Sunday, August 19, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Parting gift
As Ray Jackson (from the Indigenous Social Justice Association) says, "The NT intervention is John Howard's parting gift to the Minerals Council of Australia".
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Bob Brown Parliament speech
"The Govern-ment has turned it back on the
indigenous people of Australia over the last 10
years. Now we have 600 pages of legis-
lation brought here and the Government says,
`We will suspend standing
orders to ram it through the Senate'.
This is government by the executive and
Parliament is being sidelined. This legislation
goes to the core of what this
nation is, how we relate to the first Australians...
"And what is the Opposition going to
do about it? Nothing. Not a thing. It is an
opposition in name only. This process is
wrong. This process is corrupting this
Parliament. This is Prime Minister
Howard corrupting proper democratic
process, which means we must be informed.
When you are dealing with
people whose lives, future, and culture
are at stake, then you must be informed."
indigenous people of Australia over the last 10
years. Now we have 600 pages of legis-
lation brought here and the Government says,
`We will suspend standing
orders to ram it through the Senate'.
This is government by the executive and
Parliament is being sidelined. This legislation
goes to the core of what this
nation is, how we relate to the first Australians...
"And what is the Opposition going to
do about it? Nothing. Not a thing. It is an
opposition in name only. This process is
wrong. This process is corrupting this
Parliament. This is Prime Minister
Howard corrupting proper democratic
process, which means we must be informed.
When you are dealing with
people whose lives, future, and culture
are at stake, then you must be informed."
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Oxfam's verdict on the legislation
07 Aug 07
Oxfam Research: Land Rights Act changes detrimental and will not reduce child sex abuse
An Oxfam Australia-commissioned assessment on the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides compelling evidence that the proposed changes have no connection with the incidence of child sexual abuse, are likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the Government’s emergency response in the Northern Territory and are detrimental to the development of Aboriginal communities.
“I could find no evidence of the proposed measures being connected in any way to child sex abuse, and concluded that there may even be some risk of exacerbating the situation if the permit system is relaxed,” said the author of the report, Professor Jon Altman, from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at The Australian National University.
“It is baffling to see the apparent unwillingness to subject the proposed reforms to appropriate community consultation and parliamentary review, especially given the very significant impact that these reforms will have on the human rights, well-being and day-to-day lives of Aboriginal people,” added Prof. Altman.
The report, titled ‘“National Emergency” and Land Rights Reform: Separating fact from fiction’, also concludes that two proposed land rights reform measures - the compulsory acquisition of an undefined number of prescribed communities (Measure 5) and the partial abolition of the permit system (Measure 10) are at direct loggerheads with a number of other measures and are consequently likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the overarching National Emergency Response. It further argues that the permit abolition is based on an ideological position rather than any factual basis, given there is no evidence of child abuse being any higher in areas where the permit system exists.
“We feel that the compulsion associated with these measures will erode property rights and the economic position of an already severely marginalised community. We are in turn recommending that a Senate Inquiry should be held so that all key stakeholders can have their views heard, and that Aboriginal communities need to give their support and backing to any proposed changes”, said James Ensor, Director of Public Policy and Outreach with Oxfam Australia.
Oxfam further proposes that the first step should be to rigorously asses the workability of the land rights amendments made in 2006 before any further reforms are introduced, and if none of the steps mentioned above are taken that the proposed amendments should be vigorously opposed and not passed by the Parliament.
“It is extremely disappointing that there are very clear, inherent inconsistencies in the overall National Emergency Response. These two measures are completely incompatible with other proposed measures, and they can only add to the underlying distrust and the perception of a ‘land grab’ by some land owners – sentiments that can eventually result in diminishing the success of the actual national emergency response and subsequent reduction of child abuse,” concluded Mr Ensor.
Oxfam Research: Land Rights Act changes detrimental and will not reduce child sex abuse
An Oxfam Australia-commissioned assessment on the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides compelling evidence that the proposed changes have no connection with the incidence of child sexual abuse, are likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the Government’s emergency response in the Northern Territory and are detrimental to the development of Aboriginal communities.
“I could find no evidence of the proposed measures being connected in any way to child sex abuse, and concluded that there may even be some risk of exacerbating the situation if the permit system is relaxed,” said the author of the report, Professor Jon Altman, from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at The Australian National University.
“It is baffling to see the apparent unwillingness to subject the proposed reforms to appropriate community consultation and parliamentary review, especially given the very significant impact that these reforms will have on the human rights, well-being and day-to-day lives of Aboriginal people,” added Prof. Altman.
The report, titled ‘“National Emergency” and Land Rights Reform: Separating fact from fiction’, also concludes that two proposed land rights reform measures - the compulsory acquisition of an undefined number of prescribed communities (Measure 5) and the partial abolition of the permit system (Measure 10) are at direct loggerheads with a number of other measures and are consequently likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the overarching National Emergency Response. It further argues that the permit abolition is based on an ideological position rather than any factual basis, given there is no evidence of child abuse being any higher in areas where the permit system exists.
“We feel that the compulsion associated with these measures will erode property rights and the economic position of an already severely marginalised community. We are in turn recommending that a Senate Inquiry should be held so that all key stakeholders can have their views heard, and that Aboriginal communities need to give their support and backing to any proposed changes”, said James Ensor, Director of Public Policy and Outreach with Oxfam Australia.
Oxfam further proposes that the first step should be to rigorously asses the workability of the land rights amendments made in 2006 before any further reforms are introduced, and if none of the steps mentioned above are taken that the proposed amendments should be vigorously opposed and not passed by the Parliament.
“It is extremely disappointing that there are very clear, inherent inconsistencies in the overall National Emergency Response. These two measures are completely incompatible with other proposed measures, and they can only add to the underlying distrust and the perception of a ‘land grab’ by some land owners – sentiments that can eventually result in diminishing the success of the actual national emergency response and subsequent reduction of child abuse,” concluded Mr Ensor.
Invited to the table
During the mid 1600s the colonisation of Indigenous North Americans was in full swing. Then after about 320 years, there was a shift in paradigm, and Anglo-Americans representing their governments and institutions began to invite Indigenous people to their table; the idea being that there might be something to learn from what Indigenous people had to say. It is thus interesting to note that once invited to the table, those who made the invitation were never quite patient enough to really hear the message that was being learned.
…we are still treated as if we do not know our own business and must therefore be either led or told what to do.
On those occasions when we find ourselves at a table of our own making within Anglo created institutions, there are times when we are subjected to people coming to our table only to walk away before our story has fully been told, which many times is due to finding Indigenous paradigms too different from their own.
I would hope that those who would seek to invite indigenous people to their tables can also see merit in not interfering or becoming judgemental when Indigenous people create environments that we can see as culturally proper. I would also hope that when people are invited to come to such places of learning they will sit at our tables and be able to hear the lessons to be learned.
Stephen Greymorning
Arapaho Indian and University Professor
…we are still treated as if we do not know our own business and must therefore be either led or told what to do.
On those occasions when we find ourselves at a table of our own making within Anglo created institutions, there are times when we are subjected to people coming to our table only to walk away before our story has fully been told, which many times is due to finding Indigenous paradigms too different from their own.
I would hope that those who would seek to invite indigenous people to their tables can also see merit in not interfering or becoming judgemental when Indigenous people create environments that we can see as culturally proper. I would also hope that when people are invited to come to such places of learning they will sit at our tables and be able to hear the lessons to be learned.
Stephen Greymorning
Arapaho Indian and University Professor
Fred Chaney speaks out again
Fred Chaney, head of Reconciliation Australia, spoke to Fran Kelly on ABC radio this morning. He, once again, succinctly and wisely outlined the nature of the problems with the legislation that will go through the house today.
It can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/2004310.htm
If you get the chance plese have a listen to what he said. Also, the ABC New pages is keeping on top of pretty much all that is being said on the issue.
Here is the link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/indigenous/
It can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/2004310.htm
If you get the chance plese have a listen to what he said. Also, the ABC New pages is keeping on top of pretty much all that is being said on the issue.
Here is the link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/indigenous/
Monday, August 13, 2007
For their protection
The following is an excerpt from the Aboriginal Protection Act of 1869, commonly thought to be the first in a long line of poilcy documents that led to the removal of Aboriginal 'half caste' children from their families 'for their own protection'. It seems the themes haven;t changed much since 1869 - land, welfare, education and child protection.
Remind me again, how did it work out the first time?
Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 (Vic)
It shall be lawful for the Governor from time to time to make
regulations and orders for any of the purposes hereinafter mentioned, and
at any time to rescind or alter such regulations (that is to say) :—
(I.) For prescribing the place where any aboriginal or any tribe
of aborigines shall reside.
(II.) For prescribing the terms on which contracts for and on
behalf of aboriginals may be made with Europeans, and upon
which certificates may be granted to aboriginals who may be
able and willing to earn a living by their own exertions.
(III.) For apportioning amongst aboriginals the earnings of
aboriginals under any contract, or where aboriginals are located
on a reserve, the net produce of the labor of such aboriginals.
(IV.) For the distribution and expenditure of moneys granted by
Parliament for the benefit of aborigines.
(V.) For the care custody and education of the children of
aborigines.
(VI.) For prescribing the mode of transacting the business of
and the duties generally of the board or any local committee
hereinafter mentioned and of the officers appointed hereunder.
Remind me again, how did it work out the first time?
Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 (Vic)
It shall be lawful for the Governor from time to time to make
regulations and orders for any of the purposes hereinafter mentioned, and
at any time to rescind or alter such regulations (that is to say) :—
(I.) For prescribing the place where any aboriginal or any tribe
of aborigines shall reside.
(II.) For prescribing the terms on which contracts for and on
behalf of aboriginals may be made with Europeans, and upon
which certificates may be granted to aboriginals who may be
able and willing to earn a living by their own exertions.
(III.) For apportioning amongst aboriginals the earnings of
aboriginals under any contract, or where aboriginals are located
on a reserve, the net produce of the labor of such aboriginals.
(IV.) For the distribution and expenditure of moneys granted by
Parliament for the benefit of aborigines.
(V.) For the care custody and education of the children of
aborigines.
(VI.) For prescribing the mode of transacting the business of
and the duties generally of the board or any local committee
hereinafter mentioned and of the officers appointed hereunder.
Some 'traditional' welcomes
These signs have been put up at the entry points to two Central Australian Communities, Santa Teresa (South East of Alice - lots of family connections to Mulga Bore) and Willowra (North West of Alice Springs - we play against their school in our school sports).
Delegation from Central Australia
Gina Smith
"We’re a group of Central Australian delegates that represent our constituents back home in the Central Area. We just wanted to say that we welcome the child abuse report and intervention of child abuse, but we don’t want our permit system removed because it means so much to our protection of our lands and sacred sites and knowing who can and can’t go there. We had to get permits to come into parliament house – we’re bound by their rules, and our permit system works the same as this. We come here, we have rules that we have to follow, they come to our country they should have to do the same."
Harry Nelson
"We came down here to lobby to the Government about our rights and we’re not too happy about what the Government has done, bamboozling us with the army and the police. People were misled in a way. The presence of the army and the police upset many of our communities and we hope that our message of the last few days that we’ve been staying here in Canberra has been heard by the bosses. Our rights were taken away."
Walter Shaw
"This year’s supposed to be a commemorative year for Aboriginal people in Australia considering the 1967 referendum and NAIDOC. We’re down here in Canberra now fighting for our future existence. We want to be the third party as an equal partner with the Federal Government and the NT Government."
Valda Shannon
"We are particularly offended by the exclusion of the Racial Discrimination Act. We do support some changes to welfare like linking payments to school attendance and child neglect, but the proposal to hold back 50% from everyone is discriminatory and doesn’t encourage positive behavior, and there’s no plan beyond quarantining.
With the permits removed there going to be a lot more problems entering into the community. Who’s going to police the law, the people wandering into the places where they’re supposed to have a permit?"
Gilbert Corbett
"I’m a delegate that will stand by my people to stay on behalf of them, talking about all regions in the Central Land Council. We came here because of the permits. We need to keep strong for ourselves and our sacred sites so we can look after our country so that we can pass everything to our children so that they can carry on."
Lindsay Bookie, Chair of Central Land Council
"With the Land Rights Act everything started, doing land claims to get our land back. We had to go to prove that Australia was our country. We had to show our sacred stories to these governments. We only show that to our young people, not to white men, white women. Now the Government’s pulling it from under our feet and taking it from us again. What are we going to do? They took it away from us in the first place, then we had to prove that it was our country. And the new laws come in, now it’s all going to be taken away from us from under our feet."
What Aboriginal Community Leaders are saying...
Below is an excerpt from a speech given by Peter Garrett in Parliament House last week. He referenced comments made by Aboriginal Community Leaders from the NT. It should be noted that while at least these Community leaders were from the NT (not Cape York like Noel Pearson is) the leaders represent the Top End, not the people of Central Australia where I live and work.
Aboriginal community leaders, health professionals and other concerned Australian community leaders who met at the Garma Festival health forum at Gulkula, Arnhem Land, call on the Australian government to abandon this legislation. They point out that there has been ‘no negotiation, courtesy or respect shown to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members and health professionals’. They are ‘particularly concerned that there are no evidence based reasons given for the changes to the land permit system and the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights act’. They specifically say that the government does not have to destabilise communal rights to land to effectively address sexual abuse, social dysfunction or poverty. These Aboriginal leaders point out that the proposed measures bear no resemblance to the ‘Sacred Children’ report that the minister has referred to and that, as such, they have no confidence in their effectiveness. Finally, I note the authors of the Little children are sacred report itself said, ‘The thrust of our recommendations is for there to be consultation and ownership of the community.’ These views then are entirely understandable, given the way that this legislation has come into the House and the reaction from Aboriginal communities to such a heavy-handed process.
Aboriginal community leaders, health professionals and other concerned Australian community leaders who met at the Garma Festival health forum at Gulkula, Arnhem Land, call on the Australian government to abandon this legislation. They point out that there has been ‘no negotiation, courtesy or respect shown to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members and health professionals’. They are ‘particularly concerned that there are no evidence based reasons given for the changes to the land permit system and the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights act’. They specifically say that the government does not have to destabilise communal rights to land to effectively address sexual abuse, social dysfunction or poverty. These Aboriginal leaders point out that the proposed measures bear no resemblance to the ‘Sacred Children’ report that the minister has referred to and that, as such, they have no confidence in their effectiveness. Finally, I note the authors of the Little children are sacred report itself said, ‘The thrust of our recommendations is for there to be consultation and ownership of the community.’ These views then are entirely understandable, given the way that this legislation has come into the House and the reaction from Aboriginal communities to such a heavy-handed process.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Beds are burning
Make no mistake. We are about to witness a very dark day in the history of our Nation. Legislation is before the Senate that will effectively see Aboriginal people loose their right to control what happens on their land for the second time in history. In the name of 'saving children' Mal Brough, John Howard and tehir cronies have prepared 500 pages of legislation that make sweeping changes to the Racial Discrimination Act and the Land Rights Act. They have also proposed changes to allow Federal Police unheard of powers to act in Northern Territory Communities. All of this in response to the "National Emergency" currently being experienced in the NT. All of this in response to the "Little Children are Sacred" Report, the authors of which are now speaking out very vocally against the proposed legislation, insisting that it does not reflect ANY of the 97 recommendations in the report.
So why is the legislation being put forward. What possible motivation could there be?
1. Subterfuge - be seen to be doing SOMETHING and white middle class suburban Australians wont actually care what the something is. After all Aboriginal people are a long way away to most Australians
2. It's a foot in the door to regain control over Aboriginal Land - not really such a big deal, I mean it's not as if the story of Vincent Lingiari and countless others who fought for the right to their own land all those years ago are all that important on the greater context of our National History.Oh but wait, perhaps it was only fine to give the land back to them when we thought there was nothing to be gained economically? Perhaps now that the World is turning Nuclear again there's something to be said for controlling land rich in Uranium, or at least having access to land that can be used to dump Nuclear waste!
Maybe, just maybe John Howard and Mal Brough are not at all sure that they will have a job after November? How much do you want to bet that either or both of them turn up on the Boards of large Mining Companies with interests in teh Northern Territory?
But let's not just sling mud at John and Mal. They are easy targets. Where the hell is the so called Opposition? How can Warren Snowden, the Federal Minister for Lingiari sit idely by and watch this happen. How the hell is Peter Garratt sleeping at night - how can he sleep while his bed is burning?
The time has come to say fair's fair! This legislation is racist and opportunistic and if we as a Nation allow the Government to get away with it we will hang our heads in shame when questioned by future generations.
So why is the legislation being put forward. What possible motivation could there be?
1. Subterfuge - be seen to be doing SOMETHING and white middle class suburban Australians wont actually care what the something is. After all Aboriginal people are a long way away to most Australians
2. It's a foot in the door to regain control over Aboriginal Land - not really such a big deal, I mean it's not as if the story of Vincent Lingiari and countless others who fought for the right to their own land all those years ago are all that important on the greater context of our National History.Oh but wait, perhaps it was only fine to give the land back to them when we thought there was nothing to be gained economically? Perhaps now that the World is turning Nuclear again there's something to be said for controlling land rich in Uranium, or at least having access to land that can be used to dump Nuclear waste!
Maybe, just maybe John Howard and Mal Brough are not at all sure that they will have a job after November? How much do you want to bet that either or both of them turn up on the Boards of large Mining Companies with interests in teh Northern Territory?
But let's not just sling mud at John and Mal. They are easy targets. Where the hell is the so called Opposition? How can Warren Snowden, the Federal Minister for Lingiari sit idely by and watch this happen. How the hell is Peter Garratt sleeping at night - how can he sleep while his bed is burning?
The time has come to say fair's fair! This legislation is racist and opportunistic and if we as a Nation allow the Government to get away with it we will hang our heads in shame when questioned by future generations.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
To know who you are
To know who you are, what your place in the world is, and that you strive to seek life, is what self-awareness is all about. It is the highest level of human knowledge, to know oneself so intimately that you are not afraid to tell others of life and to help those who need help with compassion without being dragged down by the troubles of those being helped.
Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley
Yupiaq Elder
Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley
Yupiaq Elder
Sorry Business
I was just speaking to Rosie up at Mulga Bore. She told me there's a funeral on tomorrow. One of the old ladies from Angela's Community has passed away. I knew her pretty well. She was one of the women who first took me hunting. She was the one who put my brother and his friends to shame when it came to using an axe to get sugarbag out of a tree. She was a wise, well respected woman. She was a staunch supporter of the school and of me. She was the holder of many stories, stories that I will now no longer be able to hear her tell. I will miss her. I will notice her absence next year when i go back. I am sorry I will not be there for her funeral.
The power of story
Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley is a Yupiaq man from Alaska. He has written a great deal about the world view of the Yupiaq people and has been very influential in helping to reclaim what education means to Alaska native people. Here is what he has to say about the importance of storytelling as a teaching tool:
Mythology is an invaluable pedagogical tool which transcends time. As the storyteller talks, the Yupiaq listeners are thrust into the world of imagination. As the story unfolds, it becomes part of their present. As you imagine and visualise in the minds eye, how could you not become a part of it and it a part of you? There is no separation. The story and words contain the epistemological webbing…..to the outsider attempting to understand the meaning of the experience, it may appear to be merely a story, but to the insider it becomes reality leading to a spiritual orientation in accord with nature. This is quality knowledge whose end is happiness and long life.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Photo albums
I spent alot of today putting photos of my recent overseas trip in photo albums. I find it funny that often something I didn't enjoy much at the time becomes a fond memory when I look at the photo of it. Perhaps we only remember the good bits? Perhaps the real enjoyment of an experience is in the retelling of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)