Scott Morrison (Image: AAP/Mick Tsikas)

The government has called on Scott Morrison to “apologise to the Australian people” for secretly assuming ministerial portfolios.

But why bother?

Yes, it makes an easy political stick with which to beat the former PM. And yes, it creates some momentary talking points. But everyone knows full well that any such (highly unlikely) apology would be meaningless, because the man isn’t sorry for what he did. And no one would be deceived.

There is a massive difference between apologising and being apologetic, and politicians and others have been exploiting that difference for years.

One of the most notorious examples was when then opposition leader Tony Abbott made some remarks which were taken as offensive to then prime minister Julia Gillard. This is how he “apologised”:  

“If she wants to take offence, then of course I am sorry about that. And if she would like me to say I am sorry, I’m sorry.”

As his critics commented at the time, the so-called apology simply compounded the original offence.

Then, a few years later, former senator Ian Macdonald was called out at a select committee hearing for apparently mocking the name of Senator Penny Wong (who was not present at the time). 

Challenged by the late Kimberley Kitching to apologise for confusing two similar Chinese names, Macdonald replied: “You are very sensitive about it. If Senator Wong has taken offence, then I apologise to her. But if she does take offence, she has a very thin skin.”

While these are two particularly egregious examples, they highlight that a demanded apology — like the current example of Scott Morrison — is little more than an invitation for insincerity.

Two separate events in recent weeks serve as a reminder that a true apology (a) not only needs to be sincere but must be seen to be sincere and (b) is not about you.  

The first case was reported in Crikey when Foxtel CEO Patrick Delany described Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke as a “short, dumpy girl”.

His comment, when speaking at the Sydney premiere of the long-awaited prequel series House of the Dragon, was seemingly intended as a joke but reportedly shocked attendees.

The remark was particularly inappropriate considering Clarke’s well-documented struggle with weight and body image.

The apology came swiftly, but it was not from the Foxtel boss. Instead, a spokesperson said: “On behalf of Mr Delany, the Foxtel Group apologises if his remarks were misunderstood and caused any offence.” The spokesperson added that the comment was meant to be “self-deprecating and light-hearted”.

That might be true — and Clarke is unlikely to challenge one of the most powerful men in her industry. But that is all the more reason why Delany should have apologised personally to demonstrate sincerity and genuine remorse, rather than dispatching the company flack to clean up the mess. Maybe he sent a private message to the actor. We’ll likely never know.

The other apology to raise eyebrows was when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences formally apologised to Sacheen Littlefeather for her mistreatment at the 1973 Academy Awards. The activist and actor, who attended the ceremony on behalf of Marlon Brando after he won the Best Actor award for The Godfather, was booed when she made a statement about the depiction of Native Americans in movies.

Littlefeather responded to the apology: “We Indians are very patient people — it’s only been 50 years! We need to keep our sense of humour about this at all times. It’s our method of survival.” 

While she demonstrated charm and grace, the obvious question is: why did the Academy decide to apologise 50 years after the event, seemingly without any prior public discussion? Once again, we’ll likely never know, but it shows every sign of the Academy attempting to patch up its reputation in the wake of this year’s award ceremony debacle with Will Smith.

Apologising a long time after an event is nothing new. For example:

  • Pope John Paul II apologised in 2004 on behalf of the Catholic Church for the sack of Constantinople by Christian crusaders in April 1204;
  • Australia’s Parliament issued a “national apology” in 2008 to the Stolen Generations — forcibly removed from their families between 1910 and 1970;
  • and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier apologised in 2019 on the 80th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland. 

But regardless of timing, a sincere apology must be about the victims. It is not about the person apologising. 

Whether it’s politicians or CEOs or celebrities, the principles remain the same. As Forbes magazine wisely concluded a while ago: “Next time you’re clearly in the wrong, take a deep breath, put aside your self-justification, your excuses, your blame, your defensiveness, and simply apologise.”

Can you tell a true apology from a fake? What makes a good apology? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.