Anyone who thinks GetUp is aligned to a political party should actually look at how it is constituted and how it works. Let me give you an example of how GetUp actually remains impartial when encouraging people to participate in the resolution of issues of significance.
In the lead up to the 2007 election GetUp published an interactive How to Vote Card (H2VC). It asked people to respond to a number of policy issues and only then generated a customised H2VC which ranked the candidates in the relevant electorate according to the policy preferences of the person it was made for. In other words, if you were a coalition voter it would have given you a H2VC that identified candidates who would support your views in Parliament.
But wait, there’s more. This process was so impartial that it was capable of producing H2VCs that displeased the recipient! Let me tell you about the H2VC it produced for me. On the basis of my policy preferences it placed the candidate for the Citizen’s Electoral Council at no 3!! Naturally I didn’t vote that way. But it gave impartial advice on how I should vote given my expressed preferences. An organisation pushing a left-liberal agenda, as distinct from encouraging people to participate and facilitating that participation, would not have put the CEC third on anyone’s ticket.
GetUp is not beholden to any political party or point of view. It is a vehicle for the prosecution of issues held dear by people who care about the future of the country. Anyone who thinks it does not take an interest in their concerns has as much right as anyone else to have input. If enough people provide input on any issue it will get an airing from GetUp. And why wouldn’t it? How short sighted would it be to ignore what a significant number of people are concerned about.
Anyone who thinks that they are unlikely to get a look in at GetUp is, of course, free to get their own activist network up to work on behalf of whatever specific agenda they think is being ignored. All that’s needed is a coherent world view and some ability to say what it is; and use it to identify issues of concern; and to publicise those issues; and provide a means of responding in writing to the appropriate stakeholders; and facilitate public participation in the identification of opportunities for community development as well as issues of concern in local communities and the nation as a whole.
Nation!? Oh, I forget. Someone on the right of politics already tried something like that. It was called One Nation, remember? Except of course, it never was a network – just a black hole into which a prodigious amount of good will poured, never to be seen again. People were betrayed by a “gang of four” whose tools of choice were misrepresentation, manipulation and grubbing (sic) for power. People who feel that GetUp doesn’t address their issues, would do well to learn from One Nation in getting an alternative network up.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 May 2008
What a sorry lot
One has to feel very SORRY for the opposition in the Australian Parliament. At a time when the rest of the country was agog with enthusiasm about the 2020 Summit – or expectation, at the very least – these poor things had to adopt the role of critics. Alas they are so bereft that that couldn’t find anything coherent or even pertinent to say.
Starting weeks ago Brendan the Brief discredited himself as a political operator by asserting that the Rudd government has no ideas of its own and had to call on the public to help it out. Actually, Brendan, the Summit was evidence of the government’s ability to harness a really good idea that has the ongoing potential to re-engage the nation with its own future – a process that was viciously attacked by the Howard government every time anybody with something significant to say spoke out.
Another who covered himself in dis-grace was Christopher Pine who knowingly misrepresented the way in which the Summit would work by saying that each idea would get 39.6 seconds of attention. This is so absurd that you’d have to wonder why he’d run the risk of looking like such a goose. Not that anyone, not even people with no idea how a thousand ideas would be processed in one and a half days, would imagine that he could be serious. But they would be entitled to ask, if he can’t say anything substantial about the process, why say anything at all? Why not, in fact, offer his best wishes for the success of the enterprise?
And then there’s Julie Bishop who also couldn’t help making herself look like a substance free zone. Those attending, she solemnly declared, will have every reason to feel cheated if Kevin Rudd pays no attention to their recommendations. This is soooooooooo self evident that it is ridiculous to say it at all. So why say it? Not just because she has nothing of substance to say, but because if she could just play the spoiler, some people who might otherwise have remained open to the possibility of a positive outcome will be encouraged to be gloomy about its prospects, and therefore be less likely to participate at a later stage when momentum gathers for significant social and political change.
Brendan Nelson’s comment after the event was that he met a representative of sex workers and a union official, but found it hard to find anyone from small business and the Australian Medical Association. How could he confine himself to such a trivialising comment. He’d just been involved in a pivotal moment in Australia’s history. A thousand people had earlier given the Prime Minister a standing ovation. Um… or was that nine hundred and ninety nine? His parsimonious account of his experience can be explained by one of two possible dynamics. The first is that he went determined not to be captured by the enthusiasm of the other 999, and succeeded; or he felt that as opposition leader he had to find fault with what the other 999 very clearly found exhilarating. See what I mean when I say we have to feel SORRY for him and his sorry lot.
Oh, and what about Dilly Downer? Responding to the tsunami of support for a republic from the Summit, he predicted that those who opposed the republic would be ridiculed. And that would be a bad thing? Anyone remember the sneering contempt of just about every Howard government minister, not just for their predecessors, but for people who persisted in holding views labelled elitist and politically correct; not just in the immediate aftermath of the 1996 election, but at every election campaign since? It was in this vein that he Downer wrote off the whole Summit as a revival of Keatingesque political correctness – the word Keating intended as a term of abuse. In less than a minute he the spat the word Keating out of his mouth as though it were a vomit lolly from the Harry Potter zone that kept forming in his mouth. Well, a vindication of Keating the Summit was indeed, and it’s so good that you noticed, you flouncing punce. Keating will be honoured in history, while the best thing anyone will ever say about you is that you were the son of a Federal Cabinet Minister, and grandson of a Premier. But the prize goes to his saying that a few conservatives were “roped in to give it a vernier of respectability.” What a pompous fart. Only someone who thinks respectability has something to do with “breeding” could come up with that one. But hey, you globular cluster of sequins and fish net stockings, keep it up. Oh please!! Keep it up.
Malcolm Turnbull’s response to Summit’s enthusiasm for a republic shows that “conservatives” really would rather that the plebs were not involved in running the country. Let’s recall that it was Malcolm who single handedly sunk the Constitutional Convention. As head of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) he went to the convention with an elitist model – the President to be appointed by the Parliament. Other’s took other models, most of which involved the popular election of the President. It was a rare moment for courageous engagement with the future when it became clear that there was am impasse and the logical thing to do was to sit down and do some actual negotiation. But no, the ARM simply refused to accept any compromise or alternative model. It was to be Malcolm’s way or Howard’s (which, of course, was no republic.) Malcolm Turnbull had the gall to accuse John Howard of breaking the country’s heart when he put up a referendum question that everyone knew would fail. The point to revisit here is that it was Turnbull who refused to budge from the elitist model that was not acceptable to the majority of other republican delegates. Never mind what the people think. I know what will work best. It was hardly surprising, therefore that when the Summiteers championed the republic, he sneered at its prospects, saying that the issue should not come up again until QEII is no longer the monarch.
Of more far reaching consequence is the deliberate misrepresentation of the role of GetUp in the Summit by [National Party politician] who complained that no one from his electorate was going to Canberra, in contrast to over 100 GetUp members which he falsely described as an ALP instrumentality. This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of GetUp and the way the Summiteers were selected. (See separate post on GetUp) People were not picked because they were in GetUp. They were picked because they could make a worthwhile contribution. A significant minority of them happen to be members of GetUp. Oh, and by the way, a significant minority of the Summiteers were Catholics; another significant minority were people who went to public schools in NSW. How ludicrous would it be to single out either of the latter two minorities for scrutiny?
“Conservative” politicians and commentators who misrepresent the government’s intentions and the way the Summit would operate, and who attempt to undermine its outcomes, and attack the success of community based activism, do so KNOWINGLY. Every politician in Australia, and every commentator who has bothered to look into GetUp, for example, knows that it is not politically aligned, and that it does respond to people’s concerns as distinct from parties’ concerns. You would therefore have to ask why certain politicians misrepresent GetUp the way they do. And if they really do think GetUp is partial, why not sponsor another organisation that promotes a “conservative” agenda? Here’s my suggestion: if they lie about GetUp people who might otherwise be curious about the way it works might be persuaded not to investigate – not to get involved. It’s people getting critically involved that they don’t want, even if it were with an alternative to GetUp that promoted a partisan agenda of their liking, because involved people are difficult to manage. Look how they treated Pauline Hanson and One Nation after the latter ceased to be useful to them.
The very people who accused “the left” of elitism, shut down participation of diverse opinion even within their own party. Is it any wonder they are terrified of the Summit and what it will trigger in this country? Is it any wonder they speak such embarrassing drivel? For to speak truthfully would be politically self incriminating.
Starting weeks ago Brendan the Brief discredited himself as a political operator by asserting that the Rudd government has no ideas of its own and had to call on the public to help it out. Actually, Brendan, the Summit was evidence of the government’s ability to harness a really good idea that has the ongoing potential to re-engage the nation with its own future – a process that was viciously attacked by the Howard government every time anybody with something significant to say spoke out.
Another who covered himself in dis-grace was Christopher Pine who knowingly misrepresented the way in which the Summit would work by saying that each idea would get 39.6 seconds of attention. This is so absurd that you’d have to wonder why he’d run the risk of looking like such a goose. Not that anyone, not even people with no idea how a thousand ideas would be processed in one and a half days, would imagine that he could be serious. But they would be entitled to ask, if he can’t say anything substantial about the process, why say anything at all? Why not, in fact, offer his best wishes for the success of the enterprise?
And then there’s Julie Bishop who also couldn’t help making herself look like a substance free zone. Those attending, she solemnly declared, will have every reason to feel cheated if Kevin Rudd pays no attention to their recommendations. This is soooooooooo self evident that it is ridiculous to say it at all. So why say it? Not just because she has nothing of substance to say, but because if she could just play the spoiler, some people who might otherwise have remained open to the possibility of a positive outcome will be encouraged to be gloomy about its prospects, and therefore be less likely to participate at a later stage when momentum gathers for significant social and political change.
Brendan Nelson’s comment after the event was that he met a representative of sex workers and a union official, but found it hard to find anyone from small business and the Australian Medical Association. How could he confine himself to such a trivialising comment. He’d just been involved in a pivotal moment in Australia’s history. A thousand people had earlier given the Prime Minister a standing ovation. Um… or was that nine hundred and ninety nine? His parsimonious account of his experience can be explained by one of two possible dynamics. The first is that he went determined not to be captured by the enthusiasm of the other 999, and succeeded; or he felt that as opposition leader he had to find fault with what the other 999 very clearly found exhilarating. See what I mean when I say we have to feel SORRY for him and his sorry lot.
Oh, and what about Dilly Downer? Responding to the tsunami of support for a republic from the Summit, he predicted that those who opposed the republic would be ridiculed. And that would be a bad thing? Anyone remember the sneering contempt of just about every Howard government minister, not just for their predecessors, but for people who persisted in holding views labelled elitist and politically correct; not just in the immediate aftermath of the 1996 election, but at every election campaign since? It was in this vein that he Downer wrote off the whole Summit as a revival of Keatingesque political correctness – the word Keating intended as a term of abuse. In less than a minute he the spat the word Keating out of his mouth as though it were a vomit lolly from the Harry Potter zone that kept forming in his mouth. Well, a vindication of Keating the Summit was indeed, and it’s so good that you noticed, you flouncing punce. Keating will be honoured in history, while the best thing anyone will ever say about you is that you were the son of a Federal Cabinet Minister, and grandson of a Premier. But the prize goes to his saying that a few conservatives were “roped in to give it a vernier of respectability.” What a pompous fart. Only someone who thinks respectability has something to do with “breeding” could come up with that one. But hey, you globular cluster of sequins and fish net stockings, keep it up. Oh please!! Keep it up.
Malcolm Turnbull’s response to Summit’s enthusiasm for a republic shows that “conservatives” really would rather that the plebs were not involved in running the country. Let’s recall that it was Malcolm who single handedly sunk the Constitutional Convention. As head of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) he went to the convention with an elitist model – the President to be appointed by the Parliament. Other’s took other models, most of which involved the popular election of the President. It was a rare moment for courageous engagement with the future when it became clear that there was am impasse and the logical thing to do was to sit down and do some actual negotiation. But no, the ARM simply refused to accept any compromise or alternative model. It was to be Malcolm’s way or Howard’s (which, of course, was no republic.) Malcolm Turnbull had the gall to accuse John Howard of breaking the country’s heart when he put up a referendum question that everyone knew would fail. The point to revisit here is that it was Turnbull who refused to budge from the elitist model that was not acceptable to the majority of other republican delegates. Never mind what the people think. I know what will work best. It was hardly surprising, therefore that when the Summiteers championed the republic, he sneered at its prospects, saying that the issue should not come up again until QEII is no longer the monarch.
Of more far reaching consequence is the deliberate misrepresentation of the role of GetUp in the Summit by [National Party politician] who complained that no one from his electorate was going to Canberra, in contrast to over 100 GetUp members which he falsely described as an ALP instrumentality. This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of GetUp and the way the Summiteers were selected. (See separate post on GetUp) People were not picked because they were in GetUp. They were picked because they could make a worthwhile contribution. A significant minority of them happen to be members of GetUp. Oh, and by the way, a significant minority of the Summiteers were Catholics; another significant minority were people who went to public schools in NSW. How ludicrous would it be to single out either of the latter two minorities for scrutiny?
“Conservative” politicians and commentators who misrepresent the government’s intentions and the way the Summit would operate, and who attempt to undermine its outcomes, and attack the success of community based activism, do so KNOWINGLY. Every politician in Australia, and every commentator who has bothered to look into GetUp, for example, knows that it is not politically aligned, and that it does respond to people’s concerns as distinct from parties’ concerns. You would therefore have to ask why certain politicians misrepresent GetUp the way they do. And if they really do think GetUp is partial, why not sponsor another organisation that promotes a “conservative” agenda? Here’s my suggestion: if they lie about GetUp people who might otherwise be curious about the way it works might be persuaded not to investigate – not to get involved. It’s people getting critically involved that they don’t want, even if it were with an alternative to GetUp that promoted a partisan agenda of their liking, because involved people are difficult to manage. Look how they treated Pauline Hanson and One Nation after the latter ceased to be useful to them.
The very people who accused “the left” of elitism, shut down participation of diverse opinion even within their own party. Is it any wonder they are terrified of the Summit and what it will trigger in this country? Is it any wonder they speak such embarrassing drivel? For to speak truthfully would be politically self incriminating.
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Let a thousand ideas bloom.
“We’ve opened the windows of our democracy to let in a bit of fresh air!”
Thus spake Kevin as he opened the 2020 Summit.
And verily did I fall about in wonder and amazement, for they are famous words!!
You probably have to be a Catholic, old enough (not to mention interested enough) to remember the election of Pope John XXIII and what happened shortly afterwards, to get this one. Being such, I want to share it with you. You see, very shortly after the JXXIII’s election there was a gathering of the big guns of the church at which the question was put to the new Pope: What is the agenda for your papacy? The jolly Pope smiled for a moment, got up, walked to the nearest window and opened it. He then turned to the assembled princes and said: I want to open the windows of the church to let in a bit of fresh air.
It just goes to show… when a Pope can anticipate the actions of an Australian Prime Minister the world must be in Go(o)d Hands. Just kidding of course. But there is metaphoric value in the coincidence – if that’s what it is – that I’d like to draw out a bit.
Let’s start with the suggestion that the Venerable Kevin’s choice of words was not a coincidence. We all know that Kevin is a practicing Christian. We see him on TV going to Anglican churches. But what many may not know is that he grew up as a Catholic. He’s not old enough (born 1957)to personally remember the news reports of the Pope’s breath taking words and action. But his vital years of personal formation (you know the saying attributed to the Jesuits – Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man) coincided with the most exciting transformation in the life of the church since… well, since the first Pentecost. Kevin may not even be aware of the fact that his words echoed JXXIII, but it is not too much to suggest that there may be, for him, a deep unconscious connection between the potential of the 2020 Summit and the most astounding event of the era of his youth.
The Second Vatican Council galvanised people on a mass scale to recreate the face of the earth. There was near universal optimism among Catholics of the time about the future. And it wasn’t just Catholics. Protestants and Orthodox in great numbers watched in amazement and rejoiced as the Catholic church took unprecedented initiatives in ecumenism and engagement with the world. In its own internal life the transformation was almost like the emergence of a new religion, except that it was in fact the recovery in contemporary form of what had always been it’s essential inner life.
It is this manifest model of transformation that may be the root of Kevin’s motivation and vision. Being a root it is deep in the soil and therefore out of sight. But if it’s there we may be able to discern the pattern of a future that takes as its point of departure the 2020 Summit – a future that was already unfolding even before today. You may have noticed that people all over Australia have been at it for months – holding forums and testing means of “thinking outside the square”, and even daring to hope!! Reminding themselves that the past is not the only predictor of the future; dusting off the model of thinking that anticipates and therefore to a significant degree facilitates change; cutting through the definitions of what it means to be Australian, created by vested interests, to a vision of a just society in right relationship not only with itself but with the rest of the world and above all with the planet itself; taking the opportunity to absorb in advance as much of the agenda of the Summit as technology and willingness will enable, so that in the event they act disinterestedly (sic) on behalf of the greater good, the nature of which they can only glimpse partially as if in a glass darkly. If time permitted I could list a dozen more ways in which people of good will have flocked to this event on behalf of a sustainable and exciting future. But it is enough to draw attention to the discernable pattern of events.
If I am right about this we can expect not only good ideas from the Summit, but a vision of the future whose substance will take the whole country by surprise. People everywhere will meet in small groups to examine the implications of the documents that come from the Summit for their daily lives. People will see connections between issues they had never previously imagined and change the way do things. People will look to others they have never considered worthy of attention for clues about how to build relationships they never previously wanted. Sacred cows, such as “the bottom line” and “the inviolable rights of shareholders”, will be put out to pasture – not deprives of their rights, but stripped of undue influence. Courageous and innovative ways of creating sustainable prosperity will emerge in unlikely places and be adapted widely and rapidly. And people will make the connections between those new forms and those of earlier times that brought them forth as aspiring champions of the Fair Go.
People will ignore the few who say it can’t be done – like the politician who said: There are a thousand ideas, there are 660 minutes of discussion on the summit program, which means that for every idea there are 39.6 seconds put aside for discussing that particular idea.
To be continued…
Thus spake Kevin as he opened the 2020 Summit.
And verily did I fall about in wonder and amazement, for they are famous words!!
You probably have to be a Catholic, old enough (not to mention interested enough) to remember the election of Pope John XXIII and what happened shortly afterwards, to get this one. Being such, I want to share it with you. You see, very shortly after the JXXIII’s election there was a gathering of the big guns of the church at which the question was put to the new Pope: What is the agenda for your papacy? The jolly Pope smiled for a moment, got up, walked to the nearest window and opened it. He then turned to the assembled princes and said: I want to open the windows of the church to let in a bit of fresh air.
It just goes to show… when a Pope can anticipate the actions of an Australian Prime Minister the world must be in Go(o)d Hands. Just kidding of course. But there is metaphoric value in the coincidence – if that’s what it is – that I’d like to draw out a bit.
Let’s start with the suggestion that the Venerable Kevin’s choice of words was not a coincidence. We all know that Kevin is a practicing Christian. We see him on TV going to Anglican churches. But what many may not know is that he grew up as a Catholic. He’s not old enough (born 1957)to personally remember the news reports of the Pope’s breath taking words and action. But his vital years of personal formation (you know the saying attributed to the Jesuits – Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man) coincided with the most exciting transformation in the life of the church since… well, since the first Pentecost. Kevin may not even be aware of the fact that his words echoed JXXIII, but it is not too much to suggest that there may be, for him, a deep unconscious connection between the potential of the 2020 Summit and the most astounding event of the era of his youth.
The Second Vatican Council galvanised people on a mass scale to recreate the face of the earth. There was near universal optimism among Catholics of the time about the future. And it wasn’t just Catholics. Protestants and Orthodox in great numbers watched in amazement and rejoiced as the Catholic church took unprecedented initiatives in ecumenism and engagement with the world. In its own internal life the transformation was almost like the emergence of a new religion, except that it was in fact the recovery in contemporary form of what had always been it’s essential inner life.
It is this manifest model of transformation that may be the root of Kevin’s motivation and vision. Being a root it is deep in the soil and therefore out of sight. But if it’s there we may be able to discern the pattern of a future that takes as its point of departure the 2020 Summit – a future that was already unfolding even before today. You may have noticed that people all over Australia have been at it for months – holding forums and testing means of “thinking outside the square”, and even daring to hope!! Reminding themselves that the past is not the only predictor of the future; dusting off the model of thinking that anticipates and therefore to a significant degree facilitates change; cutting through the definitions of what it means to be Australian, created by vested interests, to a vision of a just society in right relationship not only with itself but with the rest of the world and above all with the planet itself; taking the opportunity to absorb in advance as much of the agenda of the Summit as technology and willingness will enable, so that in the event they act disinterestedly (sic) on behalf of the greater good, the nature of which they can only glimpse partially as if in a glass darkly. If time permitted I could list a dozen more ways in which people of good will have flocked to this event on behalf of a sustainable and exciting future. But it is enough to draw attention to the discernable pattern of events.
If I am right about this we can expect not only good ideas from the Summit, but a vision of the future whose substance will take the whole country by surprise. People everywhere will meet in small groups to examine the implications of the documents that come from the Summit for their daily lives. People will see connections between issues they had never previously imagined and change the way do things. People will look to others they have never considered worthy of attention for clues about how to build relationships they never previously wanted. Sacred cows, such as “the bottom line” and “the inviolable rights of shareholders”, will be put out to pasture – not deprives of their rights, but stripped of undue influence. Courageous and innovative ways of creating sustainable prosperity will emerge in unlikely places and be adapted widely and rapidly. And people will make the connections between those new forms and those of earlier times that brought them forth as aspiring champions of the Fair Go.
People will ignore the few who say it can’t be done – like the politician who said: There are a thousand ideas, there are 660 minutes of discussion on the summit program, which means that for every idea there are 39.6 seconds put aside for discussing that particular idea.
To be continued…
I may not be my brother's keeper, but...
Please bear with me for the next few lines, especially if your political views differ from mine – god knows, I’ve made them clear – or even if you share my views but think I over do it a bit – or a lot. Just stay with me for a moment – please.
I’ve had no one take me up on the offer to dialogue about the apology. It’s possible that I have somehow contrived to be friends only with like minded people. I hope not. In fact I know that’s not true. It’s more likely that someone who thinks the apology wasn’t necessary also thinks that it’s none of my business what they think. And they’d be right. I’ll come back to that. I want to look first at another possibility: that someone, having understood the offer, rejected it because they don’t want to consider arguments for the apology. You know: I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind.
By now anyone who holds that position has stopped reading, so let me tell you, who may be curious to know what I have to say about it, what I think is wrong with that position. It’s easily illustrated. Just put the boot on the other foot, so to speak. Put those words in the mouth of a person in power. Shocking, eh? Does it sound like anyone you know? No. Because no one in power in a democracy could ever use those actual words. But actions speak. Can you think of anyone whose actions consistently signalled a refusal to “talk to the other side” – who talked at the other side instead? If you’re a coalition voter you’ve probably thinking Paul Keating. If you’re not you almost certainly have of someone else in mind. What if both points of view are right – or wrong? What if it’s not “either or” but “both and”?
Recall the 1996 election campaign and its aftermath. Pauline Hanson was speaking her mind. What she said embarrassed the Liberal party and they disendorsed her. Speaking about that period long after the event John Howard claimed that, in the years leading up to that election, people with views contrary to those of the “ruling elite” had been silenced. By the time he said this, he had systematically denigrated the world view of those he’d beaten at the ballot box and implemented policies that not only embodied his own world view, but flew in the face of scientific consensus in some cases. Along the way, people within his own party who had values that differed form his, either departed from politics or were, except on rare occasions, silent – possibly even silenced. What may or may not have been true in 1996 became increasingly so from then until 2007. Does it have to be like this? And how long can we survive as a country if we don’t start talking to one another? If we maintain a winner takes all mentality?
I remember vividly what it was like just before the 1996 election. If people who didn’t like “politically correct” views felt silenced, was it because they chose not to participate in the issues of the day? You know, I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind… And remember what it was like when the Howard government got control of both houses? I don’t care what you think. I’m going to do it my way. Coalition voters will argue that the country was in such a mess when the Howard government took over they had to repudiate the views of those they had replaced in order to put their own agenda into place. Others will say that when the Rudd government took over the country was an international pariah as a result of that agenda. If you’re a Labor supporter you might hope that things can be fixed up, but you need to be worried, because if you think what happened under the last government was bad, it’s nothing compared with what could happen next time the “conservatives” get power. If you’re a coalition voter you might be thinking the worst case scenario is already unfolding.
Both sides can stop the worst form happening. Here’s how. I care what you think and I want to talk with you about it. Now, about what other people think being none of my business….
I’ve had no one take me up on the offer to dialogue about the apology. It’s possible that I have somehow contrived to be friends only with like minded people. I hope not. In fact I know that’s not true. It’s more likely that someone who thinks the apology wasn’t necessary also thinks that it’s none of my business what they think. And they’d be right. I’ll come back to that. I want to look first at another possibility: that someone, having understood the offer, rejected it because they don’t want to consider arguments for the apology. You know: I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind.
By now anyone who holds that position has stopped reading, so let me tell you, who may be curious to know what I have to say about it, what I think is wrong with that position. It’s easily illustrated. Just put the boot on the other foot, so to speak. Put those words in the mouth of a person in power. Shocking, eh? Does it sound like anyone you know? No. Because no one in power in a democracy could ever use those actual words. But actions speak. Can you think of anyone whose actions consistently signalled a refusal to “talk to the other side” – who talked at the other side instead? If you’re a coalition voter you’ve probably thinking Paul Keating. If you’re not you almost certainly have of someone else in mind. What if both points of view are right – or wrong? What if it’s not “either or” but “both and”?
Recall the 1996 election campaign and its aftermath. Pauline Hanson was speaking her mind. What she said embarrassed the Liberal party and they disendorsed her. Speaking about that period long after the event John Howard claimed that, in the years leading up to that election, people with views contrary to those of the “ruling elite” had been silenced. By the time he said this, he had systematically denigrated the world view of those he’d beaten at the ballot box and implemented policies that not only embodied his own world view, but flew in the face of scientific consensus in some cases. Along the way, people within his own party who had values that differed form his, either departed from politics or were, except on rare occasions, silent – possibly even silenced. What may or may not have been true in 1996 became increasingly so from then until 2007. Does it have to be like this? And how long can we survive as a country if we don’t start talking to one another? If we maintain a winner takes all mentality?
I remember vividly what it was like just before the 1996 election. If people who didn’t like “politically correct” views felt silenced, was it because they chose not to participate in the issues of the day? You know, I know what I think and I’m not changing my mind… And remember what it was like when the Howard government got control of both houses? I don’t care what you think. I’m going to do it my way. Coalition voters will argue that the country was in such a mess when the Howard government took over they had to repudiate the views of those they had replaced in order to put their own agenda into place. Others will say that when the Rudd government took over the country was an international pariah as a result of that agenda. If you’re a Labor supporter you might hope that things can be fixed up, but you need to be worried, because if you think what happened under the last government was bad, it’s nothing compared with what could happen next time the “conservatives” get power. If you’re a coalition voter you might be thinking the worst case scenario is already unfolding.
Both sides can stop the worst form happening. Here’s how. I care what you think and I want to talk with you about it. Now, about what other people think being none of my business….
Sunday, 13 April 2008
Sunday, 23 March 2008
Apology to stolen generations – questions and answers
This material has been taken from the GetUp Website
This material has been prepared by Reconciliation Australia to help Australians understand the background to the apology that will be made to the stolen generations by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
1. Who are the stolen generations?
2. How do we know these people’s stories are true?
3. Why is it important to apologise to the stolen generations?
4. Why should Australians today apologise for something we aren’t responsible for?
5. What does an apology mean to me as a non-Indigenous Australian?
6. Why should we apologise when many Aboriginal people are actually better off because they were removed from dysfunctional families?
7. Will an apology lead to claims for compensation from members of the stolen generations?
8. Why is the word ‘sorry’ important as part of the apology?
1. Who are the stolen generations?
The term ‘stolen generations’ refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were forcibly removed from their families and communities by government, welfare or church authorities as children and placed into institutional care or with non-Indigenous foster families. The forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children began as early as the mid 1800s and continued until 1970.
This removal occurred as the result of official laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Indigenous population into the wider community.
The 1997 Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found that between 1 in 10 and 3 in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from 1910 to 1970.
The Western Australian and Queensland governments have confirmed that in that period all Indigenous families in their States were affected by the forced removal of children. It’s not possible to know precisely how many children were taken because government records of these removals are poor and many government files are inaccurate.
The stolen generation should not be confused with other government policies which aimed to help Aboriginal children from remote areas to go to school with their parents full consent. It should also not be confused with the removal of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children from dysfunctional families under welfare policies that continue to apply today.
2. How do we know these people’s stories are true?
All State and Territory governments have acknowledged past practices and policies of forced removal of Indigenous children on the basis of race. As part of this formal acknowledgement, all State and Territory governments have apologised for the trauma these policies have caused.
The report of the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, called the Bringing them Home report, contains extensive evidence of past practices and policies which resulted in the removal of children. It also details the conditions into which many
of the children were placed and discussed the negative impact this has had on individuals, their families and the broader Indigenous community.
The Inquiry took evidence from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, government and church representatives, former mission staff, foster and adoptive parents, doctors and health professionals, academics, police and others. It received over 777 submissions, including 535 from Indigenous individuals and organisations, 49 from church organisations and 7 from governments.
3. Why is it important to apologise to the stolen generations?
The Bringing Them Home report found that the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and communities has had life-long and profoundly disabling consequences for those taken and has negatively affected the Indigenous community. For many of the children, removal meant that they lost all connection to family, traditional land, culture and language.
It never goes away. Just ‘cause we’re not walking around on crutches or with bandages or plasters on our legs and arms, doesn’t mean we’re not hurting. Just ’cause you can’t see it doesn’t mean … I suspect I’ll carry these sorts of wounds ’til I the day I die. I’d just like it to be not quite as intense, that’s all. Confidential evidence 580, Queensland. Bringing Them Home Report
The reality of Australia’s stolen generations is not a thing of the distant past. Children were being inappropriately removed from their families by Australian authorities until 1969. Many people affected by the tragedy of the stolen generations are still alive today and live with its effects.
The Bringing Them Home report recommended that the first step in healing is the acknowledgment of truth and the delivery of an apology. It is the responsibility of the Australian Government, on behalf of previous Australian governments that administered this wrongful policy to acknowledge what was done and apologise for it.
This issue is a ‘blank spot’ in the history of Australia. The damage and trauma these policies caused are felt everyday by Aboriginal people. They internalise their grief, guilt and confusion, inflicting further pain on themselves and others around them. It is about time the Australian Government openly accepted responsibility for their actions and compensate those affected.
Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter (In Buti A, Bringing them home the ALSA way)
4. Why should Australians today apologise for something we aren’t responsible for?
Individual Australians are not providing the apology. The apology is being provided by the Australian Government in recognition of policies of past governments. Similarly, the former Australian Government apologised to Vietnam veterans for the policies of previous governments. The current Government is apologising for wrongful policies of governments. No individual Australian is being asked to take personal responsibility for actions of past governments.
5. What does an apology mean to me as a non-Indigenous Australian?
Following on from apologies already made by all State and Territory governments and the churches, an official apology to members of the stolen generations by the Australian Government is an important step towards building a respectful new relationship between us as Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Respectful relationships are essential if we are to solve persistent problems.
In this way, the apology will allow us to work together more effectively towards closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children - the starkest evidence of how government policies have failed. It is an important starting point in healing the wounds and an historic step forward for our nation that we can be proud of.
The apology is not an expression of personal responsibility or guilt by individual Australians. But it does reflect our Australian values of compassion and a fair go, and allows the victims of bad policy to feel that their pain and suffering has been acknowledged. It’s important that Australians understand the background to the apology so they understand why it’s a good thing for the nation – it is this understanding that will realise the great potential of this historic moment to move our nation forward.
These days I don’t understand why it should be such a big deal to say sorry for the injustices that have been done to Indigenous people. I know some people feel differently but, to me, saying sorry just feels necessary as a first step towards moving forward together. Daniel Johns, lead singer of Silverchair
6. Why should we apologise when many Aboriginal people are actually better off because they were removed from dysfunctional families?
It is true that some Indigenous children were removed from their families on genuine welfare grounds. It is also true that some children who were removed received some advantages, for example in education, but the overwhelming impact of the forced removal policy was damaging.
People involved in the removal of children genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. But as we now know, they were not.
It’s important to understand that the “stolen generations” refer to those children who were removed on the basis of their race alone. In contrast with the removal of non-Indigenous children, proof of neglect was not always required to remove Indigenous children. That one of their parents was of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent was enough.
The predominant aim of the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families was to absorb or assimilate children with mixed ancestry into the non-Indigenous community. As Brisbane's Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937:
Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem is increasing every year. Therefore their idea is to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Perhaps it will take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race is dying.
The Bringing Them Home report found that many children were removed solely on the basis of skin colour. Because of this, siblings from the one family who were considered to be of lighter skin colour would be removed when others were left.
The suggestion that stolen generations children were better off is untrue on any reasonable assessment of the cases where they were placed in situations of deprivation, neglect and abuse. People who were removed gave evidence to the Inquiry of their mistreatment under State care - this ranged from inadequate food and clothing, to physical, sexual and psychological abuse.
Almost a quarter of witnesses to the Inquiry who were fostered or adopted reported being physically abused. One in five reported being sexually abused. One in six children sent to institutions reported physical abuse and one in ten reported sexual abuse.
7. Will an apology lead to claims for compensation from members of the stolen generations?
The Bringing Them Home report recommended the establishment of a national compensation fund for people affected by the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The aim of the fund would be to offer reparation to those affected and avoid the courts having to deal with costly individual litigation.
An official apology is not directly related to compensation. All State and Territory governments have apologised and this has not triggered any rush of compensation claims.
The Tasmanian Government has chosen to set up a compensation fund for members of the stolen generations in that State. It has provided $5 million in capped payments to be divided among eligible people and their families. http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/speeches/stolen.html
The Government of South Australia is also considering establishing a fund. Queensland and New South Wales have ruled out stolen generations compensation funds, although both States are providing reparations for policies under which Aboriginal people could be put to work but not paid.
The West Australian Government announced in late 2007 the ‘Redress WA’ program to provide monetary and emotional support to people who were abused as children in State care, including members of the stolen generations.
http://www.redress.wa.gov.au/
The Australia Government has said it will not establish a fund at the national level but will direct funds to counselling services for members of the stolen generations and services that help people who were removed as children to find their families and communities.
Reconciliation for me is about recognising the past. Acting in the present. And building a better future. The Hon. Paul Lennon MP, Premier of Tasmania
8. Why is the word ‘sorry’ important as part of the apology?
The word ‘sorry’ holds special meaning in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. In many Aboriginal communities, sorry is an adapted English word used to describe the rituals surrounding death (Sorry Business). Sorry, in these contexts, is also often used to express empathy or sympathy rather than responsibility.
During the 2007 election campaign, then Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd also recognised the significance of the word sorry:
“… simply saying that you’re sorry is such a powerful symbol. Powerful not because it represents some expiation of guilt. Powerful not because it represents any form of legal requirement. But powerful simply because it restores respect”
9. Why didn’t the former Australian Government say sorry?
In 1997, the recommendation of the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families for an official apology was not taken up by the new Australian Government led by John Howard. Mr Howard argued that it was not appropriate for the current Government to apologise for the actions of past governments. He also said he was concerned that a formal admission of wrongdoing would lead to compensation litigation.
All State and Territory governments did issue formal apologies in the period following the Inquiry and these did not generate a rush of compensation claims.
In 1999, the Australian Government moved a motion for reconciliation with an expression of:
“deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices.”
10. Will the apology mean that reconciliation has been achieved?
An apology from the Australian Government to the stolen generations is one important step in achieving the overarching objective of reconciliation which is to close the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. It is important because it removes a barrier to us establishing a more respectful relationship as Indigenous and non-Indigenous fellow Australians.
Closing the life expectancy gap involves consistent, long term action by governments, and by all Australians, in health, education, housing, employment etc and also in building respectful relationships that generate better outcomes for us all.
Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton suggests that a formal apology will achieve two things: firstly it will aid in the restoration of a sense of dignity and legitimacy to those who have suffered, and secondly it will acknowledge the serious harm done by previous governments to a class of people on the grounds of their race.
True reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. Sir William Deane, Governor-General of Australia, 1997
Case Study: Canada's ‘Common Experience Fund’
Canada’s Indigenous population shares some of the experiences of Indigenous Australians. From the early 1880s, Indigenous Canadian children were removed from their homes on the basis of their race and placed in church-run, government funded residential schools. From 1920 until early 1970 this removal was experienced by practically all Indigenous children. These schools were created to encourage assimilation and to suppress Indigenous culture and language.
The United Church of Canada recently apologised for this “horrendous period of Canadian history” and the Canadian Government also extended a formal apology in the form of an action plan. The action plan included a statement of reconciliation in which the Canadian Government recognised and apologised for “the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act” in their history.
The apology led to a range of lawsuits and helped Ottawa’s Government to come to a settlement with First Nation representatives. As a result of the settlement, the Canadian Government provided a $1.9 billion compensation fund for the ‘common experience’ of all people who were affected by the removal of Indigenous children. All residential school survivors are entitled to apply for the ‘common experience payment’. If the applicant is successful they receive a standard $10,000 in compensation and a further $3,000 for each year they were placed in the school. The Government has also provided an extra $3 billion in compensation to survivors who suffered sexual and physical abuse in the residential schools.
Currently 85,080 applications for the ‘common experience’ payment have been received. Of that number, 56,625 have been processed with 46,910 being successful.
This material has been prepared by Reconciliation Australia to help Australians understand the background to the apology that will be made to the stolen generations by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
1. Who are the stolen generations?
2. How do we know these people’s stories are true?
3. Why is it important to apologise to the stolen generations?
4. Why should Australians today apologise for something we aren’t responsible for?
5. What does an apology mean to me as a non-Indigenous Australian?
6. Why should we apologise when many Aboriginal people are actually better off because they were removed from dysfunctional families?
7. Will an apology lead to claims for compensation from members of the stolen generations?
8. Why is the word ‘sorry’ important as part of the apology?
1. Who are the stolen generations?
The term ‘stolen generations’ refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were forcibly removed from their families and communities by government, welfare or church authorities as children and placed into institutional care or with non-Indigenous foster families. The forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children began as early as the mid 1800s and continued until 1970.
This removal occurred as the result of official laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Indigenous population into the wider community.
The 1997 Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found that between 1 in 10 and 3 in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from 1910 to 1970.
The Western Australian and Queensland governments have confirmed that in that period all Indigenous families in their States were affected by the forced removal of children. It’s not possible to know precisely how many children were taken because government records of these removals are poor and many government files are inaccurate.
The stolen generation should not be confused with other government policies which aimed to help Aboriginal children from remote areas to go to school with their parents full consent. It should also not be confused with the removal of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children from dysfunctional families under welfare policies that continue to apply today.
2. How do we know these people’s stories are true?
All State and Territory governments have acknowledged past practices and policies of forced removal of Indigenous children on the basis of race. As part of this formal acknowledgement, all State and Territory governments have apologised for the trauma these policies have caused.
The report of the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, called the Bringing them Home report, contains extensive evidence of past practices and policies which resulted in the removal of children. It also details the conditions into which many
of the children were placed and discussed the negative impact this has had on individuals, their families and the broader Indigenous community.
The Inquiry took evidence from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, government and church representatives, former mission staff, foster and adoptive parents, doctors and health professionals, academics, police and others. It received over 777 submissions, including 535 from Indigenous individuals and organisations, 49 from church organisations and 7 from governments.
3. Why is it important to apologise to the stolen generations?
The Bringing Them Home report found that the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and communities has had life-long and profoundly disabling consequences for those taken and has negatively affected the Indigenous community. For many of the children, removal meant that they lost all connection to family, traditional land, culture and language.
It never goes away. Just ‘cause we’re not walking around on crutches or with bandages or plasters on our legs and arms, doesn’t mean we’re not hurting. Just ’cause you can’t see it doesn’t mean … I suspect I’ll carry these sorts of wounds ’til I the day I die. I’d just like it to be not quite as intense, that’s all. Confidential evidence 580, Queensland. Bringing Them Home Report
The reality of Australia’s stolen generations is not a thing of the distant past. Children were being inappropriately removed from their families by Australian authorities until 1969. Many people affected by the tragedy of the stolen generations are still alive today and live with its effects.
The Bringing Them Home report recommended that the first step in healing is the acknowledgment of truth and the delivery of an apology. It is the responsibility of the Australian Government, on behalf of previous Australian governments that administered this wrongful policy to acknowledge what was done and apologise for it.
This issue is a ‘blank spot’ in the history of Australia. The damage and trauma these policies caused are felt everyday by Aboriginal people. They internalise their grief, guilt and confusion, inflicting further pain on themselves and others around them. It is about time the Australian Government openly accepted responsibility for their actions and compensate those affected.
Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter (In Buti A, Bringing them home the ALSA way)
4. Why should Australians today apologise for something we aren’t responsible for?
Individual Australians are not providing the apology. The apology is being provided by the Australian Government in recognition of policies of past governments. Similarly, the former Australian Government apologised to Vietnam veterans for the policies of previous governments. The current Government is apologising for wrongful policies of governments. No individual Australian is being asked to take personal responsibility for actions of past governments.
5. What does an apology mean to me as a non-Indigenous Australian?
Following on from apologies already made by all State and Territory governments and the churches, an official apology to members of the stolen generations by the Australian Government is an important step towards building a respectful new relationship between us as Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Respectful relationships are essential if we are to solve persistent problems.
In this way, the apology will allow us to work together more effectively towards closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children - the starkest evidence of how government policies have failed. It is an important starting point in healing the wounds and an historic step forward for our nation that we can be proud of.
The apology is not an expression of personal responsibility or guilt by individual Australians. But it does reflect our Australian values of compassion and a fair go, and allows the victims of bad policy to feel that their pain and suffering has been acknowledged. It’s important that Australians understand the background to the apology so they understand why it’s a good thing for the nation – it is this understanding that will realise the great potential of this historic moment to move our nation forward.
These days I don’t understand why it should be such a big deal to say sorry for the injustices that have been done to Indigenous people. I know some people feel differently but, to me, saying sorry just feels necessary as a first step towards moving forward together. Daniel Johns, lead singer of Silverchair
6. Why should we apologise when many Aboriginal people are actually better off because they were removed from dysfunctional families?
It is true that some Indigenous children were removed from their families on genuine welfare grounds. It is also true that some children who were removed received some advantages, for example in education, but the overwhelming impact of the forced removal policy was damaging.
People involved in the removal of children genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. But as we now know, they were not.
It’s important to understand that the “stolen generations” refer to those children who were removed on the basis of their race alone. In contrast with the removal of non-Indigenous children, proof of neglect was not always required to remove Indigenous children. That one of their parents was of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent was enough.
The predominant aim of the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families was to absorb or assimilate children with mixed ancestry into the non-Indigenous community. As Brisbane's Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937:
Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem is increasing every year. Therefore their idea is to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Perhaps it will take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race is dying.
The Bringing Them Home report found that many children were removed solely on the basis of skin colour. Because of this, siblings from the one family who were considered to be of lighter skin colour would be removed when others were left.
The suggestion that stolen generations children were better off is untrue on any reasonable assessment of the cases where they were placed in situations of deprivation, neglect and abuse. People who were removed gave evidence to the Inquiry of their mistreatment under State care - this ranged from inadequate food and clothing, to physical, sexual and psychological abuse.
Almost a quarter of witnesses to the Inquiry who were fostered or adopted reported being physically abused. One in five reported being sexually abused. One in six children sent to institutions reported physical abuse and one in ten reported sexual abuse.
7. Will an apology lead to claims for compensation from members of the stolen generations?
The Bringing Them Home report recommended the establishment of a national compensation fund for people affected by the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The aim of the fund would be to offer reparation to those affected and avoid the courts having to deal with costly individual litigation.
An official apology is not directly related to compensation. All State and Territory governments have apologised and this has not triggered any rush of compensation claims.
The Tasmanian Government has chosen to set up a compensation fund for members of the stolen generations in that State. It has provided $5 million in capped payments to be divided among eligible people and their families. http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/speeches/stolen.html
The Government of South Australia is also considering establishing a fund. Queensland and New South Wales have ruled out stolen generations compensation funds, although both States are providing reparations for policies under which Aboriginal people could be put to work but not paid.
The West Australian Government announced in late 2007 the ‘Redress WA’ program to provide monetary and emotional support to people who were abused as children in State care, including members of the stolen generations.
http://www.redress.wa.gov.au/
The Australia Government has said it will not establish a fund at the national level but will direct funds to counselling services for members of the stolen generations and services that help people who were removed as children to find their families and communities.
Reconciliation for me is about recognising the past. Acting in the present. And building a better future. The Hon. Paul Lennon MP, Premier of Tasmania
8. Why is the word ‘sorry’ important as part of the apology?
The word ‘sorry’ holds special meaning in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. In many Aboriginal communities, sorry is an adapted English word used to describe the rituals surrounding death (Sorry Business). Sorry, in these contexts, is also often used to express empathy or sympathy rather than responsibility.
During the 2007 election campaign, then Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd also recognised the significance of the word sorry:
“… simply saying that you’re sorry is such a powerful symbol. Powerful not because it represents some expiation of guilt. Powerful not because it represents any form of legal requirement. But powerful simply because it restores respect”
9. Why didn’t the former Australian Government say sorry?
In 1997, the recommendation of the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families for an official apology was not taken up by the new Australian Government led by John Howard. Mr Howard argued that it was not appropriate for the current Government to apologise for the actions of past governments. He also said he was concerned that a formal admission of wrongdoing would lead to compensation litigation.
All State and Territory governments did issue formal apologies in the period following the Inquiry and these did not generate a rush of compensation claims.
In 1999, the Australian Government moved a motion for reconciliation with an expression of:
“deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices.”
10. Will the apology mean that reconciliation has been achieved?
An apology from the Australian Government to the stolen generations is one important step in achieving the overarching objective of reconciliation which is to close the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. It is important because it removes a barrier to us establishing a more respectful relationship as Indigenous and non-Indigenous fellow Australians.
Closing the life expectancy gap involves consistent, long term action by governments, and by all Australians, in health, education, housing, employment etc and also in building respectful relationships that generate better outcomes for us all.
Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton suggests that a formal apology will achieve two things: firstly it will aid in the restoration of a sense of dignity and legitimacy to those who have suffered, and secondly it will acknowledge the serious harm done by previous governments to a class of people on the grounds of their race.
True reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. Sir William Deane, Governor-General of Australia, 1997
Case Study: Canada's ‘Common Experience Fund’
Canada’s Indigenous population shares some of the experiences of Indigenous Australians. From the early 1880s, Indigenous Canadian children were removed from their homes on the basis of their race and placed in church-run, government funded residential schools. From 1920 until early 1970 this removal was experienced by practically all Indigenous children. These schools were created to encourage assimilation and to suppress Indigenous culture and language.
The United Church of Canada recently apologised for this “horrendous period of Canadian history” and the Canadian Government also extended a formal apology in the form of an action plan. The action plan included a statement of reconciliation in which the Canadian Government recognised and apologised for “the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act” in their history.
The apology led to a range of lawsuits and helped Ottawa’s Government to come to a settlement with First Nation representatives. As a result of the settlement, the Canadian Government provided a $1.9 billion compensation fund for the ‘common experience’ of all people who were affected by the removal of Indigenous children. All residential school survivors are entitled to apply for the ‘common experience payment’. If the applicant is successful they receive a standard $10,000 in compensation and a further $3,000 for each year they were placed in the school. The Government has also provided an extra $3 billion in compensation to survivors who suffered sexual and physical abuse in the residential schools.
Currently 85,080 applications for the ‘common experience’ payment have been received. Of that number, 56,625 have been processed with 46,910 being successful.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Johnny who?
What a pathetic coward. John Howard waits until he’s out of the country before he makes any comment about current affairs in Australia, and when he does, (in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington on Thursday 6/3/08) he pretends that he wasn’t given the most humiliating thrashing any political leader in Australia, and possibly the world, has ever had. Howard slams the Rudd government for abandoning Work Choices as though it wasn’t the single most significant issue on which Labor won the 2007 election. Oh, and he makes no reference to the fact that the party he lead to utter ignominy abandoned every last link to Work Choices after being thrashed yet again by public opinion when Julie Bishop foreshadowed opposing the abolition of AWAs in the Senate. This is not mere denial: it’s outright contempt. And it gets worse. Howard’s Washington speech was entitled “Sharing our common values”. Our common values?
Yes, that’s right, the man who lost the right to speak for the nation in the most excoriating repudiation of the values he embodied for eleven and a half years still presumes to know what Australian values are, and pretends to have the right to speak on our behalf, as if we didn’t know what we were doing when we sacked him and his fawning cling-ons at the last election. The fact that he was not prepared to say to Australians in Australia what he said to his mates in a foreign country really says it all. He’s a gutless wonder. No that’s giving him too much credit. He’s just plain gutless – the most damning proof of which is actually something else he failed to do in this country. Who was conspicuous by his absence when Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations?
Little Johnny has never embodied the values that underpin this country – doesn’t hold a candle to the Anzacs, for example, whom he was so fond of cuddling up to when in office, because he hasn’t learned anything from defeat, behaving more like Saddam Hussein claiming a great victory after the first Gulf War.
Howard hasn’t actually claimed a victory. He’s just refused to accept that he and what he actually stood for has been repudiated. Yet in his speech he said this:
“… a number of the more conservative social policies of my government have been endorsed by the new Australian government…The sincerity of its conversion will be tested by experience of office."
The man is utterly shameless. Not to mention narcissistic. He implies that the policies he refers to are his gift to the nation, and that only he could pull them off, when the truth is that they were opportunistic caricatures of what is actually needed: the NT intervention being the prime case in point. His brazen claim to be the better economic manager is another one. And the appalling state of our defense equipment is its own comment on his claim to be the bulwark of the nation’s security. Name any policy that Howard claimed to be the best at and you’ll find a white anted reality behind a façade of political machismo.
The measure of Howard the coward is that he can’t admit that he was wrong. Worse still, he hasn’t got the guts to say in his own country that he still believes that his policies are the right ones for Australia. He has to skulk off to Imperial Capital to be feted by the powerful effete (sic).
Two further observations in closing.
Firstly, everyone in Australia is aware of the fact that the only other Prime Minister to lose his seat at an election lost it over industrial relations. What most people probably aren’t aware of is that the only other political leader who clung to government beyond his parliamentary term, as Howard did in 2007, also lost the election. There's probably a lesson in that. Anyone want to write an opera about it?
Secondly, remember “Aspirational Nationalism”? Remember all those discussions about what it could possibly mean? Well, here’s another one from when Howard was treasurer: “Incentivation”. Remember that one? Remember the bagging he got for it? My point is, he didn’t learn anything from that episode. He continued to live in a world of his own out of which he thought he could gift the nation with words and phrases that didn’t even have what it takes to become clichés. John Howard is not just a coward. He’s a empty vessel. In the end it really was appropriate that he did not attend the Apology. He isn’t worthy of it.
Let him have his day in the land of the brave and the home of the free, by all means. Let him wallow in the fantasy that he is the suffering servant rejected by his own household. But please, let’s not have a blow by blow account of it in the media. Not because as left-liberals, which he so contemptuously labels anyone who recognizes him for what he is, we don’t want to hear “good news”, but because we’ve had a gut full of political pornography.
Yes, that’s right, the man who lost the right to speak for the nation in the most excoriating repudiation of the values he embodied for eleven and a half years still presumes to know what Australian values are, and pretends to have the right to speak on our behalf, as if we didn’t know what we were doing when we sacked him and his fawning cling-ons at the last election. The fact that he was not prepared to say to Australians in Australia what he said to his mates in a foreign country really says it all. He’s a gutless wonder. No that’s giving him too much credit. He’s just plain gutless – the most damning proof of which is actually something else he failed to do in this country. Who was conspicuous by his absence when Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations?
Little Johnny has never embodied the values that underpin this country – doesn’t hold a candle to the Anzacs, for example, whom he was so fond of cuddling up to when in office, because he hasn’t learned anything from defeat, behaving more like Saddam Hussein claiming a great victory after the first Gulf War.
Howard hasn’t actually claimed a victory. He’s just refused to accept that he and what he actually stood for has been repudiated. Yet in his speech he said this:
“… a number of the more conservative social policies of my government have been endorsed by the new Australian government…The sincerity of its conversion will be tested by experience of office."
The man is utterly shameless. Not to mention narcissistic. He implies that the policies he refers to are his gift to the nation, and that only he could pull them off, when the truth is that they were opportunistic caricatures of what is actually needed: the NT intervention being the prime case in point. His brazen claim to be the better economic manager is another one. And the appalling state of our defense equipment is its own comment on his claim to be the bulwark of the nation’s security. Name any policy that Howard claimed to be the best at and you’ll find a white anted reality behind a façade of political machismo.
The measure of Howard the coward is that he can’t admit that he was wrong. Worse still, he hasn’t got the guts to say in his own country that he still believes that his policies are the right ones for Australia. He has to skulk off to Imperial Capital to be feted by the powerful effete (sic).
Two further observations in closing.
Firstly, everyone in Australia is aware of the fact that the only other Prime Minister to lose his seat at an election lost it over industrial relations. What most people probably aren’t aware of is that the only other political leader who clung to government beyond his parliamentary term, as Howard did in 2007, also lost the election. There's probably a lesson in that. Anyone want to write an opera about it?
Secondly, remember “Aspirational Nationalism”? Remember all those discussions about what it could possibly mean? Well, here’s another one from when Howard was treasurer: “Incentivation”. Remember that one? Remember the bagging he got for it? My point is, he didn’t learn anything from that episode. He continued to live in a world of his own out of which he thought he could gift the nation with words and phrases that didn’t even have what it takes to become clichés. John Howard is not just a coward. He’s a empty vessel. In the end it really was appropriate that he did not attend the Apology. He isn’t worthy of it.
Let him have his day in the land of the brave and the home of the free, by all means. Let him wallow in the fantasy that he is the suffering servant rejected by his own household. But please, let’s not have a blow by blow account of it in the media. Not because as left-liberals, which he so contemptuously labels anyone who recognizes him for what he is, we don’t want to hear “good news”, but because we’ve had a gut full of political pornography.
Coup disgrace, or portent of coup d’etat
Can you believe the opposition in the Parliament of Australia? The cardboard Kevin stunt was a new low point – lower than even I would have given them credit for. And while it is far from the worst thing that could happen in a representative democracy, it indicates how little regard the people involved have for those who gave them their jobs.
In case someone is asking, What’s cardboard Kevin, here’s a quick outline of the incident, preceded by what led up to it.
Until this year, the federal parliament, when in session has sat four days a week. But from now on it’s five. Well, until the government realises what a stupid idea it is, anyway. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there is to be no Question Time on Fridays. What’s more, while back benchers are expected to be in the house, dealing with parliamentary business – though not necessarily in the chamber – ministers can be out doing other stuff. This is not just new, it is unexpected and arguably unconstitutional. And it’s not just the opposition who are contesting it. Pretty well every political commentator has had a go at it. Hopefully, the trainer wheels will come off and the new team on the treasury benches will realise that just because you’re the government doesn’t mean that you can do what you like. That said, there are ways of opposing such measures, and ways of demeaning yourself and the parliament, and on Friday 22/2/08 the opposition did the latter.
There has always been too much posturing on both sides of the house, leaving insufficient time for constructive dialogue between government and opposition. But the opposition’s behaviour on that day went way beyond posturing and was actually in contempt of the parliament. They behaved like smart aleck teen agers provocatively flouting the law, defying the Speaker time after time; three of them even refused to leave the chamber when told to do so. Their self inflicted coup disgrace was bringing a cardboard cut out of the Prime Minister into the chamber to highlight his absence. This shows how little regard they have for their workplace and the people who put them there. The parliament is not the school yard. There are rules governing behaviour in the chamber – strict rules for non members in the gallery forbidding stunts and demonstrations – so that those on the floor of the house can do their job. When members on the floor of parliament start behaving as though they are at a demonstration, they are clearly in contempt of the parliament itself and the nation which elected it.
Deceitful arguments in parliamentary debates are one thing, but outright contempt of procedure suggests deeply disturbing possibilities. If things ever get seriously desperate in this country, it won’t be reds under the bed who make push come to shove.
In case someone is asking, What’s cardboard Kevin, here’s a quick outline of the incident, preceded by what led up to it.
Until this year, the federal parliament, when in session has sat four days a week. But from now on it’s five. Well, until the government realises what a stupid idea it is, anyway. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there is to be no Question Time on Fridays. What’s more, while back benchers are expected to be in the house, dealing with parliamentary business – though not necessarily in the chamber – ministers can be out doing other stuff. This is not just new, it is unexpected and arguably unconstitutional. And it’s not just the opposition who are contesting it. Pretty well every political commentator has had a go at it. Hopefully, the trainer wheels will come off and the new team on the treasury benches will realise that just because you’re the government doesn’t mean that you can do what you like. That said, there are ways of opposing such measures, and ways of demeaning yourself and the parliament, and on Friday 22/2/08 the opposition did the latter.
There has always been too much posturing on both sides of the house, leaving insufficient time for constructive dialogue between government and opposition. But the opposition’s behaviour on that day went way beyond posturing and was actually in contempt of the parliament. They behaved like smart aleck teen agers provocatively flouting the law, defying the Speaker time after time; three of them even refused to leave the chamber when told to do so. Their self inflicted coup disgrace was bringing a cardboard cut out of the Prime Minister into the chamber to highlight his absence. This shows how little regard they have for their workplace and the people who put them there. The parliament is not the school yard. There are rules governing behaviour in the chamber – strict rules for non members in the gallery forbidding stunts and demonstrations – so that those on the floor of the house can do their job. When members on the floor of parliament start behaving as though they are at a demonstration, they are clearly in contempt of the parliament itself and the nation which elected it.
Deceitful arguments in parliamentary debates are one thing, but outright contempt of procedure suggests deeply disturbing possibilities. If things ever get seriously desperate in this country, it won’t be reds under the bed who make push come to shove.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
Link to the Wharf Revue
Link to the Wharf Revue 2007
The Sydney Theatre Company puts on something called the Wharf Revue each year. In 2007 a federal election was looming when the production was staged. Listen, and die laughing. Of particular interest is the section by “Paul Keating”. Click on this link , ot copy and paste it to your web browser. It runs for an hour.
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/summer&d=rn/summer/2007/audio&r=sts_09012008_2856.ram&w=sts_09012008_28M.asx&t=Monday%2009%20January%202008&p=1
The Sydney Theatre Company puts on something called the Wharf Revue each year. In 2007 a federal election was looming when the production was staged. Listen, and die laughing. Of particular interest is the section by “Paul Keating”. Click on this link , ot copy and paste it to your web browser. It runs for an hour.
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/summer&d=rn/summer/2007/audio&r=sts_09012008_2856.ram&w=sts_09012008_28M.asx&t=Monday%2009%20January%202008&p=1
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Saturday, 14 July 2007
Did George Pell Threaten The NSW Parliament?
The case for the affirmative
In the lead up to the vote on therapeutic cloning legislation in the NSW Parliament, George Pell warned Catholic parliamentarians that a vote for the legislation would have consequences they might not like. This was all but universally interpreted as a threat to deny access to the sacraments – the Eucharist, in particular – or even excommunication. This was not an unreasonable inference. Not everyone would remember the confrontation Pell had with the Rainbow Sash movement, but those who do would be forgiven for thinking that Pel was preparing to fry bigger fish.
The case for the negative
As Pell himself has said, he did not explicitly say anything about denying access to the sacraments, much less excommunication, and therefore did not threaten anyone. Warning that consequences would flow from a vote for the legislation is no more than factually correct. For example, other Catholics who oppose the legislation might not vote in future for someone who supports the legislation in parliament. On the face of it supporters of Pell might claim that any threat is in the eye of the beholder, and that he cannot be held responsible for how other people interpret his words.
What’s it about?
Consider the Rainbow Sash issue. For anyone who doesn’t know, a group of gay Catholics in Sydney wanted it to be known that they were Catholic and gay. They wore rainbow sashes to identify themselves and were refused communion when they attended Mass. George Pell’s position was that standards had to be seen to be maintained. Homosexuality is declared by church doctrine to be a sin. Therefore anyone identifying as gay is not in communion with the faithful, and must be made to understand this by denying access to the sacrament of communion. Those who wore the rainbow sash wanted to draw attention to the fact that communion was available to gays who did not publicly acknowledge their sexuality. In their view this was hypocritical and had more to do with the exercise of power than discipleship. It became an issue after a long period of pastoral dialogue with gays, when some Bishops were not afraid to go on record as saying that being gay is like being left handed, and that the conscience of the gay person was the only judge of whether or not s/he was in communion with the faithful. Then, out of the blue, John Paul II declared that one cannot be gay and Catholic. It was at about this time that Pell made a point of saying that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. This is the critical issue for the vote on therapeutic cloning as well. Pell went on record again with the same assertion, after his statement about the consequences of voting for the legislation. So what it’s about is conscience vs power.
Blind Freddie’s verdict
It should come as no surprise that some, perhaps many, senior clerics don’t like the idea of the primacy of conscience. But lying about it is another matter. And the simple fact is that Pell is lying when he says that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. As a schoolboy I learned about the primacy of conscience from no less a source than the catechism. Since then there has been a general council of the church that, while not marginalising the clergy, enfranchised the laity in a way that required the proactive exercise of conscience.What is contestable is what the primacy of conscience means in practice. Some bishops have coped with this development in the relationship between clergy and laity. Others haven’t. Pell’s repudiation of gay = left handedness, and his attempt to assert his authority over the NSW parliament are manifestations of the same thing: his refusal to accept that people who do not agree with his views can have a properly formed conscience. He was always going to get away with taking a baseball bat to the Rainbow Sash movement, but throwing his weight around with other people in power was either very brave or very stupid – either way it was very poor leadership. It sets up the confrontation of contrary positions rather than facilitates dialogue between them. In the end whether he threatened the parliament or not will come down to the eye of the beholder. The privileges committee is likely to find itself unaccountably blind.
In the lead up to the vote on therapeutic cloning legislation in the NSW Parliament, George Pell warned Catholic parliamentarians that a vote for the legislation would have consequences they might not like. This was all but universally interpreted as a threat to deny access to the sacraments – the Eucharist, in particular – or even excommunication. This was not an unreasonable inference. Not everyone would remember the confrontation Pell had with the Rainbow Sash movement, but those who do would be forgiven for thinking that Pel was preparing to fry bigger fish.
The case for the negative
As Pell himself has said, he did not explicitly say anything about denying access to the sacraments, much less excommunication, and therefore did not threaten anyone. Warning that consequences would flow from a vote for the legislation is no more than factually correct. For example, other Catholics who oppose the legislation might not vote in future for someone who supports the legislation in parliament. On the face of it supporters of Pell might claim that any threat is in the eye of the beholder, and that he cannot be held responsible for how other people interpret his words.
What’s it about?
Consider the Rainbow Sash issue. For anyone who doesn’t know, a group of gay Catholics in Sydney wanted it to be known that they were Catholic and gay. They wore rainbow sashes to identify themselves and were refused communion when they attended Mass. George Pell’s position was that standards had to be seen to be maintained. Homosexuality is declared by church doctrine to be a sin. Therefore anyone identifying as gay is not in communion with the faithful, and must be made to understand this by denying access to the sacrament of communion. Those who wore the rainbow sash wanted to draw attention to the fact that communion was available to gays who did not publicly acknowledge their sexuality. In their view this was hypocritical and had more to do with the exercise of power than discipleship. It became an issue after a long period of pastoral dialogue with gays, when some Bishops were not afraid to go on record as saying that being gay is like being left handed, and that the conscience of the gay person was the only judge of whether or not s/he was in communion with the faithful. Then, out of the blue, John Paul II declared that one cannot be gay and Catholic. It was at about this time that Pell made a point of saying that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. This is the critical issue for the vote on therapeutic cloning as well. Pell went on record again with the same assertion, after his statement about the consequences of voting for the legislation. So what it’s about is conscience vs power.
Blind Freddie’s verdict
It should come as no surprise that some, perhaps many, senior clerics don’t like the idea of the primacy of conscience. But lying about it is another matter. And the simple fact is that Pell is lying when he says that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. As a schoolboy I learned about the primacy of conscience from no less a source than the catechism. Since then there has been a general council of the church that, while not marginalising the clergy, enfranchised the laity in a way that required the proactive exercise of conscience.What is contestable is what the primacy of conscience means in practice. Some bishops have coped with this development in the relationship between clergy and laity. Others haven’t. Pell’s repudiation of gay = left handedness, and his attempt to assert his authority over the NSW parliament are manifestations of the same thing: his refusal to accept that people who do not agree with his views can have a properly formed conscience. He was always going to get away with taking a baseball bat to the Rainbow Sash movement, but throwing his weight around with other people in power was either very brave or very stupid – either way it was very poor leadership. It sets up the confrontation of contrary positions rather than facilitates dialogue between them. In the end whether he threatened the parliament or not will come down to the eye of the beholder. The privileges committee is likely to find itself unaccountably blind.
Quantum Leap in Politics
[Like much of what gets posted this month, this is a bit late. It's a measure of how busy life can be when you are not working for pay.]
The Uncertainty Principal in action
How slow is Kevin Rudd? He’s confused by the discrepancy between what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister say about travel warnings for Indonesia. The PM says the situation hasn’t changed, yet the FM says it has.
C’mon Kevin, it’s not as though this is unprecedented. Wasn’t it only a week ago that Brendan Nelson, the Defence Minister, said we’re in Iraq to secure oil supplies? Yet the PM says oil has nothing to do with it.
Clearly politics has taken a Quantum Leap. Like Schrodinger’s cat which is both alive and not alive, policy issues in Australia are now This and Not This simultaneously. For example, there’s something called Work Choices, but there isn’t (well, not by that name, anyway). And it goes back a long way. We’ll never ever have a GST. But we’ve got it. It’s the Uncertainty Principle in action.
So Kevin, get with the strength. Don’t get bogged down in Green politics. The new wave is … well, Wave politics. No need for explicit promises, core or otherwise. Just give us a range of options on any issue – the more the better – and tell us that the Probability Wave will take care of the outcome according to the dynamics of the universe. But be sure to tell us that we can influence the dynamics of the universe. You know what I mean – the Secret – the Law of Attraction! Just tell us to want something – want something – and expect it to manifest.
No. On second thoughts, just stick to what you’re doing, because you’re doing really well, mate. John Howard is going to lose the next election, because he asked once too often: Who do people trust? The Uncertainty Principle is good in its place – which is the sub-atomic realm: not in politics.
The Uncertainty Principal in action
How slow is Kevin Rudd? He’s confused by the discrepancy between what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister say about travel warnings for Indonesia. The PM says the situation hasn’t changed, yet the FM says it has.
C’mon Kevin, it’s not as though this is unprecedented. Wasn’t it only a week ago that Brendan Nelson, the Defence Minister, said we’re in Iraq to secure oil supplies? Yet the PM says oil has nothing to do with it.
Clearly politics has taken a Quantum Leap. Like Schrodinger’s cat which is both alive and not alive, policy issues in Australia are now This and Not This simultaneously. For example, there’s something called Work Choices, but there isn’t (well, not by that name, anyway). And it goes back a long way. We’ll never ever have a GST. But we’ve got it. It’s the Uncertainty Principle in action.
So Kevin, get with the strength. Don’t get bogged down in Green politics. The new wave is … well, Wave politics. No need for explicit promises, core or otherwise. Just give us a range of options on any issue – the more the better – and tell us that the Probability Wave will take care of the outcome according to the dynamics of the universe. But be sure to tell us that we can influence the dynamics of the universe. You know what I mean – the Secret – the Law of Attraction! Just tell us to want something – want something – and expect it to manifest.
No. On second thoughts, just stick to what you’re doing, because you’re doing really well, mate. John Howard is going to lose the next election, because he asked once too often: Who do people trust? The Uncertainty Principle is good in its place – which is the sub-atomic realm: not in politics.
Friday, 13 July 2007
Embarrassing? Get real!
Not even a senior moment
Today John Howard forgot the name of a Liberal candidate in the upcoming election. This is being described in the media as “embarrassing”. And we are being reminded that Kim Beasley used the name of a public figure in the US when referring to an Australian television personality. Much was made of that too. It was even said to be the beginning of the end of Beasley’s leadership. To this is added the fact that Howard refused to hand over to Costello last year, and that as a result of today’s slip up, some people might be regretting he didn’t go when he was at the top of his game. Really! Why don’t people in the media who beat these things up get a real job – not to mention a life? The last thing I want to do here is to barrack for John Howard. But even I can’t stand back and hear such drivel without expressing my contempt for the drivellers. This really is a case of the eye of the beholder at work. Howard’s brief mental block is exactly the kind of thing that happens to everyone (not just seniors) from time to time. I was embarrassed last time it happened to me. I was introducing someone to a friend of long standing whose name escaped me at the exact moment I needed to introduce him to the newcomer. The embarrassment was only momentary, however, because all three of us recognised it for what it was and we all got on with our business. That’s how it should be with Howard’s lapse of memory today. Making it out to be a real embarrassment is what I call journalism, because, regrettably, that is what journalism has become. Oh sure, there’s some integrity around as well, but this sneering misrepresentation events, especially involving people in public life, is what makes the headlines most of the time. And I refuse to believe that it is we, the people, who “demand” such sleaze from the media. We would not complain if we got real reporting and analysis rather than sniping and simpering.
Today John Howard forgot the name of a Liberal candidate in the upcoming election. This is being described in the media as “embarrassing”. And we are being reminded that Kim Beasley used the name of a public figure in the US when referring to an Australian television personality. Much was made of that too. It was even said to be the beginning of the end of Beasley’s leadership. To this is added the fact that Howard refused to hand over to Costello last year, and that as a result of today’s slip up, some people might be regretting he didn’t go when he was at the top of his game. Really! Why don’t people in the media who beat these things up get a real job – not to mention a life? The last thing I want to do here is to barrack for John Howard. But even I can’t stand back and hear such drivel without expressing my contempt for the drivellers. This really is a case of the eye of the beholder at work. Howard’s brief mental block is exactly the kind of thing that happens to everyone (not just seniors) from time to time. I was embarrassed last time it happened to me. I was introducing someone to a friend of long standing whose name escaped me at the exact moment I needed to introduce him to the newcomer. The embarrassment was only momentary, however, because all three of us recognised it for what it was and we all got on with our business. That’s how it should be with Howard’s lapse of memory today. Making it out to be a real embarrassment is what I call journalism, because, regrettably, that is what journalism has become. Oh sure, there’s some integrity around as well, but this sneering misrepresentation events, especially involving people in public life, is what makes the headlines most of the time. And I refuse to believe that it is we, the people, who “demand” such sleaze from the media. We would not complain if we got real reporting and analysis rather than sniping and simpering.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Whose language?
A client nation in their own land. NOT.
There’s no plumbing the depth of this government’s ignorance. Actually that has to be a contradiction in terms. Something with depth enough to plumb would a thing of substance. The point here is that the measure of this government’s prescience is so shallow that it flickers on the surface of the country’s affairs. It is a mirage. The slightest shift in one’s line of sight and it disappears. It’s latest attempt to conjure an image of itself as getting things done (remember “practical reconciliation”?) is to declare that all Aboriginal children must learn English – the language of this country (sic!).
Some people never learn. Remember when Cathy Freeman carried two flags on her victory lap at the Commonwealth games? One was the Aboriginal flag. The other was the Blue Ensign – the flag that most people still to this day mistakenly think of the Australian flag. Mean spirited ignorant people berated her for having the Aboriginal flag with “the” Australian flag, wilfully ignoring the fact that there are at least ten Australian flags, one each for the states, territories and the Commonwealth, and the Aboriginal flag.
How many Australian languages are there? There used to be several hundred. But now the one spoken by the overwhelming majority of people living in Australia is English. That makes it an important language – not the Australian language.
Most of the languages spoken in this country before English arrived no longer exist. But those that do are spoken by people whose cultures have existed on this continent for tens of thousands of years. The cultural heritage value of those languages, if that is not too crass a way of putting it, is incalculable, and their maintenance is nothing less than a sacred trust. Those who are learning them at their mothers’ knees should be groomed in the manner a young Dali Lama. Yet all this government can do is threaten to withhold resources from people if they do not do things the way the government wants them done.
Lets be clear about one thing here: everyone living in this country should have the opportunity to prosper. Learning English would indeed be a good thing, and every effort should be made to provide that opportunity for all who are not proficient at English. But there is a an unbridgeable gulf between that position, and regarding indigenous people as wilfully recalcitrant in preferring their ways to white fella ways, and holding their very existence to ransom. Far from being people who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into white fella ways, Aborigines have an inalienable right to self determination, and Australian governments have an unequivocal obligation to foster that outcome and lead all other Australians in accommodating it and adapting to it rather than coopting ignorant and ill-informed prejudices for electoral advantage.
The way to get Aboriginal children to learn English is to value and support their culture; value them for who they are, and to support them in their most important task – being Aboriginal – and offering English as an additional language that will make them bilingual, and therefore significantly more skilled that the majority of the population who are monolingual; and provide an opportunity to play a vital role in the education of the non indigenous population.
Why wouldn’t the rest of us aspire to be bilingual as well, and learn the truth about the continent we occupy? Why wouldn’t we learn one or more of the most ancient surviving languages on earth and embrace the opportunity to know this country from the inside by learning languages that name its seasons and topography with an authority and subtlety that comes from relationships sustained over scores of millennia, instead of remaining uncomprehending, if sometimes fascinated and very possibly temporary occupiers?
This is not something anyone in this government is capable of thinking about - let alone contemplating. It’s a government that knows only the language of the bottom line – which may be another way for saying the lowest common denominator. Treating Aborigines as a client nation in their own land is as despicable an act as it is possible to imagine – especially in the light of what the world has learned about the importance of and need for human diversity in the era of decolonisation. It’s not too late to decolonise Australia. Non indigenous Australians can learn to become of the land, and we have the very best teachers available – and the language to mediate that outcome.
There’s no plumbing the depth of this government’s ignorance. Actually that has to be a contradiction in terms. Something with depth enough to plumb would a thing of substance. The point here is that the measure of this government’s prescience is so shallow that it flickers on the surface of the country’s affairs. It is a mirage. The slightest shift in one’s line of sight and it disappears. It’s latest attempt to conjure an image of itself as getting things done (remember “practical reconciliation”?) is to declare that all Aboriginal children must learn English – the language of this country (sic!).
Some people never learn. Remember when Cathy Freeman carried two flags on her victory lap at the Commonwealth games? One was the Aboriginal flag. The other was the Blue Ensign – the flag that most people still to this day mistakenly think of the Australian flag. Mean spirited ignorant people berated her for having the Aboriginal flag with “the” Australian flag, wilfully ignoring the fact that there are at least ten Australian flags, one each for the states, territories and the Commonwealth, and the Aboriginal flag.
How many Australian languages are there? There used to be several hundred. But now the one spoken by the overwhelming majority of people living in Australia is English. That makes it an important language – not the Australian language.
Most of the languages spoken in this country before English arrived no longer exist. But those that do are spoken by people whose cultures have existed on this continent for tens of thousands of years. The cultural heritage value of those languages, if that is not too crass a way of putting it, is incalculable, and their maintenance is nothing less than a sacred trust. Those who are learning them at their mothers’ knees should be groomed in the manner a young Dali Lama. Yet all this government can do is threaten to withhold resources from people if they do not do things the way the government wants them done.
Lets be clear about one thing here: everyone living in this country should have the opportunity to prosper. Learning English would indeed be a good thing, and every effort should be made to provide that opportunity for all who are not proficient at English. But there is a an unbridgeable gulf between that position, and regarding indigenous people as wilfully recalcitrant in preferring their ways to white fella ways, and holding their very existence to ransom. Far from being people who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into white fella ways, Aborigines have an inalienable right to self determination, and Australian governments have an unequivocal obligation to foster that outcome and lead all other Australians in accommodating it and adapting to it rather than coopting ignorant and ill-informed prejudices for electoral advantage.
The way to get Aboriginal children to learn English is to value and support their culture; value them for who they are, and to support them in their most important task – being Aboriginal – and offering English as an additional language that will make them bilingual, and therefore significantly more skilled that the majority of the population who are monolingual; and provide an opportunity to play a vital role in the education of the non indigenous population.
Why wouldn’t the rest of us aspire to be bilingual as well, and learn the truth about the continent we occupy? Why wouldn’t we learn one or more of the most ancient surviving languages on earth and embrace the opportunity to know this country from the inside by learning languages that name its seasons and topography with an authority and subtlety that comes from relationships sustained over scores of millennia, instead of remaining uncomprehending, if sometimes fascinated and very possibly temporary occupiers?
This is not something anyone in this government is capable of thinking about - let alone contemplating. It’s a government that knows only the language of the bottom line – which may be another way for saying the lowest common denominator. Treating Aborigines as a client nation in their own land is as despicable an act as it is possible to imagine – especially in the light of what the world has learned about the importance of and need for human diversity in the era of decolonisation. It’s not too late to decolonise Australia. Non indigenous Australians can learn to become of the land, and we have the very best teachers available – and the language to mediate that outcome.
Friday, 25 May 2007
Welcome back (to the real world) Mal
Who can learn from whom?
What does it take for people to see that others do not share their values and priorities? Mal Brough is staggered that the Alice Springs town camp people have rejected $60 million to redevelop their housing because they do not want to lose control over their land. He sees squalor and no possibility of the kind of future he thinks would benefit them. They see the loss of the most fundamental underpinning of indigenous identity, and the kind of future that zealous outsiders promise but never deliver. And zealous outsider certainly describes Mal Brough.
He seems to have learned his policy development and implementation at the Neocon Academy. Remember the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? We’ll go in, throw our weight around, get rid of the dictator, and the people will rush to thank us and take up the democratic ways that we have on offer. Brough leaped into the Aboriginal affairs arena with all the grace of an ignorant ideologue swinging his big stick at Aboriginal communities and the NT government, as though the tortuous relationship between indigenous and white interests in the Territory was some sort of game that both sides were playing and could – would and must – stop at his insistence.
God knows the problems he is addressing are serious and require radical measures. But resuming the nineteenth century White Man’s Burdon approach – which didn’t work then – is never going to work. In fact, what is required is so radical, that no one in the government is capable of grasping it, and no one in the alternative government will have the guts to undertake it.
What’s required here is the same as what’s needed on a global scale to deal with global warming: justice. Not law, but justice – sustainable relationships. Taking what we are not entitled to is the problem. Taking a standard of living (as distinct from having a quality of life) that threatens the viability of the planet is the root cause of global warming. Yet this government is adamant: no measures will be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions that threaten the economy. See what I mean by no one in this government being capable of seeing what needs to be done? What needs to be done involves taking significant risks, including the possibility of a smaller economy, in order to lessen the likelihood of much greater catastrophe. Giving something up is also what is required of White Fella culture in order to bring justice to our relationship with Aboriginal Australians.
Other government ministers as well as than Brough have pontificated on the unsustainability of isolated Aboriginal communities. It’s always the they who have to give something up. Give up your land, we’re here to make it productive. Give up your way of life, we’re here to make you like us. Give up your title, we’re here to dig holes in your land. Give up your dreaming, we’re here to be your nightmare. Give up your hope of ever having justice, we’re here to take what you can’t stop us taking. Oh, and by the way, here’s $60 million. But to have it you’ve got to do things our way. Don’t ever expect us to think that we might have something to learn from you. This is our land now and we’ll do our damndest with it.
Mal Brough had quite a trip - flight of fantasy - for a while, throwing his weight around, like a minister from a government with a Sense Of Destiny, to the point where he came to believe his own propaganda. He'd make an offer no one, in his estimation, would refuse, and be hailed as the great transformer. Well, they did refuse - to his chagrin and utter bewilderment. Clearly these people are beyond his estimation - not like anything he can imagine. They knocked back a inducement to betray their existence as indigenous inhabitants of this land. Icarus crashed. Back in the real world he now has a choice. Treat the people who have surprised the hell out of him as idiots; or sit down with them, admit that he hasn’t got a clue, say he's sorry, and ask them to tell him what they want. It’s that simple.
What does it take for people to see that others do not share their values and priorities? Mal Brough is staggered that the Alice Springs town camp people have rejected $60 million to redevelop their housing because they do not want to lose control over their land. He sees squalor and no possibility of the kind of future he thinks would benefit them. They see the loss of the most fundamental underpinning of indigenous identity, and the kind of future that zealous outsiders promise but never deliver. And zealous outsider certainly describes Mal Brough.
He seems to have learned his policy development and implementation at the Neocon Academy. Remember the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? We’ll go in, throw our weight around, get rid of the dictator, and the people will rush to thank us and take up the democratic ways that we have on offer. Brough leaped into the Aboriginal affairs arena with all the grace of an ignorant ideologue swinging his big stick at Aboriginal communities and the NT government, as though the tortuous relationship between indigenous and white interests in the Territory was some sort of game that both sides were playing and could – would and must – stop at his insistence.
God knows the problems he is addressing are serious and require radical measures. But resuming the nineteenth century White Man’s Burdon approach – which didn’t work then – is never going to work. In fact, what is required is so radical, that no one in the government is capable of grasping it, and no one in the alternative government will have the guts to undertake it.
What’s required here is the same as what’s needed on a global scale to deal with global warming: justice. Not law, but justice – sustainable relationships. Taking what we are not entitled to is the problem. Taking a standard of living (as distinct from having a quality of life) that threatens the viability of the planet is the root cause of global warming. Yet this government is adamant: no measures will be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions that threaten the economy. See what I mean by no one in this government being capable of seeing what needs to be done? What needs to be done involves taking significant risks, including the possibility of a smaller economy, in order to lessen the likelihood of much greater catastrophe. Giving something up is also what is required of White Fella culture in order to bring justice to our relationship with Aboriginal Australians.
Other government ministers as well as than Brough have pontificated on the unsustainability of isolated Aboriginal communities. It’s always the they who have to give something up. Give up your land, we’re here to make it productive. Give up your way of life, we’re here to make you like us. Give up your title, we’re here to dig holes in your land. Give up your dreaming, we’re here to be your nightmare. Give up your hope of ever having justice, we’re here to take what you can’t stop us taking. Oh, and by the way, here’s $60 million. But to have it you’ve got to do things our way. Don’t ever expect us to think that we might have something to learn from you. This is our land now and we’ll do our damndest with it.
Mal Brough had quite a trip - flight of fantasy - for a while, throwing his weight around, like a minister from a government with a Sense Of Destiny, to the point where he came to believe his own propaganda. He'd make an offer no one, in his estimation, would refuse, and be hailed as the great transformer. Well, they did refuse - to his chagrin and utter bewilderment. Clearly these people are beyond his estimation - not like anything he can imagine. They knocked back a inducement to betray their existence as indigenous inhabitants of this land. Icarus crashed. Back in the real world he now has a choice. Treat the people who have surprised the hell out of him as idiots; or sit down with them, admit that he hasn’t got a clue, say he's sorry, and ask them to tell him what they want. It’s that simple.
Copping it sour
People of the Lie
John Howard accused the script writers of Bastard Boys and McLeod’s Daughters of bias. In relation Boys it would be impossible to pick out any particular incident that illustrated his point. The show hadn’t even finished before people inclined to see it as biased were writing to editors all over Australia. It certainly made me feel proud of the role of unions in Australia, so it is not surprising that it made some people feel uncomfortable. But does that make it biased? In Daughters it was specifically the scene when the new owner of the truck stop told his mechanic he was fired, but offered him another job on an Australian Workplace Agreement. The mechanic heroically told him where to stick it, and his girlfriend rightly said, You can’t do that. To which the owner replied, I think you’ll find that I can. He then did the divide and conquer thing by offering the girlfriend the mechanic’s job, which she rejected, at first but then, less heroically, accepted, albeit on a limited basis, illustrating the vulnerability of people in the workplace to management thuggery. I say that this was management thuggery and that the girlfriend was right above because government commentators asserted that what the owner did would have been illegal under Work Choices. I’m happy to take their word for that. But that doesn’t mean that such things do not go on.
If government groupies were watching on Friday night (18/5/07) they would have seen Jean Price aca Penelope Keith make an excoriating remark in No job for a lady about nuclear as anything but a clean option for power, the more insidious because “you can’t see the dirt.” I guess that makes the BBC is biased against the Howard government too.
Ridiculous? Yes. As ridiculous as the government’s position on Boys and Daughters. What are they saying? You can’t make reference in a popular television programme to issues of significance in the community? No? Then, that it is unacceptable to misrepresent those issues? See Management Thuggery below on whether or not Daughters misrepresented what actually goes on in some workplaces in Byron Shire, for example.
Taken at face value, the government is behaving like a bunch of cry-babies. Even if they had a case, copping it sweet would do more to prove their worth than whining. But I don’t believe their snivelling is actually genuine. They’re using an old trick made infamous in the 1930s: Lie through your teeth – the bigger the lie the better – and some people will fall into line, not because they’re stupid but because it suits them. That is to say, the hearers know that what is being said is a lie and don’t actually believe it. But the simple fact that the statement is out there, and can be said to be true, justifies their acting as though it were true.
Now let’s get something straight. On the scale of possible lies – compared with children overboard, for example – this accusation of bias in a couple of TV programs that just happen to occur in the same week is pretty small fry. But it is how it fits into a consistent pattern of behaviour that matters here.
The government knows that the accusation of bias is ridiculous. They’re not that stupid. Deceitful, yes. But stupid? No. They’re making the accusation because they have nothing to offer. They’re on the ropes, and they are fighting foul. Foul because the deliberate use of lies gives people so disposed license to do likewise. It’s one thing to do what ever it takes to stay in power. But what sort of leadership is that? What kind of country are we becoming in order to keep this government in power? What does it benefit a government to gain another term in office but lose the soul of the country?
John Howard claims to be the better economic manager on offer in the upcoming election. Let’s suppose for a moment that he’s right. So what? Being the best economic manager may not be the best qualification for leading the country. Economics is about money. Right? And money, despite recent assertions to the contrary by Richard Dawkins, is the root of all evil. Right? And the biggest evil of all is to lie.
John Howard accused the script writers of Bastard Boys and McLeod’s Daughters of bias. In relation Boys it would be impossible to pick out any particular incident that illustrated his point. The show hadn’t even finished before people inclined to see it as biased were writing to editors all over Australia. It certainly made me feel proud of the role of unions in Australia, so it is not surprising that it made some people feel uncomfortable. But does that make it biased? In Daughters it was specifically the scene when the new owner of the truck stop told his mechanic he was fired, but offered him another job on an Australian Workplace Agreement. The mechanic heroically told him where to stick it, and his girlfriend rightly said, You can’t do that. To which the owner replied, I think you’ll find that I can. He then did the divide and conquer thing by offering the girlfriend the mechanic’s job, which she rejected, at first but then, less heroically, accepted, albeit on a limited basis, illustrating the vulnerability of people in the workplace to management thuggery. I say that this was management thuggery and that the girlfriend was right above because government commentators asserted that what the owner did would have been illegal under Work Choices. I’m happy to take their word for that. But that doesn’t mean that such things do not go on.
If government groupies were watching on Friday night (18/5/07) they would have seen Jean Price aca Penelope Keith make an excoriating remark in No job for a lady about nuclear as anything but a clean option for power, the more insidious because “you can’t see the dirt.” I guess that makes the BBC is biased against the Howard government too.
Ridiculous? Yes. As ridiculous as the government’s position on Boys and Daughters. What are they saying? You can’t make reference in a popular television programme to issues of significance in the community? No? Then, that it is unacceptable to misrepresent those issues? See Management Thuggery below on whether or not Daughters misrepresented what actually goes on in some workplaces in Byron Shire, for example.
Taken at face value, the government is behaving like a bunch of cry-babies. Even if they had a case, copping it sweet would do more to prove their worth than whining. But I don’t believe their snivelling is actually genuine. They’re using an old trick made infamous in the 1930s: Lie through your teeth – the bigger the lie the better – and some people will fall into line, not because they’re stupid but because it suits them. That is to say, the hearers know that what is being said is a lie and don’t actually believe it. But the simple fact that the statement is out there, and can be said to be true, justifies their acting as though it were true.
Now let’s get something straight. On the scale of possible lies – compared with children overboard, for example – this accusation of bias in a couple of TV programs that just happen to occur in the same week is pretty small fry. But it is how it fits into a consistent pattern of behaviour that matters here.
The government knows that the accusation of bias is ridiculous. They’re not that stupid. Deceitful, yes. But stupid? No. They’re making the accusation because they have nothing to offer. They’re on the ropes, and they are fighting foul. Foul because the deliberate use of lies gives people so disposed license to do likewise. It’s one thing to do what ever it takes to stay in power. But what sort of leadership is that? What kind of country are we becoming in order to keep this government in power? What does it benefit a government to gain another term in office but lose the soul of the country?
John Howard claims to be the better economic manager on offer in the upcoming election. Let’s suppose for a moment that he’s right. So what? Being the best economic manager may not be the best qualification for leading the country. Economics is about money. Right? And money, despite recent assertions to the contrary by Richard Dawkins, is the root of all evil. Right? And the biggest evil of all is to lie.
Management Thuggery
If I don't do it for peanuts some other monkey will
In an episode of McLeod’s Daughters the new owner of the truck stop sacks his mechanic and then immediately offers him another job on an Australian Workplace Agreement. The mechanic tells the owner where to stick it and his girlfriend protests: You can’t do that. The owner replies: I think you will find that I can. He then offers her the position. She refuses, at first, but then, in spite of knowing how taking the job undermines her boyfriend’s position, accepts the job, albeit on a limited basis, illustrating the vulnerability of workers to management thuggery.
John Howard objected to this, calling it biased, and another government spokesman said that the incident misrepresented government workplace relations policy (he dared not speak it’s name: Work Choices) saying that what the owner did would be illegal under the said policy. The implication being that, because it would be illegal, it wouldn’t happen, and therefore the incident in the episode was unfair to the government.
What’s with these people? Are they so far up their own fundament that they really do not know what’s going on; or do they think we’re stupid? Let me recount two incidents in Byron Shire, and give an account of a trend among some employers that the government ought to be worried about.
A twenty-something chef told me on day that he’s scored a job in charge of the kitchen at a fairly notable eatery in the shire. He was telling me about it because he know I would be able to tell him how to get an ABN. An ABN? I queried. Are you running the kitchen as your own business? No. He wasn’t running the business, but he was being paid as a contractor. Oh, a contractor, I returned. How much did you negotiate as an hourly rate? No. He didn’t negotiate anything. They offered him $10.00 an hour. $10.00 an hour! I shouted. Are you serious? Yes. He was serious. Maaaaate! I said. When you’re working as a contractor you’re supposed to negotiate a rate. You’ve got to pay yourself superannuation; take out your own work cover; and if you damage any equipment in the course of your work, you’re responsible for it. Oh, and by the way, you also get to pay your own tax out of your princely $10.00 an hour as well. He didn’t want to know. If he didn’t take what was on offer, someone else would.
The second example was a not-yet-twenty young tearaway who triumphantly announced that he’d escaped the dire prospect of learning how to find a job when his mate’s dad offered him work on his building site. You’ve got your green card, then? I queried. Nah! He said. I was told I didn’t need one, but I have to get an ABN. I patiently explained the problem to him. If Work Cover sprung a surprise inspection, his mate’s dad will be in big trouble; and so will he. Working with an ABN means he would be a contractor, not entitled to superannuation, responsible for his own Work Cover and insurance – and tax. I won’t be paying tax, he said. Everyone on the job gets cash. And when you get sprung by the tax department – what then? Shoulders shrugged; eyes glazed over.
I could recount scores of examples, especially if I pumped my very well informed contacts. I won’t claim these cases are typical. But they are not rare. And here’s the worst part. Employers who engage in such criminal practices (by no means all employers – just far too many of them) meet from time to time to discuss the growing number of ways they can rip off vulnerable people. No one keeps minutes of course. You’d have to wonder why, wouldn’t you.
The government would probably claim that no amount of legislation will stop criminals from being criminals, nor protect people who can’t be bothered looking after their own interests – that the examples I gave would happen regardless of what the law was; and that the overwhelming majority of employers would protect their own interests by never stooping to such vile extremes. So why it is necessary to introduce a “fairness test” to the industrial relations package formally known as Work Choices?
In an episode of McLeod’s Daughters the new owner of the truck stop sacks his mechanic and then immediately offers him another job on an Australian Workplace Agreement. The mechanic tells the owner where to stick it and his girlfriend protests: You can’t do that. The owner replies: I think you will find that I can. He then offers her the position. She refuses, at first, but then, in spite of knowing how taking the job undermines her boyfriend’s position, accepts the job, albeit on a limited basis, illustrating the vulnerability of workers to management thuggery.
John Howard objected to this, calling it biased, and another government spokesman said that the incident misrepresented government workplace relations policy (he dared not speak it’s name: Work Choices) saying that what the owner did would be illegal under the said policy. The implication being that, because it would be illegal, it wouldn’t happen, and therefore the incident in the episode was unfair to the government.
What’s with these people? Are they so far up their own fundament that they really do not know what’s going on; or do they think we’re stupid? Let me recount two incidents in Byron Shire, and give an account of a trend among some employers that the government ought to be worried about.
A twenty-something chef told me on day that he’s scored a job in charge of the kitchen at a fairly notable eatery in the shire. He was telling me about it because he know I would be able to tell him how to get an ABN. An ABN? I queried. Are you running the kitchen as your own business? No. He wasn’t running the business, but he was being paid as a contractor. Oh, a contractor, I returned. How much did you negotiate as an hourly rate? No. He didn’t negotiate anything. They offered him $10.00 an hour. $10.00 an hour! I shouted. Are you serious? Yes. He was serious. Maaaaate! I said. When you’re working as a contractor you’re supposed to negotiate a rate. You’ve got to pay yourself superannuation; take out your own work cover; and if you damage any equipment in the course of your work, you’re responsible for it. Oh, and by the way, you also get to pay your own tax out of your princely $10.00 an hour as well. He didn’t want to know. If he didn’t take what was on offer, someone else would.
The second example was a not-yet-twenty young tearaway who triumphantly announced that he’d escaped the dire prospect of learning how to find a job when his mate’s dad offered him work on his building site. You’ve got your green card, then? I queried. Nah! He said. I was told I didn’t need one, but I have to get an ABN. I patiently explained the problem to him. If Work Cover sprung a surprise inspection, his mate’s dad will be in big trouble; and so will he. Working with an ABN means he would be a contractor, not entitled to superannuation, responsible for his own Work Cover and insurance – and tax. I won’t be paying tax, he said. Everyone on the job gets cash. And when you get sprung by the tax department – what then? Shoulders shrugged; eyes glazed over.
I could recount scores of examples, especially if I pumped my very well informed contacts. I won’t claim these cases are typical. But they are not rare. And here’s the worst part. Employers who engage in such criminal practices (by no means all employers – just far too many of them) meet from time to time to discuss the growing number of ways they can rip off vulnerable people. No one keeps minutes of course. You’d have to wonder why, wouldn’t you.
The government would probably claim that no amount of legislation will stop criminals from being criminals, nor protect people who can’t be bothered looking after their own interests – that the examples I gave would happen regardless of what the law was; and that the overwhelming majority of employers would protect their own interests by never stooping to such vile extremes. So why it is necessary to introduce a “fairness test” to the industrial relations package formally known as Work Choices?
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Who’s got the biggest …?
Jason Koutsoukis on John Howard on John Howard as Mr Experience
John Howard recently claimed to be the leader with credible experience to be elected as Prime Minister at the upcoming election.
Jason Koutsoukis took a look and wrote up his findings in The Age. On 6/5/2007.
The link below will take you directly to it.
It’s seriously worth reading – especially if you like John Howard and intend to vote for him later this year.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2007/05/05/1177788462755.html
Please note – The Age newspaper has given permission to put this link in this post. The Age is in no way connected with this blog or its author.
John Howard recently claimed to be the leader with credible experience to be elected as Prime Minister at the upcoming election.
Jason Koutsoukis took a look and wrote up his findings in The Age. On 6/5/2007.
The link below will take you directly to it.
It’s seriously worth reading – especially if you like John Howard and intend to vote for him later this year.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2007/05/05/1177788462755.html
Please note – The Age newspaper has given permission to put this link in this post. The Age is in no way connected with this blog or its author.
How Could he?
Prime Minister Fails Leadership Test
If there was ever any doubt about what sort of man John Howard is, it’s become clear in the last little while in his response to two incidents.
The first was his initial comment that it was up to Big Bad Heff whether or not to apologise to Julia Gillard for badmouthing her in a way that was all but universally condemned by everyone else – and then telling his henchman to roll over when it became clear that he’d badly misjudged the public mood. He showed his real colours and then tried to camouflage them.
Then yesterday (14/5/07) he defended a Sydney newspaper’s headline How could she? about the mother who (presumably) abandoned her child at a hospital door. It’s what most people would say said the Prime Minister.
Never mind that people who said that would be wrong and could do with a bit of leadership. John Howard not only showed what a coarse mindset he has, but failed the leadership test dismally on both counts.
If there was ever any doubt about what sort of man John Howard is, it’s become clear in the last little while in his response to two incidents.
The first was his initial comment that it was up to Big Bad Heff whether or not to apologise to Julia Gillard for badmouthing her in a way that was all but universally condemned by everyone else – and then telling his henchman to roll over when it became clear that he’d badly misjudged the public mood. He showed his real colours and then tried to camouflage them.
Then yesterday (14/5/07) he defended a Sydney newspaper’s headline How could she? about the mother who (presumably) abandoned her child at a hospital door. It’s what most people would say said the Prime Minister.
Never mind that people who said that would be wrong and could do with a bit of leadership. John Howard not only showed what a coarse mindset he has, but failed the leadership test dismally on both counts.
Thursday, 10 May 2007
ZIMBABWE – How come anyone’s still asking?
Should the undisputed champions of World Cricket be going to Zimbabwe? Is sport just sport and nothing else? Well, tobacco companies are just tobacco companies. They make products people want to buy. They’re just giving people what they want. What’s wrong with that? Going to Zimbabwe in the present circumstances would be like turning up at the Holocaust Deniers conference in Tehran to give a paper demonstrating that the Holocaust did occur, claiming that academic activity is just academic activity.
But there’s this other problem isn’t there. If the Australian team doesn’t go they’ll be fined $2 million. So? By whom? The International Cricket Council? Who the hell are they in any scheme of things that actuall matter? There’s a really simple solution to this. Two actually. The first one is to kick Zimbabwe out of the international cricket community. Then there’d be no need to go and no fine to pay. Can’t be done? Then here’s Plan B. Pull out of international cricket as it is presently constituted and start again. Who’s in a better position to do that right now than Australia - the undisputed masters of the cricket universe?
Why are you sneering? Hasn’t Australia done exactly that on the gravest moral issue facing the planet today? The Australian government refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and has rallied it big mates to an alternative response. Compared with Global Warming getting cricket sorted out should be a synch.
But there’s this other problem isn’t there. If the Australian team doesn’t go they’ll be fined $2 million. So? By whom? The International Cricket Council? Who the hell are they in any scheme of things that actuall matter? There’s a really simple solution to this. Two actually. The first one is to kick Zimbabwe out of the international cricket community. Then there’d be no need to go and no fine to pay. Can’t be done? Then here’s Plan B. Pull out of international cricket as it is presently constituted and start again. Who’s in a better position to do that right now than Australia - the undisputed masters of the cricket universe?
Why are you sneering? Hasn’t Australia done exactly that on the gravest moral issue facing the planet today? The Australian government refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and has rallied it big mates to an alternative response. Compared with Global Warming getting cricket sorted out should be a synch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)