The Apology
As soon as you arrive at Parliament House this morning you can tell this is a special day – much more so than the formal opening proceedings of the day before. It had its usual pomp and ceremony, with the extra frisson from having a new government, plus protests outside. But today is not just a repetition of a once in every few years event. It is literally a once in a lifetime event.
Arriving at Parliament before eight o’clock, there were long lines of cars snaking around Parliament House and huge queues of people lining up to enter the building. The building is full of people. Most times, Indigenous faces are few and far between inside the corridors and chambers of Parliament House, but today such faces are everywhere. The sense of anticipation and the signficance of the day is palpable.
The wording of the apology is quite different in style to most Parliamentary motions. It is quite florid, and it has clearly had input from Indigenous people. The apology has put been forward in good spirit, without qualification, and it should be supported as such. There will always be some words which one could suggest might have been phrased differently, but Kevin Rudd’s comment is quite right – this apology is not about politicians getting a chance to say what we think. After all, we get to do that every other day of the year. The apology and the day itself is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and particularly for the many thousands of members of the Stolen Generations.
The apology will not end debates about compensation or about the many other serious issues faced by Indigenous Australians. But the recognition and contrition it contains will be of immense value to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is a discrete action and resolution in its own right, not something which should be used to address every single issue of unfinished business regarding Indigenous Australians.
It is a very significant day. A day which can provide some healing for enormous hurts. There is much that still needs to be done, both in acknowledging other wrongs from the past, and in addressing the ongoing injustices and inequalities of today. It is important that Kevin Rudd used his speech on the apology motion to give commitments to address some of these issues. Hopefully, the goodwill of today can provide more motivation and opportunity for our nation to get to work on this.
ELSEWHERE: Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Islander Social Justice Commissioner, explains why the apology is important.
You can read my Senate speech on the motion by clicking here.
An article in New Matilda describes the scene outside Parliament House.
Noami Parry debunks the latest efforts at denialism and fabricating the history of the Stolen Generations by Keith Windschuttle
Graham Ring, a long-standing writer for the National Indigenous Times, gives his view.
A post on Values Australia which dips into just a tiny fragment of the vast array of historical data validity the racially motivated basis to the Stolen Generations. As it rightly says, “denial does make us strong. It makes us weak. “
130 Comments, Comment or Ping
philip travers
As long as I dont have to apologise every time I say that I am not a fan of a Grafton singer who writes fine songs,but doesnt sing with his own accent,and I am not a Slim Dusty fan,and find some reasons to say hearing too much of him,isnt always a learning process!
Feb 13th, 2008
jLo
I’m all overcome.
Feb 13th, 2008
ken
Agreed
Feb 13th, 2008
Lynette2
It’s a truly amazing day. Great to be able to feel proud of my country again. Sorry business is a good way of understanding what has happened today. Yes, there’s further to go, but today we dealt with the sorry business.
What a difference an election makes.
Feb 13th, 2008
Priscilla
Beautiful post Andrew, thankyou. It’s great to read your “insider’s view” of what’s going on in Canberra today :)
I saw the speech in Martin Place, Sydney. It was an amazing moment.
Feb 13th, 2008
Jen Cluse
I watched P.M. Rudd’s speech of apology with tears streaming down my face.
My mother in Adelaide, who taught at the Pitjatjanjara Land’s school for seven years, and believes they should be encouraged to change slowly, watched the apology with tears streaming down her face.
My brother in Melbourne, who helped the Democrats by basically writing our initial and lasting Aboriginal policy, and who worked in the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid area under an aboriginal boss, who believed in rapid advancement, who resigned from that area when that boss killed himself from the stress of trying to meet the demands or the Western legal system, the Tradition legal system and his family obligations, and who was very loved, sat watching the apology with tears steaming down his face.
If we few whities reacted so strongly to Mr Rudd’s exemplary speech, It is difficult to imagine the intensity of feelings being experienced today by those who had to live the pain and suffering first hand for so very many awful years.
Thank you from the bottom of our collective hearts, Senator Bartlett, for your dogged determination, and persistent application, in giving so many hurt people a faint spark of hope for the entire time you have spent so far in the Senate. You have been indefatigable, and are much loved and respected as a result.
And thank you, all you Democrats, who fought the good fight for so long, and, even if we weren’t successful as a party recently, were deeply involved in turning the tide so that a fine man now leads a good team and the country.
From a purely personal point of view, that man Rudd and his team has allowed my back to straighten, and they have now enabled me to at last look anyone in the world in the eye, and smile, and say ‘I come from Australian, and am proud of it.’
Now let’s offer our help to the First Nation so that they too will to straighten their backs, look every person in the eye, and say ‘I am a First Australian, and proud of it.’
Feb 13th, 2008
GZG
Thank you Jen, please maintain that upright position …… and may God help the abused Sacred Little Children because it looks like they’ll “never, never again” be “stolen” if our Chairman’s misplaced apology is to be treated as credible.
Feb 13th, 2008
muzzmonster
Without trying to be too narky to our ex-PM, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Feb 13th, 2008
togret
I didn’t think I’d ever see this day. I was about 13 or 14 when I first understood vaguely that there was somethign wrong with our country. In the early 1960sI worked as a Girl Guide at the Aboriginal children’s home in Bomaderry NSW. We went over there on Saturday mornings to help – playing with the kids, reading stories, helping with the MOUNDS of washing (imagine a group home with 6 or so kids, where the workload never eases, becuase as the bigger ones grow up and move away from ‘home’, more babies arrive, and more little ones, with the associated increase in washing.
I didn’t really understand why there seemed to be so many Aboriginal orphans … there was something strange about it, because whenever I asked about that, I was fobbed off. I grew older and finished Guides, and moved on to other activities.
Then the 1967 referendum came and my parents and I argued about it for weeks – I have no idea to this day how they voted, but I urged them to vote yes. It was very clear to me that Aboriginal Australians were people, just lke the rest of us. Why not have them in the Census? As I have grown older, I’ve often run into people who don’t believe that, even now.
I feel a change in energy .. my shoulders feel lighter. We are no longer stuck in denial .. there is much to do. Let’s begin at once to try to make real the words .. but what a great start!
Feb 13th, 2008
Ann
And thanks for all your work on these issues over the years too Andrew.
Feb 13th, 2008
barry rutherford
A great day. A very moving speech which deserves to go down as one of the best Australian speeches by PM Kevin Rudd.
Disappointed by Nelson’s speech in reply…
not so much for me as those affected by the policies…
Feb 13th, 2008
Liz
I agree today has been wonderful – I honestly didn’t think we’d live to see the day. Being in Canberra to witness it first hand must have been a great thrill, and such a priviliege. I also think it’s fantastic that Rudd set targets for addressing the gaps in health, education etc. They are achieveable in a propserous country that has the political will to make it happen. It’ll be great to witness these goals being achieved too.
Feb 13th, 2008
Ingrid
A pity the Democrats voted AGAINST compensation for the Stolen Generation today, despite Democrats policy.
It may not have had a chance of success without the Govt or Opposition supporting it, but it looks very bad when the Democrats won’t even stand up for a long-standing policy, as Lynn Allison rightly pointed out in her speech.
Feb 13th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
The real pity Ingrid, is that the Greens saw fit to sidetrack an otherwise unanimous resolution of apology. It might provide an easy way for the Greens to launch attacks on others for not supporting compensation – as you have just done – even though the record (and the speeches by Lyn Allison and myself) show that the Democrats have and coontinue to support compensation, but it did nothing to enhance the impact and value of the apology.
I have introduced legislation that would provide a national compensation scheme, so please lay off the cheap and inaccurate political points.
As Lyn Allison explained in her speech, (as did I), an apology stands alone. Compensation is a related but separate issue, and should be pursued separately. I think it is unfortunate that a day to come together with an unambiguous expression of apology was used to highlight division on compensation. We have every other day of the year to do that.
And the Democrats did not vote against compensation – we abstained on the grounds that we support the principle, but this was an inappropriate time and vehicle to use to express it.
Feb 13th, 2008
geoff
Well I guess I’m the wet blanket. i didn’t find today a historic day… more a hysterical day. I found Rudd’s speech uninspiring, factually and politically biased to a great extent. I thought Nelson’s speech equally uninspiring. If these two and their writers are the best we’ve got. We’ve got problems. The politics of the day was on show with the rudeness of the crowd even before Nelson spoke a word.
When are we going to apologise to all the other groups and individuals hurt by government policy? Or do only Aborigines warrant an apology?
Feb 13th, 2008
philip travers
The Greens are a subtle as a cane toad telling everyone to mind their own business.And because they have it all sown up in the patented caring Party production..I will sing along… Jeremiah was a Bullfrog ..a very good friend of mine.And watch this diappear without trace.Except if it doesnt new hope about carbon emissions being done cheaply from power stations and car exhausts.KeelyNet.com 13/2/2008.
Feb 13th, 2008
CORAL
Geoff:
I thought Rudd’s apology was sincere, and that Nelson’s much broader view of the idea of being “stolen” also had merit.
But you’re right about all of the other groups and individuals who have been damaged by government policy.
As one of the people who has been physically damaged whilst in government employment, I don’t want an apology.
I would like $1,000,000 in compensation instead, thanks – for the pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of spouse and the discriminatory attitude directed at women per se.
Feb 14th, 2008
GZG
Geoff: You’re not a wet blanket, but a voice of sanity in a land of irrational group-think.
Andrew: So glad to see the fervour by which you stand by your principles ….. but
Feb 14th, 2008
TJ
Out of interest Geoff and GZG, how was the speech “factually and politically biased to a great extent”?
Feb 14th, 2008
John Tracey
I agree with Ingrid (@13)
There is no reason in the world why the Democrats should not have supported the Greens motion for compensation. Everywhere around the country Aboriginal people are demanding compensation and criticising the apology because it is not followed by compensation.
The government have ruled out compensaton and apparently have legal advice they are not obliged to pay any.
On a day of high symbolism it would have been appropriate for the Democrats to affirm their own policy and challenge the government’s white wash.
Voting for compensation would neither derail nor dilute the apology, abstaintion is just avoiding the issue
The Democrats aren’t going to be around to engage in the policy argy-bargy. A clear statement of principle at this time is the best contribution they could have made.
I strongly disagree that the apology is a stand alone issue. This is a matter of institutional abuse, no other Australians would accept a simple apology as a way of dealing with legal claims of loss and suffering.
Feb 14th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
The Bringing Them Home report and its related recommendations makes clear that the apology is a specific distinct thing that should be done. Compensation is linked to this, but clearly identified as a separate issue, (along with a few others too).
The separate but related aspects identified by the report were:
• Acknowledgement and apology
• Guarantees against repetition
• Measures of restitution
• Measures of rehabilitation, and
• Monetary compensation
The apology should stand alone as a distinct item, particularly when there was obvioulsy not unanimity on the other separate issue.
It is fine to mention it, but in my view it was an inapproriate time and place to try to force the issue. It was not the time for political point scoring – Brendan Nelson’s efforts were bad enough in that regard.
I backed up my statements of principle with concrete action, by reintroducing legislation (first put forward last year), which will stay on the Senate’s Notice Paper as one pathway that could be followed to deliver compensation.
GZG, I’m sorry that the concept of an appropriate time and place appears to be foreign to you. Not surprising though, as you also seem to be incapable (or unwilling) to see the vast array of facts regarding the stolen generations.
Feb 14th, 2008
geoff
tj
Rudd’s speech was factually one sided and politically biased. What don’t you understand about that? Or didn’t you notice?
At least Nelson attempted to bring some balance and facts to the table.
Oh and Andrew what would be the appropriate time and place… after it is too late and of no consequence?
Feb 14th, 2008
GZG
John: … but Kev said sorry three times and looked really really truly fair dinkum; c’mon, are you a lawyer or a “stolen” aboriginal (or ye gads, both)?
Andrew: Propriety is to be encouraged, but when it’s time to be counted, let your yea be yea and your nay, nay (lest you be condemned). OK, perhaps a minor point as you recanted the next day at an appropriate time and place.
From my cursory review of your proposed Stolen Generation Compensation Bill, it seems that compensation will not be paid for any children “stolen” after 31/12/1975. Is that when the alleged kidnapping & genocide ceased or does this cut into the career time of too many currently serving public servants if not politicians?
Consider also the introduction of a complementary “Not Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008″ that might redress the government’s neglect of the likes of the 10 year old Aurukun girl raped by nine males after being returned to her “community” despite previous multiple rapes. Kev would back it as he espouses a “fair go for all”.
Now some folk think that the children removed from their families were all taken away for humanitarian reasons, others think all were “stolen”. Your bill however is a come ye, come all for the cash handout so I guess you would count yourself one of the former group?
Not sure of his reasonings, but at least the venerated Kev has the idea of attempting practical solutions to problems rather than cash for more grog.
Feb 14th, 2008
John Tracey
I wasn’t aware that you re-introduced compensation legislation but I stand by my earlier comments.
I believe the Bringing them home report was produced as a holistic response and not as a collection of stand alone issues.
You say in your speech on the apology motion ” This resolution of an apology is a stand-alone thing, as it should be.” Why should it be like this?
The recommendations have been segmantalised for the political expediency of the ALP, not as a proper execution of the recomendations.
I believe Aboriginal Australia accepted the stand alone apology in the spirit of take what you can when you can, not because the apology was properly separated from the other recommendations.
The fact that Rudd has chosen to address only one of the five interconnected recommendations is outrageous and should be challenged, not applauded. This must be understood in the context of Rudd absolutely ruling out compensation, a position repeated by the ALP in the senate yesterday. The government has been very clear that it has rejected compensation, not defered it to another time.
Just as Rudd promoted the symbolism of signing the Kyoto agreement, and then backed the U.S. in Bali to obstruct progress, he will ride on the sensation of the apology to disguise his real agenda on Aboriginal affairs which includes ignoring the Bringing them home recommendations as well as not dealing with causal factors in Aboriginal disadvantage.
A stand alone apology is just a white wash.
Feb 15th, 2008
geoff
Lavarch, Wilson and Read… all progressive Left wing radicals… oh yes that report must have been factually and politically unbiased. here john… pull the other one.
Feb 15th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
I undersdtand what you’re saying John. But my point is that we were dealing with what was put before us by the government, and it was very clearly something of great significance and meaning to many Indigenous people (which is why I can’t agree it was a white wash). A number of Indigenous leaders who also are still pushing for compensation stated that the day of the long awaited apology was not the day to highlight this, but rather focus on the positive that was happening that day. But they will certainly keep pushing for compensation. Many of the Liberals weren’t happy with the precise wording and wanted to change words or add things in (something they could have succcessfully done on the Senate had they chosen to), but they refrained because they recognise it would have seriously detracted from the significance of the moment.
Even if the federal government had actually announced it was fully implementing all the recommendations from the Bringing Them Home report including compensation, a stand alone motion of apology would still have occured.
Rudd’s lack of action on compensation has been challenged repeatedly by myself (here is just one example), by the Greens and by many Aboriginal people – and I’m sure it will continue to be. My view is just that the Apology motion is not the place to raise it (I also accept others can have different views, and I don’t actually think its that big a deal, but if someone is going to attack me about it, I’m going to keep justifying my position)
Geoff, your comments appears to indicate that anyone to the left of the Attila the Hun is a “progressive Left wing radical”, so its rather hard to take your protestations seriously (although I presume from your consistent lack of interest in documented facts – which exist independently of any report which mentions them – that you’re not actually interested in being taken seriously, you’re just trying to bait people for sport
Feb 15th, 2008
TJ
Geoff:
I’m amused with the suggestion that someone can be factually biased. Surely someone either speaks the facts or doesn’t. From what I heard, Rudd quoted Protectors and past Ministers verbatim. He also quoted personal stories verbatim. These are the facts.
If these things sat uncomfortably with you, and clashed with what you’ve been led to believe then I’d say the bias is yours and “the facts” have little to do with it.
Feb 15th, 2008
CORAL
TJ:
There are at least two sides to every story.
Rudd used one set of “facts” from only one side of the story.
Even some of the aboriginal people tell a different story from Rudd’s.
Feb 15th, 2008
Norman Stoddart
The Greens motion was a juvenile attempt at political point-scoring. In my view, it undermined the whole day.
While we only managed a half-Nelson from the coalition, I don’t think much more could have been expected.
Ingrid, John Tracey and co, reparation comes in three primary forms: restitution, compensation and satisfaction.
An apology is a form of satisfaction.
Go check the UN Draft articles on State Responsibility for Wrongful Acts, or read the Rainbow Warrior arbitration to understand the differences.
There is a time and place for each form of reparation, but on this occasion, satisfaction needed to stand alone. Senator Bartlett is right.
Feb 15th, 2008
battery
I sat with some aboriginal women to watch the broadcast. I wonder whether Nelson will ever understand what he did by talking of those dreadful crimes in that context. Aboriginal people generally are very shy about sexual matters … it brought the women I sat with great shame and humiliation to hear what he said about the Rogers reports in that context. I’m not denying that what he said is true – I accept that it probably is. Who was helped by his bringing those matters up at that time? Some of them left before getting the chance to see the (almost) unanimous vote of assent … they missed that moment because they felt humiliated by hearing what Nelson said. Good one, Brendan.
Feb 15th, 2008
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett:
Thank you very much for everything you yourself did to make the great day possible.
Feb 16th, 2008
geoff
Thanks Coral, pretty easy to understand wasn’t it. Andrew’s site limitations kept me from answering.
tj… factually biased means that facts from only one side of an argument are presented. I don’t see that as funny, just dishonest. As for the anecdotal stiories… I wouldn’t rely on my memory from chldhood, memories can be influenced or innaccurate, I still remember Santa Claus delivering presents. I’m very comfortable with my beliefs thanks… I base them on verifiable FACTS.
Do you believe the movie the Rabbit Prooof Fence? Sorry to tell you that the woman it was about said it wasn’t her story. But it was a story.
An 80 year old aboriginal woman was on radio the othet night telling how her tribal ancestors cleared the land and later the “white-man’” took it for farming. I didn’t know they had axes and saws in those days let alone bulldozers.
Feb 16th, 2008
Ingrid
Couldn’t disagree with you more, Andrew. The fact remains that you voted against Democrats policy and gave Australia the distinct impression that you are not serious about reconciliation.
Firstly Andrew, the “division on compensation” was something highlighted by yourself, when you voted against it.
And secondly, this was a historic day with an intense focus on reconciliation. What better day to not only go one step further than the Government’s apology, but also highlight their hypocrisy?
John @24 rightly asks, why should the apology have stood alone? Do we want holistic reconciliation, or do we want it piecemeal, morsels for the starving?
The starving will gobble up these tidbits, because they have been so long coming. But to not invite them to the entire banquet is just teasing.
Feb 16th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Ingrid:
I presume it is not deliberate that you continue to falsely state that I voted against compensation, when I did no such thing. Either that or you genuninely don’t know the difference between and abstention and voting against something. I can assure you they are quite different and can lead to very different outcomes.
The ‘division’ quite literally was caused by the Greens, who called for the Senate to divide on the question. It would still have occured, regardless of how I voted. (they have a right to do this, of course, and I don’t attack them for doing so, even though I disagree – but I will defend myself against attacks, particularly factually false ones) The Liberals could have done the same thing to highlight the differences that they obviously hold on the matter, but chose not to. In my view, it was simply not the day for it, and a number of Indigenous people said much the same thing.
I would also repeat that it is a minor matter, as it would have no practical impact in bringing compensation about, and efforts are continuing in applying political pressure for compensation. But I will continue to defend myself against unwarranted attacks – particularly given that I have done more work than anyone in the parliament to highlight the unfinished business regarding compensation, and to provide a legislative model to show how it could be done.
If you still think there is some benefit in trying to create some higher moral ground to misrepresent what occured in order to score some meaningless political point – well, that highlights precisely why I don’t think it was a good tactic, but obviously nothing I say will stop you.
Norman’s comment @ 29 explains it very succintly, but if you still can’t see why an apology and compensation are separate, I suggest you read the relevant section of the Bringing Them Home report, which is after all where the formal proposals for apology, compensation and restitution come from.
Feb 16th, 2008
Floss
Ingrid your assertion that Australia somehow gained the impression that Andrew is not serious about reconciliation is quite frankly ridiculous and totally ignores the mountain of work both he and the Democrats have done and continue to do on behalf of Indigenous People.
I’m wondering what your intent with this argument is, other than to seek to grandstand Bob Brown’s useless and doomed amendment – which barely rated a mention in the media let alone got through to the average Australian – as somehow more effective or suggestive of positive intent than all Andrew’s work.
Realistically the Bill Andrew put forward last year and re-tabled last week is a much more effective and likely way of highlighting the need for compensation and achieving some real outcomes on that.
Feb 16th, 2008
battery
geoff- one reference for you about use of fire by aboriginal people to create open grassland … http://www.csu.edu.au/special/bushfire99/papers/gott/
At the end there are many more references, and since it is a paper about 9 years old there will have been more research since then. This is just one more example of what people might learn if they studied the ways aborigines managed the lands they lived on.
Feb 16th, 2008
John Tracey
Norman, you said (29) “reparation comes in three primary forms: restitution, compensation and satisfaction” which is absolutely correct as is Andrews identification of the different elements of the Bringing them home reccomendations.
However what seems to have not hit home to you and the Democrat senators is that Rudd has repeatedly and absolutely ruled out compensation. The symbolic apology is the end of the matter, not the opening of the door to deal with the other elements.
The Rudd apology is clearly designed close the book on that chapter of history. They have clearly articulated that they perceive the apology to have finished the unfinished business.
I fully endorse what Andrew says of himself ” I have done more work than anyone in the parliament to highlight the unfinished business regarding compensation, and to provide a legislative model to show how it could be done.”
Which is why I am dissapointed that the Democrats abstained on a matter of principle on a day and a bill of high symbolism.
The path to compensation, the execution of the Bringing them home recommendations and indeed U.N. principles for state responsibility for wrongful acts (the french did not just apologise for the rainbow Warrior and Libya did not just apologise for the Lockerbie bombing) is to challenge the government, not accept it’s containment, minimalisation and cessation of the issue.
Sure enough Andrew’s compensation bill will provide an opportunity to revisit the issue at some time in the future when all the excitement has passed.
However the Apology, the symbolic statement of principle, happened last Wednesday and I am dissapointed that the Democrats did not support the greens ammendment which was the only parliamentary challenge on this symbolic day to Rudd’s “end of the matter” apology.
The inherent dellusion in the subsequent tabling of the compensation bill is that the parliament can now move on to the next proper step in the process. However, since the process has now finished in the eyes of the government, the only way to move to the next step is sustained pressure on the government to do so as was (I assume) the purpose of the Green ammendment. Instead of building momentum to that challenge at a brilliant opportunity to do so by supporting the Greens ammendment, the Democrats abstention simply provided ballast to Rudd’s ship as he sailed past the issue.
The matter of compensation is now closed, at least as far as the federal parliament is concerned. The Democrats reintroduction of the compensation bill is just tilting at windmills. The Greens amendment was a politically astute statement of principle, a very appropriate (and certainly not “juvenile”) contribution to a bill which is in essence, singularly, a statement of principle.
Feb 16th, 2008
John Tracey
p.s.
I am certainly not uncritical of the Greens.
http://greensblog.org/2008/02/01/apology-must-be-unreserved/#comment-4359
My criticism of the abstention is no partisan Democrat bash. It’s just what I reckon.
Feb 16th, 2008
CORAL
Hasn’t anyone heard this before?
“We are one, though we are many -
And from all the lands on Earth we come.
We share a dream, and sing with one voice
I am … You are … We are Australian.”
Now can’t we PLEASE finally dispense with all this separatist stuff?
Feb 16th, 2008
geoff
thanks battery but I know all about that already thanks. Over the time period she mentioned and considering that australian trees are adapted to fire here .
I suggest you night like to read your link. It does not suggest that land-clearing in the manner I mentioned and the misguided aboriginal woman believes. Like i said… no axes, no saws, no bulldozers. You don’t clear forested lands for farming without them.
Feb 17th, 2008
John Tracey
History repeating?
“Looking back, the only major improvement has been the 93% ‘Yes’ vote of the referendum of May 1967; but this improvement did not benefit the black Australians though it eased the guilty conscience of white Australians in this country and overseas.
It can be regarded therefore as a victory for white Australians who formed a coalition with black Australians. Black Australians must be seen as stooges for white Australians working in the interest of white Australians.” – The Late Oodgeroo Noonuccal
No use crying over spilt milk, on to the future……
The signing of the U.N. declaration of indigenous rights.
Rudd has emphatically, as an election promise, ruled out changing any Australian law to conform to the principles in the declaration.
Will the Democrats join the self congratulatory chorus of a “stand alone” signing? Or will they insist upon modifying Australian law as an inherent and immediate component of the signing as compensation should have been to the apology?
p.s. Coral, I agree with you 100%.
If compensation for government abuse is good enough for non-Aboriginal people like Lindy Chamberline and Vivian Alvarez it is good enough for Aboriginal people too. Howward, Vanstone and Ruddock tried to get away with a “stand alone” apology to Vivian Alvarez but it didn’t stick.
It would be outrageous to expect Bernie Banton to accept an apology and reparation by way of repealing workchoices legislation to improve the living standards of all workers, yet the governments health and housing priorities seem to be the extent of the stolen generations reparations.
Feb 17th, 2008
CORAL
John Tracey:
If you agree with me 100%, why don’t the indigenous peoples integrate with the rest of us?
Living in remote locations is certainly not very conducive to employment, education, health services, social activities, self-esteem or the many other benefits which are more easily gained by living in the larger towns and cities.
If the aboriginal peoples continue to live where there is insufficient work, problems with alcohol abuse will continue to produce other serious social problems as a “knock on” effect.
Question:
What laws do the aboriginal people want modified? Can you give us a nutshell version here? Will they apply to all Australians?
BTW plenty of white folk have missed out on compensation for much worse treatment, including myself.
You give Lindy Chamberlain as an example of a white woman receiving compensation. She was wrongfully jailed for murdering her baby – along with gross media and public persecution – and the breakdown of her marriage – a much worse scenario than a lot of aboriginal people have suffered.
Feb 17th, 2008
Donna
‘why don’t the indigenous peoples integrate with the rest of us?’
Who’s us whiteman?
‘Living in remote locations is certainly not very conducive to employment, education, health services, social activities, self-esteem or the many other benefits which are more easily gained by living in the larger towns and cities.’
So you’re employed and educated, although you live in a region of sufficient employment opportunites?
Feb 17th, 2008
Marilyn
Coral, why didn’t the British integrate with the aborigines is more the point, after all they were here for 60,000 years living their lives and minding their own business before the deluded white men turned up with the guns, criminals and superiority bullshit.
Will you bloody whitey curmudgeons get this through your thick skulls.
This was not about you. Got that?
It was about official Australian policy to take aborigines and make them white.
It was repulsive, violent, damaging and damn well should have never happened so that we had to apologise years down the road.
You have to get over your ugly bigotry and hatred because it disgusts normal, decent human beings.
Feb 17th, 2008
philip travers
Some time has moved on,and it appears John Tracey refused to be warned by me.I now have read his stuff all the way through.I will not let him off the hook from now on,because their is no point to his insistence,as read from one post to the next in finally agreeing with Andrew Barlett the man and Senator, as he aroused his cerebral cortex to sing his choral line again.The points he was making,will not be seen in retrospect as having any merit whatsoever,as the fact of the outcome of the Veto by the Democrats,will not shape what the Greens have to work again with or without Andrews input,whilst the Democrats,werent saying Brown isnt well motivated,but they could simply not agree, that, another compensation claim at that day was worthy.Seeing Andrews Bill and its value if any, to Aboriginal peoples will be more in the hands of the Greens and other Parties to make it work,if, they accept to do so,then Andrew and the Senators are the only innocent Party here,as in the partial agreement of Tracey himself.Retrospect will not be the same as Senator Andrew.. ashamed more than many of the long time it has taken to see an apology take place.It has cost Andrew and the Democrats dearly without compensation of any type,except maybe in the hearts and minds of many Aborigines,the disparaging remarks and attacks on Andrews character and intelligence isnt unremarkable,but,Tracey for one has left a mark with me,and his brownie points are not up to intelligent acceptance.The amount of time I have been visiting this blog is very short in terms of time use..The Democrats have been working on other issues,more than at this blogsite.
Feb 17th, 2008
John Tracey
Gee Whiz Coral, you should learn the rest of the song.
The first line is…….. “I came from the dream time, from the dusty red soil plains”.
Doesn’t say anything about leaving the dusty red soil plains to live in the city with “the rest of us”.
I could be wrong, but the song seems to be about diversity rather than homogeneity.
By the way, when you speak an Aboriginal dialect fluently, as Aboriginal people have had to learn your foreign language, then I will be able to take seriously your question “why don’t the indigenous peoples integrate with the rest of us?” It is not Aboriginal people who have refused to integrate.
Feb 18th, 2008
Lynda Green
I have been trying to find links or websites that show the government policy that states that aboriginal children should be removed from their families, can anyone direct me, I would really like to show them to my children to educate them about this.
Lynda
Feb 18th, 2008
TJ
Geoff:
Mate, you’ve clearly been grossly misled I’m afraid. Take this comment for example:
I know where this comes from, Andrew Bolt. And as I’m about to demonstrate he who unquestioningly believes such a cultiral warrior is destined for humiliation.
One of the women spoke out at a screening of the movie saying “this isn’t my story” and Bolt eagerly jumped on this as evidence that it was all fiction. It was a typical mistake for someone of his type, he didn’t bother to ask questions as it appeared to him as that simple. The problem was that she is a tribal Aborigine and subsequently holds many beliefs that we would find odd. One of those is that if her actual image isn’t in the movie then it can’t be “her story”, hence “this isn’t my story!”. Her daughter explained this quite clearly afterwards but Andrew didn’t care.
Bolt has distorted the facts behind that tale a distressing amount.
I assert that facts aren’t biased, they’re facts, and when the lions share demonstrate that the SG are real, and the racism was real, then what’s there to argue about?
Feb 18th, 2008
GZG
Not much of a multilinguist myself John Tracey,
so do not see a lot of point in learning one of many
extinctall but dead languages. Seems to me that integration would usually be a term used in the form of the (2%) minority integrating with the majority.Gee Whiz JT, next thing you’ll be wanting us to observe Ramadan (yes, yes, I know, we got here first).
Coral, on integration, perhaps you could have asked “why is there such a high level of truancy amongst indigenous children of school age”, and “what can we do to improve the stats” (or should us foreigners leave things alone and learn Wemba Wemba after hours before reconsidering our position)?
Donna (43)
“So you’re employed and educated, although you live in a region of sufficient employment opportunites?”
Could you reword that last sentence because I can’t fathom its intent?
Lynda Green: Count me in when you find the links. I’ve given up but they must be there somewhere.
Feb 18th, 2008
CORAL
Donna:
I am a lot better educated than you might prefer to think. Many years ago, I suffered a permanent workplace injury. You and Marilyn can keep your sarcastic comments and vilification to yourself.
Marilyn:
In answer to your question as to why the British didn’t integrate with the aboriginal people, the answer is simple.
The aboriginal people were primitive hunter/gatherers. A more advanced culture does not send itself backwards. The primitive people move forwards.
That’s why we see so many well-educated advocates for compensation on the TV – wearing white man’s clothes and spectacles, having also had the benefit of the white man’s education system. Take Patrick Dodson for example.
All:
The last time I looked at the calendar, it was 2008, and the majority group is white. Australia expects all of its other citizens to integrate, and to learn the predominant language, which is English.
On Stateline last week, there was a part-aboriginal man who said he worked for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinic in Brisbane.
He said he gets a lot of young aboriginal men who see themselves as victims. So he explains to them that the aboriginal peoples retaliated against the white men and killed them.
He said that once they had moved on from the role of victims, their self-esteem and life prospects improved.
I believe the best compensation the government could give would be services – not money to individuals.
Queensland State Premier, Anna Bligh, says she wants a complete prohibition of alcohol consumption in aboriginal communities.
I don’t think she can do that, because it would be an act of discrimination, unless the ban applied to all other Queenslanders as well.
Banning alcohol altogether would probably only lead to a “black market” trade.
The government would be wise to get down to the “grass roots” of the problem instead, and then fix it.
John Tracey:
I would still like an answer to those questions relating.
Feb 18th, 2008
Donna
Simple
It is an oxymoron for a foxymoron (particularly a welfare dependent one living in a region of high opportunity) to become indignant towards others on welfare living in regions of low opportunity.
Feb 18th, 2008
GZG
To: Simple (self confessed):
The trouble with Donna is that she lacks the power of English but not the power of typing
Feb 18th, 2008
John Tracey
Lynda Green,
Here is a report from a 1937 conference of federal and state Aboriginal authorities to develop a national approach to “the problem of the Aboriginal population”.
http://asset0.aiatsis.gov.au:1801/metsviewer/archobj?DOCCHOICE=20663.xml&dvs=1202081721934~247&locale=en
It is in essence a policy framework that incorporated what was allready occuring in each state under there own various protection laws since the beginning of the century, which made all Aboriginal people (not just kids) wards of the state who could be sent anywhere against their will. It was not just kids who were taken from their families but also husbands from wives, brothers and sisters from each other, elders and everyone could be moved as the authorities tried to deconstruct Aboriginal extended families.
This is Qld’s original protection laws that authorised all the forced removals.
“The Aboriginals Protection and
Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act, 1897″
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/qld5_doc_1897.pdf
This link records some of the forced removals in Qld = of children and adults – between 1912 -1939
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/pmackett/web/removal.html
Many of the entries give reasons for the removals, its worth looking through. It is also worth noting the massive distances people were moved – a long way from family.
Feb 18th, 2008
philip travers
If only,everyone here had read some Buckminster Fuller writings,and applied it to their own opinions and others,then it could be possible that in essence.. across the points of view,without necessarily adapting his words or words here to curse yourselves and everyone else,then you will notice you are actually agreeing.So, Coral points out the well presented and educated individual of aboriginal…strange word..descent ,having young aboriginals changing their attitudes by perhaps ,but not necessarily acting out some matters…a approach applied in a book PsychoCybernetics,by a Maxwell Maltz who I think,actually first tested his theory of visualising teaching long-legged American basketballers or baseballers…it was one of my favourite self help books,and from its pages I understood a cliche behind it..Practice makes Perfect.I only suggested such ,in a blog recently,if memory is working, I think it was Jack Marxs.Coral isnt a problem for the mentioned city based individuals,and may have liked the compliment inherent in the statement of presentation.I am a bit flabberghasted by my one finger typing and correcting,and inability to be perfect or practiced.But,I think everyone who attempts to think clearly about their attitudes isnt harmed by their expression,normally,unless they come to simply character assassinate.The word integration,is used in mathematics effectively,and has been fairly useful in developing understandings in even sociology,but as a theory to proceed,it would be more useful to allow the education matters to proceed rather than claim a need solely on the basis of as a long term objective a word that doesnt allow the full process of that to occur.In other words its a misguided word use to brand letting more people see how they can see themselves effectively.Whereas having the ability to make intelligent choices implies knowing how to do so.They did without us# being here,and seeing we# are here exchange choices!?#Invaders settlers non-aboriginal folk!
Feb 19th, 2008
geoff
Tj… nice of you to jump on a single point like that but Bolt isn’t the only source of media in the country. It was a fact that the story as presented as in the movie is not the same as those in the book… oh dear. this was pointed out seveeral times in te press and on TV.
Oh by various people… including in at least one movie review. Sorry.
Feb 19th, 2008
CORAL
John Tracey:
Thanks. I’ll take a look at those links, but I think it’s important to remember that some of this grossly unacceptable stuff took place nearly a century ago, and some more than 2 centuries ago.
Feb 19th, 2008
Donna
The trouble with GZG is that s/he hasn’t the faintest what’s going on but thinks s/he’ll pipe up anyway.
Feb 19th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“…I think it’s important to remember that some of this grossly unacceptable stuff took place nearly a century ago, and some more than 2 centuries ago.”
In which case it is even more important to remember that vigorous public debate against the way Aborigines were treated dates back at least 170 years, and that – when it suited them – Australian governments and the Australian public continued to revile or ignore those arguments well into our lifetimes.
There is no avoiding our culpability.
Feb 19th, 2008
CORAL
Donna:
You can hardly criticise GZG whom I think is a man (I remain to be corrected on that) when your only input so far has been to “pipe up” to criticise a disabled woman who has been treated just as badly by the government as any aboriginal person.
I’d call that an extremely whiteist attitude.
Feb 20th, 2008
TJ
Geoff:
I suppose that’s how I would reply if I’d been pulled up repeating a fallacy as well. The fact is that movies are NEVER direct copies of the books they are based on because they are entirely different mediums. This tends to disappoint and anger many people but the truth remains that if movies did directly copy books they would be completely BORING.
The key facts surrounding the removal of those three children (policy implementation, scenes of distressed mothers and the flimsy “excuse” given) were truthfully represented. The aims of A.O Neville were repeated by the man many, many times and it was he who ordered their removal.
Under Neville “half-caste” girls disappeared from their families at an alarming rate, Lorna Cubillo was loaded onto a truck with sixteen other “half-caste” girls at the same time! So ask yourself, was there still no policy?
Feb 20th, 2008
zen
Coral,
I am now more educated after my last month trip to Canberra where, in our War Memorial (glory of militaria), I learn from the ‘Lookinig Outward’ and other displays:
‘From the mid-nineteenth century Australia’s military concerns turned noticebly from internal threats -of convict revolt, civil disorder and Aboriginal resistance – to involvements in foreign conflicts.
In the 1860s Australia joined New Zealand forces fighting the Maoris…
“Pitt’s Militia’
British settlers in New Zealand had clashed with Maori over the possession of land since the European ’settlement’ in the 1840s…
In order to raise more troops the N. Zealand government recruited four regiments of Australians who agreed to serve against Maoris in return for grants for land’..
‘In 1885 NSW dispatched troops to assist Britain in the Sudan (to secure the Suez Canal). In 1900 Victoria, NSW and SA sent naval troops China’.
Well, no wonder that in the last night interview with a journo on TV, an Indonesian politician stated, among other things:” Because the region is not a natural habitat for white Europeans, Australians feel always threatened by their neighbours’.
Coral,
Language discrimination is a form of torture. The conflict in Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Ukraine,is a language conflict.The Irish restored Gaelic in Ireland. Imagine, you are forbidden to speak English; imagine the English language is abolished and doomed to be destroyed. Just use imagination.
Feb 20th, 2008
John Tracey
Zen,
I must disagree with the comment from the war memorial “‘From the mid-nineteenth century Australia’s military concerns turned noticebly from internal threats -of convict revolt, civil disorder and Aboriginal resistance – to involvements in foreign conflicts.”
In the second half of the 19th century is when most of the massacres in Northern Australia occured, most of them by the native police. The native police had an act of parliament empowering them but it was essentially a covert operation. The war against Aboriginal people went underground.
The native polices were bands of men – one white officer and the rest Aboriginal police. At the time Aboriginal people were not allowed to give evidence in court. They were heathen and therefore could not swear on the bible. As a result the only reports on what a particular band of native police did were written by the one white officer in charge. Similarly, the various enquiries and commissions into the carnage of the native police only allowed evidence from the single white officer in charge.
This is perhaps the most significant flaw of Keith Windshuttle’s critique of “black armband” history, he takes the official record of what happened to be historically accurate.
The frontier wars were raging in Queensland (that I know of and probably many other places) in the second half of the 19th century. The famous Kalkadoon war, (which should be in the war memorial) raged for over a decade until the final massacre in the battle of battle montain in 1884.
There was much debate in white Australia and in England about the policies of extermination that brought about the new policy framework of “protection” in the 1890’s, which is where the stories of the stolen generation, forced removals and the mission system begin.
Feb 20th, 2008
CORAL
Zen:
I don’t know where you got the idea that I wanted to abolish ANY LANGUAGE. I would be totally against an idea like that.
But since we are all Australians, and all newcomers here are expected to learn the (predominantly) English language, it would be a great help if everyone spoke it.
TJ:
I think it would be better if movies covered everything in their respective books. They’d be much more interesting and comprehensive – but the movies would probably end up too long and too costly.
Feb 20th, 2008
zen
John Tracey,
It is not my comment. I copied word by word from the display which is available to all visitors. (I took photos of some very interesting statements there). My point is that it was not Aborigines invading England, and the English settlement in Australia was not peaceful and quiet with the convicts stretching the Bible to the heathen.
Now we try to blame them for trying to protect their habitat. We did not like Japs destroying Darwin.
Many new countries were established by conquering other lands; so was Australia. The problem is that native people in many countries are now better off than our Aboriginies regardless of the past. Argument that ’some are better off now than they would have been in their habitat’ does not stand.
Not all Australians can claim false imprisonment and mistreatment, in concentration camps, by the Howard government; but Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez and 2002 other Australian residents and citizens do deserve a compensation.
And this is my argument: people who missed out on our democracy should be given a fair go and the chance to catch up with the rest of the community.
P.S. The War Memorial Management invites any comments on any of the displays.
Feb 20th, 2008
ken
JT – I didn’t know that the slaughter of natives was basically carreid out by other natives. Why did this occur? Was this really tribalism by another name?
Or were the native police encourgaged by the white minority by way of bounty or something like that?
Feb 21st, 2008
Lynda Green
Thank you John Tracey for the links, I am still reading through the details and am trying to see what else I can find but at this point in time I couldn’t possible agree that the list of people removed from 1912 to 1939 were stolen, there was mention of drunkeness, opium abuse, illness, murder, theft and there seemed to be requests being granted for people to rejoin their families, I am keen for someone to produce STOLEN purely for race evidence, then I am more than happy to teach my children about this as they are curious as to how this could ofv happened.
Feb 21st, 2008
John Tracey
Ken,
The native police was a method used by the British in the U.S. too. Probably other colonisers too but I dont know about them. It is essentially a guerilla war mode. Whitefellas did not know the country and were useless.
I have often wondered why they did it and I believe an answer came one day when I got to know an old Aboriginal woman who was the wife of a black tracker in Nth Qld. Her husband was a tracker after the era of the native police. She and her family lived at the police barracks, even (especially) when her husband was out in the bush for extended periods. The police barracks not only offered food, but it gave protection to this family when it was very dangerous to be in the bush – it was the era of the “boong hunts” of anyone still in the bush. The alternatives were slave labour on white farms which in most cases also included extreme cruelty or imprisonment on reserves which also meant cruelty, slave labour and the very real possibility of the family being split up. So a black tracker, apart from getting a wage also ensured the safety of his family.
Before the relative protections of the mission system and during the period where any Aboriginal person was the target of the native police attacks, while the native police did their masters work they were also protecting their family.
The native police were always deployed away from their tribal areas but I do not believe tribal warfare had anything to do with it because such conflicts are specific, i.e. one particular family against another particular family. This does not explain the indiscriminate killing of complete strangers.
I often wondered why Jews staffed Hitler’s gas ovens too, but the sad truth is this sort of thing does happen in war.
Lynda, – I have run out of space so I will answer on another post. Not sure if I’ve used up my quota of posts so if it does not appear immediately I will try later.
But the 37 conference should give you all you need to show your children.
Feb 21st, 2008
zen
Coral,
Just wondering how many people do you know who do not speak English. Is there any statistics on how many overseas born Australians do not speak English?. But we do have statistics on the percentage of the Australian born functionally illiterate. Amazing!
When the British came to Australia, the English language was not ‘predominant’. So the rule does not apply.
All would- be- migrants coming to Australia on skilled visa category have to pass the English test (IELTS) before entry. It applies even to the people from the Phillipines and India where English is a language of instruction from highschool level up.
Exempted from the test are people coming on family reunion, spouse, aged and remaining relatives; but then again, most of family reunion visa applicants come from English speaking countries. Many migrants come from New Zealand.
Exempted from the English test are also refugees but since we are accepting refugees from former English colonies (Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka -Ceylon, India) they do speak English. Most of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran – at least those I met in detention centres and ARA- were highly educated people with a good command of English.
So it is a bit of waste of time to continue blaming migrants for lack of English as most of them either study English or got jobs according to their qualifications.
What true-blue Aussies do not like is the pronunciation (known here as an ‘accent’) many migrants are guilty of. But then again, my true blue Pommy friends cannot understand Scotts.
My concern is not English. My concern is the vanishing of Aboriginal languages. Most of the ethnic groups, but Aborigines, have SBS broadcasts in their own laguage.
Feb 21st, 2008
Donna
‘You can hardly criticise GZG whom I think is a man (I remain to be corrected on that) when your only input so far has been to “pipe up” to criticise a disabled woman who has been treated just as badly by the government as any aboriginal person.’
Yes, GZG sounds like a male (with little man syndrome). He is deserving of criticism for piping up (with irrelevant comments) when he has no idea what’s going on.
I’m not criticising you for being disabled. I’m criticising you for being a bigot with double standards.
i.e., bagging Indigenous people on welfare, who live in regions of low opportunity, when you yourself are on welfare, even though you live in a region of high opportunity.
Similarly, if you’re going to accuse Indigenous men of having a victim mentality (Re: ‘He said he gets a lot of young aboriginal men who see themselves as victims’), then you’d better refrain from claiming victim status yourself.
On the other hand, you could use your own experiences of discrimination to empathise with what Indigenous people have experience. And what you’ve experienced is miniscule in comparison to what Indigenous people have experienced and continue to experience.
Feb 21st, 2008
John Tracey
Lynda,
None of the reasons for removal that you mentioned were reasons for child removal. In most cases (on that list) the children are not even given names, they are described as H.C – half castes, and bundled up in groups for removal.
As for the reasons for adult removals, a common reason that you did not mention was sexual immorality, which means having sex with someone without the protector’s permission. Anyone cohabiting without apporoval were split up.
As for illness, the most common one being venereal disease. Instead of treating peoples illness, they were transferred to other reserves ensuring that each reserve was a hot house of every possible disease. At this stage Aboriginal people were not allowed in hospitals and all their medical needs were delivered by the local policeman or protector. The policy of “soothing the dying pillow”, behind the 37 conference policies, assumes that the Aboriginal population was dying out and the cross infections generated through the removals was just speeding the process up.
Opium,
The British, as the main global distributors at the time (not the chinese), were also heavy opium users. The opium that Aborigines drunk was the old bong water or the urine of the british which was sold to the Aborigines. Same with drunkenness which many commentators of the time were predicting to be the downfall of white Australia. The Aboriginal removals for these things was obviously a racial policy in the same way that contemporary alcohol prohibition regimes are, especially in big drinking white areas such as the N.T. or North Qld. No white person was taken from their family for their addictions.
I’m not sure what your definition of “stolen” would be, but if it meant being seperated from your family without consent, as an adult or as a child as the Bringing them Home report seems to suggest, then all these removals were people being stolen from their family.
Feb 21st, 2008
CORAL
Donna:
You seem to have made yourself the self-appointed expert on what other people have experienced.
People with disabilities often cannot take advantage of being in areas of high opportunity. I think most people would understand this.
I try to take a centrist view of the problems of aboriginal people.
I didn’t accuse anyone of having a victim mentality. The man on TV was talking about that, in a compassionate way, which could not be said of you in relation to other women.
Feb 22nd, 2008
Chopper
A South African take on the apology: “Australia tells Aborigines the cheque is in the mail”
http://www.hayibo.com/articles/view/717
Feb 22nd, 2008
CORAL
Your link comes across as a total belittling of the issue, Chopper.
But it seems I still cannot get an answer (nutshell version) from John Tracey in regard to the proposed modifications to the law affecting indigenous peoples, which will set them apart from other Australians.
Feb 22nd, 2008
Donna
My comments have nothing to do with people on the disability pension.
My comments are directly related to you (and only you), and your racist (not centrist) comments on Indigenous people.
Feb 22nd, 2008
geoff
tj
“The fact is that movies are NEVER direct copies of the books they are based on because they are entirely different mediums. This tends to disappoint and anger many people but the truth remains that if movies did directly copy books they would be completely BORING.”
I suppose that’s how I would reply if I’d been pulled up repeating a fallacy as well… Good to see you admit you were wrong. Of course the movie was dramatised and exaggerated of course it was… not her story…. glad you finally admit it.
As for me… i’m not in denial of anything.
Feb 23rd, 2008
Tony
Coral; Re Donna
When the argument is lost, attack the man.(or woman in this case)
In logical & Legal terms its called “Argumentum ad Hominem”.
When they have nothing but to revert to the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy in logic, you know you have them by the short and curleys Coral.
Feb 23rd, 2008
CORAL
Ignoring detractors and getting back to the debate, I have spoken extensively with one of my social worker friends about what she thinks would be best.
She says more people should start listening to Noel Pearson, because she considers him to have the “centrist” view.
The government has to provide services – and at the same time – the aboriginal peoples have to do their part, by getting their act into gear and changing things for themselves.
I have seen tribal elders on TV expounding exactly the same concept.
For example, there is no point in Anna Bligh sending Teachers of Excellence into remote locations if most of the aboriginal people STILL don’t send their kids to school on a regular basis. That’s going to frustrate and annoy them fairly quickly.
It will also be hard to get those teachers into remote areas on an ongoing basis. Most experienced teachers have families who won’t want to leave the cities.
The remoteness of the locations is the largest hurdle of all, across many perspectives.
My teacher friend came back to Brisbane after only 6 months, because her husband was still working here in Brisbane. His line of business requires him to work in a capital city. So now she is back to doing supply work, and awaiting another contract.
If the aboriginal people came here and integrated with others, the likelihood of the children attending school on a regular basis would increase. Then we mightn’t have Western Australian government officials coming over here, trying to spirit away our best (or surplus) teachers.
The social worker, however, thinks that if large numbers of aboriginal people came to live in Brisbane, there’d be a huge “hue and cry” from white people.
I think the government could try to intersperse small groups of aboriginal people throughout the community, within easy visitation distance, so that one large enclave isn’t formed.
I think that would solve a lot of the racial issues.
Feb 23rd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
Coral-”She says more people should start listening to Noel Pearson, because she considers him to have the “centrist” view”.
Why is Noel Pearson’s opinion about all other indigenous people worth listening to over and above them?Why not Pat or Mick Dodson(his speech on 27th May 2000 is on the net-his family experienced the stolen tragedy)or Evelyn Scott or??I find this attitude of selective hearing rather offensive to the whole question.If we’re speaking of the Stolen Generations and the apology,then a person who was a stolen child has the more legitimate ’story’ to tell. It smacks of women being advised to listen only to a male obstetrician because he has the centrist view on vaginal or caesarian births? That’s as patronising as the terminology ‘women having their babies delivered’ by?Women (with ‘natural’births anyway) deliver their own babies-specialists,GPs and midwives ASSIST!This has been misused to remove this one power only women have,and it’s denied.Same attitude as always calling on this or that expert re this topic.It’s at best, paternalistic and patronising!
I agree with Marilyn #44,John Tracey 46,and Lynda you could read Henry Reynolds “This Whispering in Our Hearts” “Why Weren’t We Told” Peter Read’s “A Rape of the Soul so Profound” and a recent one,Demons at Dusk by Peter Stewart,about the Myall Creek Massacre which he researched for 20 years.It gives a clear picture into the horrific racism and an understanding of why the attempted genocide was put in place – there’s documented evidence of the laws,attitudes and practices particularly in Peter Read’s book.I obtained all these from my local library.Lots of books on aboriginal history,culture etc.
I spent Feb 13 at an Aboriginal Culture Centre,which was packed by black and white people.It was a moving experience and later that day I watched the speech again and was in tears.Brendon Nelson’s speech was a “sorry,BUT don’t forget how BAD you are?”
Feb 24th, 2008
CORAL
Thanks, Tony. Regular contributors and readers of this blog, including Donna, know I volunteer in a nursing home and support 2 charities by making craft items.
When I was offered housecleaning help by the occupational therapist at Centrelink, I told her I would still do it, bit by bit, myself.
I was not “bagging” the aboriginal peoples, but looking at ways to increase the educational, social and employment opportunities of those capable of working.
I have never been a bludger on society, nor was I accusing in this regard any other person, no matter what their race, ethnicity, religion, social status or gender.
The interests of the moderator are not served by posts such as those at #43, 44, 51, 69 and 74.
I’m sure many fair-minded people read this blog without commenting at all, and only make their feelings known at the ballot box.
BTW I keep asking John Tracey the same question about “modified laws”, but still cannot seem to get an answer. Readers should think about that.
Feb 24th, 2008
John Tracey
Coral,
If your question was motivated by curiosity or even ignorance then I may have responded, as I have in detail to your questions on other threads. However you have made it very clear that your intent is racist villification and condemnation and that your mind is closed to all abut your own opinion.
As such, your role in this discussion is to give a good working model of Australian racism for others to observe, and I thank you for that.
Feb 24th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
Coral-”I think the government could try to intersperse small groups of aboriginal people throughout the community, within easy visitation distance, so that one large enclave isn’t formed.
I think that would solve a lot of the racial issues”.
Has it ever occurred to you Coral,that the causes of “racial issues” has always been the ugly racist,patronising,paternalistic hatred of people with black skin of various shades through to Asians etc?I can not believe that any person outside White South Africa during the Apartheid era would even contemplate such blatant and unjust crap.How would you feel is govts said that all people of blonde hair with blue eyes could only live here or there.
I recall going to school at Gulargambone(west NSW,70miles NW of Dubbo)that there was a large number of aboriginal people,but the kids didn’t go to ‘our’ school.As a kid of 5-7 I often wondered why?I didn’t know at that time,that parents of white kids could just object to an aboriginal child being at the same school,and it was sufficient for that aboriginal family to be told to stay away.Years later,in the early 1980’s,a State Labor Inquiry into aboriginal conditions etc stated,that Gulargambone was the most racist town in NSW.I was not surprised!
You also forget to say,that Domestic Violence,sexual abuse and drug taking etc occur in non-indigenous areas;just the substances taken are different-often depending on cost and availability/e.g. Petrol sniffing,alcohol as opposed to alcohol,ice or heroin?85% of non-indigenous people drink alcohol,as opposed to 15%of indigenous people-therefore taking into account the small number of aboriginal people in total,who’s responsible for the worst crimes and costs to humanity and taxpayers?IF you were to investigate 46 communities anywhere in Aust.you’d find that probably 42 of them had kids being sexually abused.DV involves 40% of indigenous communities,but it doesn’t necessarily follow,that sexual abuse is also that high?
Feb 24th, 2008
Donna
Tony’s playing the troll … oops … role, of modelling ‘ad hominem’, to divert attention away from the extraordinary double standards being demonstrated on this thread.
Anyway … adding to Naomi’s suggestions, here’s a link to a website Andrew provided on a thread last year. This researcher undertook extensive research on the Woppaburra people of Great Keppel:
http://www.api-network.com/main/index.php?apply=scholars&webpage=default&flexedit=&flex_password=&menu_label=&menuID=49&menubox=&scholar=43
And secondly, your social worker friend would be right. There’s much social reform needing to take place among white folk so that they can successful integrate with other cultures, without demonstrating disrespectful, superior, and hostile attitudes towards other cultures, effectively excluding them from the same opportunities other citizens enjoy.
I teach a lot of Indigenous kids. There’s many outstanding students among them. A lot of the white kids are not doing well. Many white kids attendance is abysmal.
Feb 24th, 2008
ken
Before you lecture others about their apology Naomi you should apologise for your own hyperbole and distorted “truth” lets say propoagated in honest error rather than on purposer, on another thread here.
Feb 25th, 2008
TJ
Geoff:
What a grand display of selective quoting Geoff, clearly you want to ignore the part that stated that the key facts were honestly represented. Yes it’s more dramatic to have them removed by car rather than horse, but is this really what you’re arguing against? Aren’t you actually trying to claim that these kids were removed because of neglect, ostracism or some other reasonable motive? If not, then what actually is your point?
Feb 25th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
ken#83. what and where? I wasn’t lecturing,just disagreeing!That IS still allowed isn’t it?
Feb 25th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
ken,it’s a bit rough referring to another ‘threads’ without even mentioning either what I said,let alone the topic. I hope if ever I require legal counsel it’s a bit more just than your efforts.To accuse people of distorted “truth” is not a high ideal to espouse,without the alleged ‘evidence’. I think that’s pretty low in fact!
Feb 25th, 2008
CORAL
John Tracey:
Oh come now, John. You can’t use excuses like that to withhold information.
When some of these women find out what these “modified laws” entail, they’ll be doing an excellent job of tearing large strips off you.
You wouldn’t be practising information control on these people if some of these “modifications” weren’t detrimental to the vulnerable – un-Australian – and very worthy of our attention.
Naomi:
It doesn’t surprise me to find you expounding only one side of the argument yet again. You are ALWAYS lecturing other people.
Post #44, besides being loaded with vilification, contains the idea that the more advanced white man should have integrated with a (hostile) hunter/gatherer society – the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve ever read on this blog. It simply defies logic.
On the subject of alcoholism, it is rampant in many aboriginal communities resulting in many “knock on” effects, such as sexual abuse, relationship breakdown etc. When there is no employment available, there is no self-esteem for these people.
I would not agree that 42 out of 46 communities in Australia would have sexual abuse occurring. It would be 46. Nobody’s perfect.
Donna:
Thank you for your support of the idea that aboriginal children living in urban areas have a much better chance of educational success.
Yes, truancy rates among white children are climbing, but they are nothing like those experienced with aboriginal children living in remote locations. I’d call 70% unacceptably high.
Brisbane teenagers mostly have 2 working parents, and probably wag school without their parents’ knowledge.
In aboriginal communities, the parents are drowning their sorrows, with no work available, which decreases their ability to parent, including educational responsibilities.
Feb 25th, 2008
GZG (XY btw)
Naomi: Your ongoing comments show that you are so very quick to whimsically slap your “paternalistic and patronising” label on any dissenters from your sacrosanct views.
Could be just a tad of selectivity on your part as well, (but I’m OK). Perhaps you are just too easily offended?
Brendon Nelson’s (apologetic) speech at least introduced a little balance to what all would agree is a complex issue!
I don’t think Coral’s second hand recommendation of Noel Pearson was a suggestion that his was a lone voice in the wilderness or that he should be appointed Minister for F.H..CS & Indigenous Affairs.
I hope you come to terms with your troubled relationship with your Father.
Donna @ #82: Thanks for the illuminative statistics presented in your final paragraph. I’ll mull over them
Feb 25th, 2008
ken
Naomi,
The post was Time to Rethink our Approach to Afghanistan. The wildly innacurate comments were made by you on 5/2, I corrected them on 7/2 and you posted again on 9/2 with no acknowledgemtn of your massive (I acknowledgfe hyperbolic langauge, however you seem to understand) error.
Is that low enough for you – I of course do apologise for mistaknely assuming everyone retains the same ability to recall threads and commetns as me.
Feb 26th, 2008
CORAL
GZG:
You are right. There are other (lower profile) aboriginal leaders and elders living in the communities who espouse the same ideas as Noel Pearson.
Feb 26th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
ken-I made the statement about the removal of the superannuation surcharge to high(very)income earners of $2billion because it was true.It was not part of a budget,it was late in the year from memory-I was so incensed about it,that I carried the small article from the SMH in my wallet for ages-I changed wallets and handbags,and have searched but can’t find it!It was some time in 2005 or 6!Also,the budget allowance of $2billion for Aboriginal Affairs budget was prior to the invasion from memory,and so not the AMENDED amount. Further,thanks to Howard & Costello’s changes to taxation,huge salary increases and changes to superannuation,it will mean they’ll collectively enjoy $2million dollars-when you add this to unlimited domestic travel and other perks,the total is a pretty hefty contribution from our monies!I did not make up any financial remarks,and your superior air in correcting statements is patriarchal and patronising;and how dare I not refer to it next time?
As a woman on a DSP I have no pecuniary or other motive to repeat falsehoods!The Howard government also introduced tax laws back in 2004 that discriminated against women/wives/partners who went out to work,while at the same time insisting that those women who were sole parents find work outside the home,regardless of whether there was child care,after school care,transport or other requirements!Prove that this is not fact!I’ve listened to heaps of them who are doing it tough,while MP’s voted for increases that are almost 3 times what pensioners live on per year.(6.7%-$30,000 in 2006;INCREASE in Howard’s income)Even a backbencher received $8-10,000 increase,while pensioners???)
My overall point was the fact,that the Howard govt. continued to bellyache about not enough money to ‘fix’ indigenous health,but didn’t balk at helping those who were in receipt of high incomes,including themselves.I condemn that totally!You deliberately omitted to admit that this was my aim – deliberately obtuse??
Feb 27th, 2008
CORAL
This afternoon I watched Jenny Macklin do the National Press Club address.
She said she intends to tackle all of the issues relating to the aboriginal peoples across a range of perspectives including:
Education
Housing
Employment
Alcoholism
She said she will do this in conjunction with the States, working co-operatively with the aboriginal communities.
She spoke of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and high rates of suicide among young men.
She seemed particularly concerned about the peoples of the Kimberley.
I always like to take a good look at the reactions of the audience. Of the aboriginal people present, I thought some seemed suspicious and hostile, while others were smiling and nodding.
I was quite disappointed when only journalists seemed to ask questions, but the phone rang and I missed the end.
Feb 27th, 2008
zen
The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that ‘when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount’.
However, in many companies as well as government bureaucracies and other community organisations a range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
- Changing riders
- Appointing a committe to study the horse
- Arranging to visit other countries to see
how others ride dead horses
- Lowering the standards so that dead horses
can be included
- Reclassifying the dead horses as ‘living
impaired’
- Hiring outside contractors to ride the
dead horse
- Harnessing several dead horses together
to increase the speed
- Providing additional funding and/or
training to increase the dead horse’s
performance
- Doing a productivity study to see if
lighter riders would improve the dead
horse’s performance
- Declaring that the dead horse does not
have to be fed, it is less costly,
carries lower overhead, and therefore
contributes substantially more to the
mission of the organisation than do some
other horses
- Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses
Feb 27th, 2008
GZG
Naomi #91: “The Invasion” …… please!
And as for those rubbery budgetary figures you have been bandying around, I now understand (in the light of the handbag affair) why you did not respond to my observation a few weeks ago that you had forgotten to use the right figures and compared annual expenditure with 4 year projected expenditure, replete with an odd idea about what constituted “very high income”.
I don’t think Ken’s the only one breathing superior air.
The feathers on my back are at the ready for a forthcoming wash of vitriolic allegations of patriarchal and patronising and dare I say paternalistic attitudes.
Coral #92: I’m not sure if your post was meant to be pro-Labor, pro-Macklin or as I suspect, simply an expression of hope.
For my part, it’s hard to see what difference a “new improved formula with zing” will make but I’m sure we can all do a stocktake come next election. Might pull out the “Yes Minister” DVD tonight.
Feb 27th, 2008
CORAL
GZG:
These days I have cast iron feathers where some posters are concerned.
Zen’s post #93 gave me quite a good laugh, having worked for several different bureaucracies myself.
Yes, I’m living in hope of a solution for the aboriginal people, so they can at last be happy.
I think Jenny Macklin intends to go right to the horse’s mouth, resuscitate it – and then get the aboriginal peoples to assist in building their own homes (some that will remain standing this time) and encourage them towards part or full home ownership.
When people are busy, they have less time to drink – or to think about the hopelessness of their situations, which drive them to drink.
Self-esteem can be built, along with the houses.
I forgot to mention that Jenny Macklin also spoke of some kind of income control and alcohol restrictions – so there will be more money available for the kids to be fed.
I still have concerns as to whether much can be achieved in very remote locations on an ongoing basis.
I’ve never heard of a state-of-the-art public hospital being built in the middle of nowhere. Are they going to build some of those?
Feb 28th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
GZG.Naomi #91: “The Invasion” …… please!Regardless of the handbad experience, my friend remembered it when I asked him.I didn’t make it up!It won’t be in the Budget papers!My point was,that $2billion was to the benefit of small number of wealthy people!
What would you call sending in the cops and the army,without any consultation or seeking co-operation.That was paternalistic and patronizing.How many kids have been examined,how many abused kids removed,how many perpetrators charged etc,and how many of the kids requiring specialist further care have had it?Where’s it coming from? Considering that there’d been 11 reports re DV and child abuse in 13 years, photo shoots of Howard/kids/elders etc,why the haste to rush in?The Little Kids Are Sacred was initiated by the NT, without much concern from the Fed.Govt.Why remove the Anti-Discrimination Act,the Permit System? Why in approx. 500 pages of Legislation,it’s alleged that the words “child” or “children” are not even mentioned? Yes, it was an invasion – that was Howard’s answer to lots of things.It’s reported that until last June,even his senior advisors were treating aboriginal elders and others with disdain for even mentioning abuse of kids. More importantly, many aboriginal people in the remote areas were reporting it as an invasion, and their input was rebuffed. Some who were taking care of abused women had their funds frozen or stopped altogether.How many areas have ongoing medical facilities?How much money has been spent already,and how much has been for beaurecrats and accommodation?
So why did he change? And why did Mal Brough accuse Labor of not listening,when he went in boots and all!Both Howard and Mal Brough lost their own seats – that’s some indication of what the rest of the country thought of them and their approach. I think Jenny Macklin is genuinely ‘on the right track’. There’s an atmosphere of good will,which wasn’t there before.Different approach different outcomes,I hope
Feb 28th, 2008
CORAL
I think both John Howard and Mal Brough were dispossessed of their seats primarily on “Workchoices” legislation.
There was also some disgust over Health, Education and “Welfare to Work”.
Nearly everyone I know voted Labor, regardless of previous leanings to the left, right or centre. Only one Liberal voter changed tack due to social reasons.
We were completely BANNED from discussing politics at the Xmas table in Canberra. Fifteen dissenters against one Young Liberal (Christian) was considered an unfair advantage.
But I think the ban was mainly aimed at me.
Feb 28th, 2008
GZG
Naomi: Let’s not get technical. I had an invasion recently – 1000’s of lawn grubs, so I duly concede your use of the word per se, but do not agree with the sensationalist & critical slant you intended to spin.
Practice eloquence & demonstrate diversity by occasionally looking up your rehashed buzzwords in a thesauraus.
PATERNALDefinition: fatherly
Synonyms: benevolent, concerned, fatherlike, patrilineal, patrimonial, PROTECTIVE, vigilant
Too right “the invasion” was protective. In the light of appalling newspaper reports, it was what the public at large wanted, nay, demanded. Even Chairman Kev is on record as having an “attitude of zero tolerance” towards sexual violence against women & children. Kindly pass the palatable panacea if you would thanks Naomi (& consider what you’d want for your own grandchildren were they in such dire circumstances).
Why the haste to rush in? (see above)
Why did he change? (see above)
Hardly rates even a mention that some are going to be opposed to moves to change their own entrenched dysfunctional behaviour. If you change nothing, nothing changes.
Your friend’s tacit agreement with your recollection of the handbag affair clipping is possibly due to fear of disagreeing & being accused of having a “superior air in correcting statements; being patriarchal & patronising”.
Howard & Mal Brough lost their own seats – for reasons other than their decisive response to NT’s indigenous issues (I’m sure you could name a few as did Coral).
For the record, I’m not endorsing 10 years of lack lustre dealings with these issues by a coalition government any more than from decades of Labor’s equivalent.
Coral: You’re mixing in the wrong circles (may be too many of them in Canberra)
Feb 28th, 2008
ken
Naomi, yes indeed, I also happily answer to pompous pr*#k to complete the alliteration. While the moral merits of your arguments are at times compelling, it does appear that your response again affirms that accuracy and considered thought, even introspection, are secondary to fervour and righteousness; this weakens the sometimes quite strong arguments. So let’s leave it at that.
Feb 29th, 2008
CORAL
GZG:
I mix in a lot of different circles.
When I went to Canberra to visit family at Xmas, I found it was indeed true that union membership is extremely prevalent among non-government workers.
My son and his wife were the only non-union workers (both work for federal government) at the Xmas table – whoops – forgot about the Young Liberal (Christian), who is also a government worker.
In general, my and my ex-husband’s immediate families do not like big party politics – but they all voted Labor – such was their zeal to get rid of Howard.
When I told the Canberran Xmas people (mostly relatives of my daughter-in-law) I was fired by the Hawke Labor government (and given nothing) when I suffered a permanent workplace injury, some began to look a bit worried.
Feb 29th, 2008
John Tracey
Coral,
Regarding remote communities.
There was a story on the ABC TV news tonight (but I cant find it on their website) about a report that is being released tomorrow on the Utopia Aboriginal community in the N.T.
Utopia is a collection of many outstations, even more remote than most remote communities. It has for a long time enjoyed health statistics better than any other N.T. community.
There will probably be news of the report tomorrow but I found this news report from Oct. 2006. (pre-intervention)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1760241.htm
“Utopia has a mortality rate almost 40 per cent lower than the Northern Territory’s Indigenous average.”
“as well as the lower death rate, the community has less heart disease, low smoking rates and almost no obesity.”
“Utopia’s doctor, Karmananda Saraswati, says his community’s health is so good because people have chosen to follow a traditional lifestyle on their own land.”
On another issue, Utopia is at the forefront of the Aboriginal art market and despite their remoteness they have a viable independent economic base.
Utopia works because the culture is strong. Your (Coral’s) suggestions for assimilation into urban centres is a recipe for cultural disintegration and therefore the destruction of the most powerful mechanism to increase Aboriginal living standards.
It should be noted that most Aboriginal people already live in urban areas, within the mode you suggest, and they share similar health, mortality, mental health, employment, etc. statistics to isolated remote communities. Simply moving the problems to the city is no solution at all.
Mar 2nd, 2008
GZG
John Tracey: I share Coral’s concern regarding the viability of remte settlements notwithstanding the encouraging though scant details at the ABC link (it will be interesting to see the report).
I’m not aware of the stats regarding urban vs remote populations, but accepting your statement that “most” of the indigenous population are urban based, I wonder how many would put their hands up for a bus ticket to “Utopia2″ when there appears to be a failure to make the most of all ther services currently available in cities.
Closing questions: Does “viable independent economic base” mean self sustaining without government handouts? How much aboriginal art could Utopia2 sell and how many Utopia2ans would be producers supporting the rest?
Mar 3rd, 2008
John Tracey
GZG,
I dont know much about Utopia so I cant speak authoritatively. However it seems to me that the strength of Utopia is its culture.
Culture is not dot paintings and tourist shows, these things are an economic strategy that sees culture as an economic assett. But the real culture is a holistic lifestyle. Culture and lifestyle are equally relevant in the city as in the bush.
Utopia shows that Aboriginal solutions exist and work, when they are allowed to.
Your closing questions are important in terms of defining goals for future development, e.g. how much more work needs to be done (if any) to be free of welfare dependency. Note – this is a different issue from the provision of public services and facilities.
However I fear that you (GZG) are asking these questions to somehow delegitimise the success at Utopia, to reinforce what is your own cultural prejudice about how you think people should live.
Some city people may well choose to return to their traditional country and live a more traditional lifestyle if given the opportunity, and many have. But whether the community is in the city or the bush there are aboriginal solutions to problems that are being ignored and repressed by dysfunctional white cultural responses which are imposed onto Aboriginal people.
Even the “Close the Gap” health campaign that became the basis of Democrat, Green and ALP policy is simply re-imposing a white health model that will be no more successfull than the hospitals in the cities in improving Aboriginal health. Questions of land rights which are central to Utopia’s success are ignored in “Close the Gap” policies.
The Australian prejudice sees Aboriginal culture as a liability, a hangover from a bygone era. This has been the basis of policy since the beginning of the 20th century and has caused enourmous pain and suffering.
It is not a giant intellectual leap to see Aboriginal culture as an assett, as social capital – in the city and in the bush.
Mar 3rd, 2008
CORAL
John Tracey:
I’m truly glad for the people of Utopia.
Perhaps the aboriginal peoples should be given the choice of living a traditional lifestyle on their own lands, or integrating with other cultures and moving to the cities – with none of this “betwixt and between” stuff occurring. That what seems to cause problems.
I didn’t think that a traditional lifestyle would require public services and facilities. That’s whiteman stuff.
To my knowledge, the traditional culture had humpies, digging sticks, spears, woomeras, boomerangs, fishing nets and macrame-type bags made from the string of the Tie Bush – probably other things I don’t know about.
There were no clothes, or certainly almost nothing.
All food was dug, picked, speared or netted. Animal carcasses were thrown wholus bolus onto a fire to cook.
Humpies were made from large pieces of bark and some sticks.
The witch doctor cured the people of illness, or “pointed the bone” at them, if he wanted them to die.
Education came from the elders.
When they went walkabout, they did not go carabout, busabout, trainabout or planeabout. Although sometimes I think they went canoeabout.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
CZG and ken No let’s not leave it at that.The removal of the superannuation surcharge was a legitimate claim.I also stand by the ‘patriarchal and patronising’ assertion.Further, I should state,that at least I have the intestinal fortitude to put my full name to my contributions,unlike some.Therefore,those who attack me from some high moral and lofty perch,should think very carefully about their contributions!
ken,you challenge my assertions,and fair enough!But,before you engage in public condemnation,and critical accusations,you should be really up-front yourself.You hide behind being anonymous!You can then say whatever you like,without challenge.What are you and GZG hiding,or afraid of?You prove to me,that my assertions are not true!
It must be good being such a person of high integrity and always being correct!
Mar 3rd, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“at least I have the intestinal fortitude to put my full name to my contributions,unlike some.”
Naomi, not everyone is at liberty to use their full name. I speak from personal experience; I used to comment under my own name, but my supervisor had a quiet word with me one day to let me know that it had been noticed and that it was not appreciated.
I had been very careful not to comment on any issues pertaining to my department’s activities, nor indeed on anything that might embarrass the government for whom I work. But I assume that ministerial fear of the opposition gaining traction via a low-ranking public servant’s publicly-expressed views is such that blogs are monitored and names matched against payrolls.
For some of us, using our real names may mean that we miss out on a promotion, or that our contract renewals are jeapordised.
While I think your stance in using your name is admirable, it is less fair than you may realise to claim some moral high ground for doing so.
Mar 4th, 2008
ken
I already have Naomi – clearly and accuraltey straight from the budget. The removal of the superannuation surchagre resuletd in a benefit of $600m to higher income earners not $2Billion as you alleged. The bulk of the additioanl superannuation changes and subsequent additonal expenditure was for the co-contribution scherme, do you understand they are not the same thing. I did note that I felt it wpuild be appropriate for both to be measn tested. End of story. You prove I’m wrong.
As feral has noted I am in an even more difficutl postion being sonmewhat much higer up the tree. I’m to old for the schoolboy you show me yours and I’ll shjow you mine game and we’ll see whose bigger. Thsi is a blog not a court of law.
Mar 4th, 2008
GZG
Naomi Cartledge (if that is your legal name):
Following Donna’s earlier form, another case of argumentum ad hominem (kindly defined by Tony @ #76 above).
By launching an intestinally fortitudinous attack on contributors to this blog for no reason other than their use of pseudonyms, you demonstrate an inability to address real issues from your own self-elevated perch.
Lest you protest; What has brought on this “pseudonymophobia” all of a sudden, and should the many other cloaked posters now “come clean” to appease your sensibilities?
The Feral Abacus and Ken have highlighted legitimate reasons for anonymity. My 10 year old daughter proffered two of her own. You can find them (and more) by reading “The Dangers of Personal Blogging”.
John Tracey @ #103:
My questions were not aimed at negating any success at Utopia, but more an expression of healthy scepticism as to this being a template for national indigenous fulfilment. On the surface, it sounds good for one small community.
In a circular sort of way, the “intellectual leap to see Aboriginal culture as an asset” is contingent upon the culture being valued and appreciated by a significant portion of the (indigenous or otherwise) population. This is not overwhelmingly apparent to me though I’m sure a few will zealously disagree.
Mar 4th, 2008
togret
Unfortunately, Coral, we have many groups of indigenous people who are stuck with a “betwixt and between” situation. For example, they may have had their land taken over and overstocked so that it cannot now supoort the number of people it once did – that’s if they are the original people and not merely some assorted aboriginal people moved on to less viable areas while the eyes were picked out of their land by white fullas. So they have a bit of difficulty living the ‘pure’ life you aspire to for them, since the environment is no longer what it was.
Then we have the issue of their ancient culture not being available to them anymore since their fathers and mothers were robbed of thier mother tongues and their bush lore by being taken away and taught to be … well, not white, of course, that wouldn’t so, but ‘civilised’.
There is another problem, too. Many aboriginal people want to be able to straddle the 2 worlds because they see the benefits for their kids of Western savvy but they still value their old ways as well, much like Italians, or Greeks, or Irish or Islander communities who want to be able to blend both worlds. Not Aboriginal people, Coral? Why not?
Mar 4th, 2008
Donna
‘Following Donna’s earlier form’
Wow, haven’t I made an impression on you!
So you’re going to include me in every blog of yours, regardless if you’re responding to someone else?
I’ll have to take that as a compliment, going to such efforts to put me down.
Mar 4th, 2008
CORAL
Togret:
I see you are still “betwixt and between”, using two different names.
Here is the main difference.
People of all ethnicities (except some Aboriginal people) have integrated with the rest of the society in terms of equality.
Migrants don’t want to live in some remote location where it is almost impossible to provide services.
They don’t want “modifications” to the law that will set them apart. (Well, maybe a few have unsuccessfully given it a go.)
They don’t want to live separatist lives, taking from the Australian government only the bits that they find beneficial, while rejecting the rest.
I have no problem at all with people retaining aspects of their own cultures, as we all do.
It can make all of our lives more interesting, but that’s not where the problems lie.
Mar 4th, 2008
CORAL
I already know where both Donna and Feral work.
If I added my last name, I might get murdered by destructive cultists, or have federal agents beating a path to my door.
From here on in, I’d like to be known as Lorikeet. That used to be my Scout Association name.
Mar 4th, 2008
GZG
CoralLorikeet:… and I used to think you were basically sensible, sometimes dry, perhaps needing a sense of humour! Several recent posts cause me to reassess :)
Your #111 post provides an interesting and indeed compelling contrast between minority groups in Australia.
Your argument falls short however when the radical activists claim “sovereign” rights to Australian land and the aforementioned “best bits” of government provision for the indigenous, and attempt to “disrupt the lived privileges of whiteness”. This is not just any minority ethnic group (never mind the passage of 200 odd years and the limited remaining real aboriginal blood line).
Donna who? (question to keep her happy and build her self esteem)
Mar 5th, 2008
Lorikeet
GZG:
Well, yes, I do agree with you, but I am trying to find some kind of consensus that will work into the future.
Most of the migrants who come here aren’t from hunter-gatherer societies.
I make no apology for being relatively “humourless” on subjects as important as this one.
As a trained writer, I just try to set out my thoughts in a connected way for anyone else to think about and/or dispute.
I am very well known as a sensible person and a broad thinker.
In case you didn’t know, I used to counsel people out of destructive religious cults. I also have a relative and a friend working in very sensitive government jobs in the ACT and elsewhere.
I sometimes get tired of being accused of racial intolerance. If an aboriginal family moved in next door, I’d try to help them in any way I could.
Last night an aboriginal man turned up at the dance class (very uncommon). I treated him the same as any other person and, as far as I could tell, so did everyone else.
Can you give us your nutshell version of a solution?
Mar 7th, 2008
togret
Coral,
my username depends on which computer I am using – simple as that. No great conspiracy here.
You may not see things the same way I do. The original topic here – the Apology – was a start in acknowledging the wrongs done to aboriginal people over many years in takign away their children, causing great sorrow and destructive consequences that last until today.
There are other problems faced by aboriginal australians alluded to here.
You mention equality, but aboriginal australians have not achieved equality. Look at the numbers in jail, look at the death rates, look at morbidity statistics, look at educational outcomes. Clearly there is no innate reason why aboriginal australians should not demostrate the range of outcomes that others can achieve. Putting aside their status as original owners of this land, they are part of our population and we have a duty to try to improve these various issues, in a similar way as we have a duty to other special groups in our population. (And it makes sense to have all our population healthy educated and productive)
You may now know this, but ex-service personnel have in the past been given special treatment because of they were seen to have a unique status. We spend an enormous amount of money keeping an Antarctic research station going in difficult conditions. Our society sees these as proper uses of resources, but some of us don’t see a comparable standard of living for aboriginal australians as something we care enough about to put some effort and reosurces into it.
That saddens me.
Mar 7th, 2008
Lorikeet
Togret:
I am well aware of the problems you mention and, on the whole, I agree with you.
But to achieve the kind of outcomes we are looking for will depend on the government and the aboriginal people working co-operatively towards a common goal.
The fault (and the solutions) aren’t all on one side.
As for ex-service personnel being given special treatment, what about those who returned from Vietnam? For decades they were treated like rubbish!
In more recent times, there have been attempts on the part of Centrelink pensioners (and also government) to begrudge Veterans and their widows extra benefits.
In 1985 I was hired by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to prepare medical files for the Veterans’ Review Board. A registered nurse and I had to deal with many thousands of files, stacked to the ceilings.
As far as I could tell, the main aim was to reduce the Veterans’ entitlements.
In recent times, the government has made life much harder for women raising children on their own.
Now there are rumours that Rudd intends to financially disadvantage those on Carer Payment.
In the past, the government has put billions of dollars into aboriginal communities, without any substantial improvement in their living environments and personal habits.
Mar 8th, 2008
togret
COral,
I didn’t say that always and everywhere ex-service personnel have been given their just deserts .. I said in the past they have been seen as a special group, which is a fact of life. Special groups sometimes need special treatment … equality of treatment will not deliver equal outcomes, which is why students with special needs get more support in schools.
I’m sure you are right in what you say- in fact you are arguing _for_ me in saying that the cases you saw deserved such treatment as would be required to assist them lead the best lives possible.
Nobody has the magic bllet to solve all probelms faced by aborigianl australians – listenign to them wuld be a good start, btu different communities and different people will require different approaches. It isn’t rocket science.
I can’t agree that there have not been any success stories – I see some every day. They just don’t happen in enough numbers and quickly enough … we need to work out why, not say that the money so far spent has been wasted. We now ought to know what not to do.
Mar 8th, 2008
Lorikeet
Togret:
I didn’t say there hadn’t been any success stories. There are quite a lot of them – working in the cities and towns.
A lot of the problems you mentioned occur in remote locations and are largely the result of alcohol abuse.
It results in a long list of repercussions including physical and sexual assault, jail terms, relationship breakdown, health problems, malnutrition (money not spent on food) and children not being sent to school.
Integration with the rest of the Australian society might be the best solution – so that infrastructure, education and gainful employment can be more easily provided.
Mar 8th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
ken-107 and Gzg 108
ken,Oh! I see,I have to prove you’re wrong,but you can ‘quote’ anything you want,and it’s automatically gospel! Nice Try!
I stick to what I said about not having “intestinal fortutide”. I’m not interested in why people can’t/don’t put their given or known name,I’m just asserting,that if for any reason you don’t,then you have no right to query others. What budget and when,and what is the address where this ‘information’ came from?
You still can’t help being patriarchal and patronising can you?Ingrained sexist behaviour is hard to ‘unlearn’ particularly when it’s devoid of any will to do so!I maintain,that what I quoted was true, the same as I know that Costello in his first couple of yrs as treasurer introduced more tax increases and charges than those before him. Also,he took a long time before he gave such information back to the questioner via Parliament! You prove that’s NOT TRUE!
Mar 9th, 2008
GZG
Naomi Cartledge:
Why not?
Mar 10th, 2008
ken
OK Naomi – I’ll remain patriarchal and patronising, you can just stay as obnoxious.
Mar 10th, 2008
Lorikeet
Naomi:
The best thing to do is to go over all of your posts from the past, and then see if you think you are insulting anyone or treating them as if they are stupid.
If you keep using your full name, you will be making it very easy for someone to come around to your house and do something you wouldn’t like.
You can keep doing it if you want, but the rest of us have the right to use any pseudonym we please, without being castigated and put down by you.
In the meantime, we are patiently waiting to hear of a solution to the problems faced by aboriginal people. Any takers?
Mar 10th, 2008
togret
“a solution to the problems faced by aboriginal people.”
Coral – I’m sure you don’t think there is only one solution to al the problems faced by aboriginal people, but I’ll tell you one thing that might help. On hte radio this morning there was a pub owner in north west Qld complaining that the rules restricting his ability to sell unlimited quantities of alcohol to aborigial people were *gasp* also affecting his sales to tourists and other ‘white’ folks!
Someone who has been making a fortune out of selling casks of wine and slabs of beer to aboriginal people despite knowing the problems he is fuelling is now complaining when someone tries to address one of the worst and most harmful drugs in aboriginal communities (and, astonishingly, ‘white’ ones too) by restricting the huge sales he has been making!
There is one step – alcohol education and alcohol rationing. Pour resources into cutting down on alcohol abuse in each and every corner of the country … don’t say it can’t be done. In USA in the 1920s they didn’t have barcodes and microchips and GPS systems and heat sensors and all the rest of it. If Finland can do it, we could too.
I’d like to stand beside the courageous individual who will try. But, more likely, I’d say nobody will, because we don’t care enough about the problem to make the sacrifice.
Mar 10th, 2008
Lorikeet
Togret:
I wasn’t suggesting that there would be only one useful solution.
Yesterday Rudd announced an interest in doing something about alcohol consumption, something very much neglected by Howard.
Restricting the grog alone will not work if the people have nothing fulfilling to live for.
Alcoholism results in a lot of terrible things, but it stems from something also. The term “drowning your sorrows” was coined for a reason. It is the “somethings” that need to be fixed at the same time.
Black market alcohol is also sure to appear from somewhere – probably on the sly from the whingeing pub owner.
Mar 11th, 2008
muzzmonster
I think you’re right on both counts re the grog Lorikeet. It seems to have caused untold damage in both black and white communities, and I’m keen to see exactly what Rudd proposes re this.
Equally, people will always want it and people will always be willing to do whatever it takes to make money from it. I’m afraid I don’t have any answers on this one.
Mar 11th, 2008
Lorikeet
Rudd seems to think the answer to alcoholism lies in an advertising campaign. That’s the only suggestion I can remember him giving, in a very brief interview. Perhaps we will hear more later.
He needs to dig down deeply into the causes and fix them – such as dealing with idiots of parents who drink too much themselves and are now organising huge parties for teenagers.
He should ensure those parents receive huge fines from the courts.
He should also increase societal discipline from cradle to grave. Then more kids might do as their parents tell them.
When Howard embarked upon a fierce anti-rape, anti-assault advertising campaign, the courts continued to let perpetrators off. What use was that?
THE MAIN ANSWER (whether relating to aboriginal communities or city dwellers) IS TO FIX YOUR SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
Mar 13th, 2008
muzzmonster
I’m going to disagree with you here Lorikeet as to your measures. While I reckon an advertising campaign will have the same impact as a wet piece of newspaper, huge fines won’t do a damn thing either.
Why? Because the vast majority of people don’t think about the consequences of getting caught because they don’t think they’ll get caught. And most of the time they don’t. (Take speeding for example.)
If people can directly relate bad (and relatively immediate) consequences to their actions, they are much more likely to alter their behaviour.
People drink a lot because it provides immediate “rewards” of enjoyment versus a medium-term consequence of a hangover (and possibly getting in a fight) and a very long-term consequence of brain cell injury and early death – something that doesn’t even enter the minds of most people.
Mar 13th, 2008
Lorikeet
muzz:
These days young people are very well educated in our schools about issues of drug and alcohol abuse – including brain damage, cirrhosis of the liver and death.
Despite this, it seems to be the societal norm that the consumption of alcohol is considered to be the “in thing” to do.
I agree that an advertising campaign isn’t worth a cracker – unless it has some other kind of reinforcement of the message.
Television portrayal of smoking and drinking doesn’t help either.
Mar 14th, 2008
muzzmonster
I agree. Kids are educated about a wide variety of things and it seems most of it is disregarded. The direct influence and example of parents – their main role model of adults – has a lot more influence on their behaviour.
Mind you, it’s hard when you’re up against peer groups and societal norms, which do change, but not quickly.
Mar 15th, 2008
Lorikeet
muzz:
Today’s parents and teachers don’t seem to have much power over what the kids do.
It’s the peer group that drives them, and the fact that there is no real punishment for ill-behaved young people. Instead, wrongdoers are hero worshipped.
I still think increasing societal discipline across the board (along with those fines) is at least part of the answer.
Mar 16th, 2008