that credibility in this work has always been anchored in national, bipartisan processes.

Harvey attributes policy failures to guilt, without showing how guilt — rather than chronic underfunding, weak governance, or systemic racism — leads to poor outcomes.

Suggesting moral equivalence between coloniser and colonised ignores persistent power imbalances and historical trauma. Reconciliation is about addressing these truths, not dismissing them.

To suggest disadvantage is simply a matter of community division is to overlook the fact that many disadvantages were created by Australian systems themselves.

Demonising those who live with the impacts is to blame victims for the harm they have endured. Guilt-tripping language is derogatory and degrading to First Nations peoples who have human rights.

Harvey’s reference to pre-colonial life as “nasty, brutish and short” draws on outdated Eurocentric views long refuted by anthropologists and Indigenous knowledge holders.

As we become more educated, we understand the complex and sophisticated Indigenous cultures and systems thrived here long before 1788 and continue to do so today.

There is strong evidence nationally and internationally that reconciliation initiatives grounded in Indigenous governance, cultural healing, and material reparations deliver measurable outcomes.

When communities lead, design, and control resources, wellbeing and justice outcomes demonstrably improve.

More than the opinion itself, it is the style in which Harvey’s piece is expressed that warrants reflection. What he calls “courageous truth-telling” is in fact a form of victim-blaming.

It shifts responsibility for colonisation’s impacts onto Aboriginal people, dismisses trauma, and labels compassion as “white guilt”. This framing obscures systemic harm and distracts from government and community responsibility.

We have come far as a society, but there is much further to go. Reconciliation is not about silencing truth or weaponising guilt. It is about building a future grounded in respect, education, and accountability.

We invite Harvey and all readers to walk with us, to listen deeply, and to report from a strengths-based lens that reflects the courage, resilience, and importance of this continued work.

Together, we can ensure the next generation of children succeed by choice, not by chance, and are proud of our collective culture and future.

Debra Zanella is co-chair of Reconciliation WA. Jody Nunn is its CEO

Click here for the link to the article on The West Australian.