Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
Brendan Nelson says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has not apologised for the actions of Labor staffers who turned their backs on the Federal Opposition Leader as he delivered his response at yesterday’s apology to the Stolen Generations.
Perhaps Rudd should apologise to him… in eleven years’ time.
Elsewhere: James Farrell at Troppo on Nelson’s “apology”.
Update: Possum on Nelson.
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
There he goes again!
Firstly, how was the PM to know what his staff were doing in another place.
Secondly, this is sadly reminiscent of the Admiral’s insistence that a couple of days before the apology was to be delivered, HE was the most important person for the PM to consult with. I posted a link to the Admiral’s radio interview that day.
I agree with Jack R that we should endeavour to show compassion and tolerance towards the Admiral, trapped between a rock and a hard place as he is. And I did hear his voice crack with emotion yesterday… but
i) his contribution was very poor compared with the PM’s superb speech, and
(ii) he now seizes on a personal slight as a way of shifting the focus from his shabby words, thereby
(iii) making an even bigger fool of himself
Remember the ground rules kids. The actions of a couple of staffers (one was answering his phone wasn’t he?) is a disgrace, and leaves Rudd with no option but to resign.
Wilson Tuckey et al are of course off topic and their allegedly appalling behaviour should not be mentioned.
Let’s begin shall we?
Has Brendan Nelson apologised for Wilson Tuckeys performance? For the absence of Don Randall and others? For Chris Pierce and his magazine reading performance?
One thing I can say with confidence about Dr Nelson: he doesn’t have a small ego.
Don’t forget this Nelson quote from last Sunday:
Small man, big head. An ugly look, but a sadly familiar one.
And Tonee was out there defending his leader, of ego all over the face, reminding us all of yesterdays mens’ ugliness.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2162229.htm
Can the Libs please put someone decent into the job?
I mean, I love it that the Libs are such easy targets these days – it’s still kinda refreshing.
But Kev will screw it completely unless kept on track by a decent opposition (like Howard did whilst Labor was useless).
Wilson Tuckey et al are of course off topic and their allegedly appalling behaviour should not be mentioned.
Wilson Tuckey et al did not support elements of the apology, but rather than detract from the dignity of the moment, made themselves absent to allow the motion to pass unanimously.
Rudd’s staffers (and a large group of activists around the country) did not support elements of Nelson’s apology response, but felt it necessary to loudly and obnoxiously detract from the dignity of the moment, making the main story of the day the ‘Nelson controversy’, and NOT the apology.
Who is most at fault? Who is least committed to ‘reconciliation’ and more interested in ALP triumphalism?
Yup, Tuckey’s profoundly eccentric sonorous high-volume slo-mo Lord’s Prayer before he scarpered, and Chris Pearce’s infantile performance, were both the height of dignity.
The only person who made the ‘Nelson controversy’ was Nelson, with “help” from his fractured and disarrayed party. And no, it wasn’t the main story of the day.
The first report I heard of the staffers’ behaviour included the information that they’d been ‘counselled’ (!) and told by Rudd to apologise to Nelson in writing pronto. What more does he want?
Yup, Tuckey’s profoundly eccentric sonorous high-volume slo-mo Lord’s Prayer before he scarpered, and Chris Pearce’s infantile performance, were both the height of dignity.
Not really, especially Chris Pearce’s pathetic effort. However it would have been a much lower point of dignity if they had dissented from the motion, or turned their backs while Rudd spoke.
Why should Rudd apologise?
- He didn’t do it, somebody else did it
- They mostly had good intentions
- It’s all in the past anyway
- If he did apologise, it could lead to claims for financial compensations
- Apologising won’t solve anything
- It didn’t happen
I think that just about covers it.
A colleague reckons The Admiral is not long for the job. She thinks Viscount Turnbull’s the chap, and believes he’ll soon have it.
What think you? The Viscount has ego aplenty, but would he show more restraint? (I certainly think he’d have done a better job of speaking with decency and compassion on Feb 13, than The Admiral.) Would the Liberals be better off making a quick switch, or do they prefer to watch The Admiral fiddling around with sundry petards awhile?
I’m referring to the majority of his MP’s, not the Absentees of Feb 13th.
Their actions flouted the Prime Minister’s bipartisan theme for the day, and an angry Mr Rudd later told Parliament that both men had been counselled. “The two individuals … will be corresponding with the Leader of the Opposition to extend an appropriate apology,” he said.
Rudd was very pissed at the staffers behaviour, evidently.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/rudd-staff-rebuked-for-shunning-nelson/2008/02/13/1202760430957.htmlFrom the Brisbane TImes: "In his letter to Dr Nelson, Mr Harris said: "My decision to not remain facing the screen was ill considered and not in the spirit of the day. I did not show you the respect you deserved whilst making a significant speech to the Parliament.
"I am truly sorry that my behaviour detracted from the significance of the events … My behaviour was entirely inappropriate and I apologise to you unreservedly."
Mr Gleason wrote: "My behaviour was unacceptable in any circumstances, let alone on a day of such significance."
Ambigulous – my view is that the conservatives will hold on tooth and nail to whatever influence they can, and the party be damned. Thus Turnbull would have to make a real fight of it, and would need to mount a purge of sorts to assert leadership any more meaningful than Nelson’s has been.
It’s got to happen soon though, because I don’t know how much patience the Viscount has for sitting in the wings.
sorry – screwed up the cut and paste. The link goes first.
It took me a second to figure out who Ambigulous is talking about in referring to the Admiral. (yeah, yeah, I’ve just given up caffeine.) Makes sense and is amusing but the Georgian scholar in me is horrified at the traducing of the man Tennyson called “the greatest sailor since our world began.”
Brendan, on behalf of my fellow Australians, I’m sorry. I’m sorry you hijacked the event. I’m sorry you don’t have the courage to do ‘what’s right’. I’m sorry you’re the leader of the alternative government. Heck, I’m even sorry you’re an Australian. Brendan, I’m truly, deeply sorry.
Sorry L,
I owe that term to another poster. Let him step out of the shadows and bloody well own up!
Yes, you!!
Ten lashes.
Her Majesty’s Vessel “Forgotten People”
Officers:
Admiral Nelson (not yet Lord)
Viscount Turnbull
Former Cap’n:
Cap’n Howard, Lord Warden of the Sunk in Ports
Religious:
Julie the Bishop
Young Tony the Abbott
Rev Tuckey of the Lord’s Prayer
Pretenders:
ex-Quatermaster Costello [in exile]
Bo’sun Downer [ooooh he always was SUCH a pretender!!]
Crew:
Mirabella the Lovely Lady on the Prow
etc
I am sort of glad that Wilson and his idiot mates headed off into the wilderness – it really highlighted (highlit?) what anachronisms they actually are. I think it was five pollies who boycotted the speech – five from one hundred and fifty. That is probably the level of support for their actions in the community too – about 3 1/2 per cent of people are actively against what was done yesterday. For everyone else, the day was an affirmation of the values that this nation stands for. Let Brendan continue with his petulance – the rest of the country can feel great about the things that we stand for – and have turned our backs on.
On reflection, I think Nelson was completely ungracious given the significance of the event, and the effect he clearly knew his speech would have on people, black and white. – cf interview on 9’s Today program. Clearly Howard’s ghost still lingers. Earth to Brendan- you lost the election. You’re not PM. Your coalition of mean-minded racist heartless bastards was roundly rejected by the Australian people last November. Your Messiah lost his seat. Get over it, mate.
I also agree that Nelson should not be called the Admiral. Its an insult to Horatio and the Brits.
not even in jest?
It was supposed to be sarcastic….
Brendan Nelson Lookalike Contest: to Find A Good Nickname.
Brenda ?? (nuh, used by “Private Eye” long ago for HM The Queen)
Half ?? (as in Half Nelson… but shurely that’s still overstating his worth, ?)
Update: Possum on Nelson.
Thought I’d just mention, since the apology thread has been closed by the disgusting strocchi, that I have a little private blog (contradiction in terms I know) which some of my Japanese friends read (it’s in a mixture of English and Japanese). I have hunted down the official Japanese translation of the apology and posted it (with some brief explanation) on said blog, with the intention of proudly declaring to the whole world how we’ve grown up.
Well, all of us except Brendan Nelson that is. What a complete pig he is. If ever I meet a horror novelist trying to find a way to describe a vampire crying crocodile tears, I shall point that novelist directly to footage of Brendan Nelson’s speech.
Frankly, the world doesn’t want to know. SE Asia in particular have us pigeon-holed as racist, bigoted whites. My wife’s cousin is flabbergasted that we’d let an openly gay Chinese woman become a cabinet minister. The fact that he is gay himself and at constant risk of arrest and imprisonment just lends to the irony. Personally, I don’t care what the world thinks. What matters is what we think and what we do. We made a great first step yesterday but there’s a long journey ahead. Wear your most comfortable shoes.
not true skribe, Japanese people are very interested in Aborigines and Australia generally. Pretty much everyone in Japan has a very positive image of Australia, not at all the “racist, bigoted whites” thing. For example, some Japanese people I meet think it is the easiest place in the world to visit because so many Australians speak Japanese, and most tourists who visit Australia return replete with stories of how kind we are. But most Japanese people are also aware of the past treatment of Aborigines, and will raise the issue of “sabetsu” (discrimination) if they know you well.
Japanese people also have a pretty good understanding of the trials and tribulations of atoning for past actions. Yesterday’s events have important ramifications for the view the rest of the world has of us, and I don’t think we should be shy in making our pride in the change known. I should also add that a clear, definite apology of this sort from a nation that one respects, might lead to a subtle change in one’s view towards one’s own nation’s responsibility for past actions.
Last time I checked, SG, Japan wasn’t considered to be part of SE Asia. Obviously I missed a memo. Can you forward it to me pls?
geez cool your heels skribe. You raised se asia in response to my comment about Japan. And you said “in particular”, not “only”. And you don’t care what “the world” thinks. Is there some memo that says I have to talk only about SE Asia? If so, can you forward it to me pls?
Unfortunately, SG, you’re not authorised to see that information. I’ll see what I can do about getting you upgraded.
Miranda Devine has decided to become the Culture Wars Hiroo Onoda.
Looks like the exclusive brethren have pulled the wool over Brendan Nelson’s eyes now.
Skribe [24] and SG [25]:
You are both right.
j-p-z [post 24 on the earlier topic];
Nah. All the excitement, sadness, joy and hope is easy to understand. Just think of “I have a dream ….â€? and “We will go to the Moon ….”. Great day
.
Paul Burns [19]:
Doubt if it is entirely Howard’s ghost. The political reality is that Nelson had bugger-all choice – unless he had ambitions to become an instant backbencher. Once he leaves politics, his memoirs will make a riveting read. The Liberals and the Nationals, if they are to survive, will now have take a very tough look at the extraordinary and corrosive influence on them by a tiny handful of “mean-minded racist heartless bastards” and by those who profited mightily from exploiting Aborigines and yet persist in denying recognition to people likely to be their very own blood-relations. Both the Liberals and the Nationals have the choice of expelling these vermin; [it will never happen, of course]..
Kim [114 on the earlier topic]:
Yes. I re-read it …. the gap between your experiences and mine seem unbridgable.
That said, let’s both do what we can, as individuals, so that Aborigines and Islanders may henceforth lead long, healthy, happy and fulfilling lives.
Perhaps, Graham. I just wanted you to know I wasn’t trying to have a go!
Oh, I know that Graham. We were just having some fun =)
RE # 25 Speaking of Japan, very few pople are aware of the history of Japan’s indigenous peoples, the Ainu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_peopleIts different of course, but there are some all too familiar parallels.
Clarke and Dawe tonight on the 7.56 Report was a classic.
Nelson is a night watchman, not really worth getting too upset about. But it is hard not to when he chooses to attack indigenous Australians following his “sorry, but” apology.
Rudd’s staffers had a human reaction to Nelson’s twaddle and tripe, which was crafted to appease the racists and bigots who supported the NT intervention and 10 years of denial and denigration of the stolen generation.
More importantly, what is Nelson going to do about his miscreant MPs who deigned to not show up for (or bail out of) the apology – for personal reasons, rather than representative ones.
Those absent have been confirmed as Liberal MPs Sophie Mirabella (who has also denied the existence of a Stolen Generation), Wilson Tuckey, Don Randall, Alby Schultz, Dennis Jensen. And what about the recalcitrant Chris Pearce and his public fidgeting?
Sack ‘em all Brendan, for allowing their personal prejudices to dictate their actions rather than representing their electorates. Sheer bloody mindedness and disrespect. Shame.
Yep. Could only have been improved by naming the offstage colleagues!
Indeed…we all know Tuckey by repute and Sophie was last seen getting stuck into Muslims. Since her nuptials she has seemingly turned her basilisk gaze to indigenous people.
Howard used to use her as his sock puppet attack dog when he didn’t want to be seen or heard saying things which might be later used against him.
My reaction to Nelson was that he had the chance of making history, but will end up in history’s dustbin.
Laura Tingle in the AFR said Nelson was addressing his own back bench, but like Jack R gave him credit for bringing the Coalition to the table.
I’m feeling somewhat like how I felt in 1972 – proud to be an Australian and not having to constantly apologise for the joint. The shadow has lifted, we are no longer living in Howard’s wet dream.
Phillip Adams’ American correspondent Bruce Schapiro felt the day had international significance. Last night I happened to be listening to Deutsche Welle after 2am via Newsradio and they certainly reported it.
Of course the BBC picked the story up, although being the Beeb with their legendary balance they picked up the gripes about the lack of compensation and specifically Noel Pearson. I heard Mick Dodson being asked by our ABC about Pearson and he just dismissed him saying, certainly compensation will be an issue, but let’s just concentrate on taking this first step.
The BBC’s central story was spot on:
Please note, he wasn’t talking about children who had been removed from dysfunctional families, or removed for their own safety or whatever. My understanding is fairly straightforward. Children were removed under the law for their racial characteristics. The ABC in some of their reporting muddled this point in their own attempt at balance.
No-one doubts that change on the ground, even with a bipartisan effort, is going to be difficult, and slow. But yesterday was a magnificent day. The country is changing.
I don’t think Rudd’s staffers should apologise. Nelson’s speech was in part inappropriate, inaccurate, offensive and lacked compassion.
Then you can readily cite the law which is the basis of your understanding? It should not be hard. Most of the law can be found here. http://www.austlii.edu.au/
Brian, it is much more complex than you say. The law did not directly remove children because of their (white) racial characteristics. I am too tired to write more about this tonight and I will write more tomorrow, but I will say that as an Australian who is older than me and who lived through those times it surprises me that you don’t understand the social bases on which those policies were built.
My understanding, GregM, is that while some of the laws may have been framed in terms of “protection”, the overall aims were specified in several fora – Rudd quoted several which are very well known. There are also many statements on record to that effect from the dinosaur who was head of the Aboriginal Affairs dep’t in Qld, the state I’m obviously most familiar with, for an age until Bob Katter as Minister – to his great credit – got rid of him.
This is why the apology, and the PM, didn’t just refer to “the law” or “laws” but to the total of policy, law, attidudes and administrative practice. Law, as such, isn’t policy. That’s why courts often have reference to explanatory memoranda and parliamentary debates in order to elucidate its goals and the policy aim, which is not always at all clear from the letter of the law.
Legislation in India at the moment, for instance, which prevents women from working as barmaids for their “protection” isn’t accepted as motivated by that by many women in India. And one could multiply instances of misogynist law which is supposedly well intentioned. You quoted some yourself on the post about Rowan Williams.
In addition, as Naomi’s post here, and other scholarship makes clear, such law as applied to kids of any colour was often disproportionately applied in various ways to black kids.
I’m tired too, and I doubt that I’ll get time to write more tomorrow!
[There are also many statements on record to that effect from the dinosaur who was head of the Aboriginal Affairs dep’t in Qld, the state I’m obviously most familiar with, for an age until Bob Katter as Minister - to his great credit - got rid of him.]
I’m assuming that it’s Bob Katter Snr – father of Bob jnr ?
I wonder what his feelings were on the apology ?
Bob Katter Snr was a federal MHR. He was also a former ALP member. He died close to 20 years ago, & one can only speculate as to whether he even imagined an apology, never mind had an opinion about one.
Bob Katter Jnr was in Qld parliament. For much of the 1980s he was minister for, or holding portfolio responsible for, Aboriginal Affairs. If a Bob Katter got rid of a Qld public servant, then it sure to be he (jnr).
Frank Calabrese [43] and SATP [44]:
Dunno. For what it’s worth: heard Aborigines in North Queensland say very nice things about Bob Katter Snr and Bob Katter Jnr – and hostile things about other politicians – some years back.
SublimeCowgirl [34]:
Thanks for the Ainu link [thanks too for that unexpected vexillology update - the Ainu flag
]. Interesting to compare earlier Japanese policies and attitudes towards their aboriginal or minority people with similar Chinese policies and attitudes – or with some South East Asian ones, for that matter.
Brian [39 - and re my post 31]:
Unlike you, I’m not ready to consign Nelson to the dustbin of history – he may yet quietly redeem himself. That won’t happen though until the Liberals and the Nationals purge themselves of that handful of overly influential members – no matter how rich nor how long they have been in the party – who have caused such wide-spread loathing for both parties and who caused the election loss …. and if that includes former Young Liberal, J W Howard, then all the better.
Graham, I said that was my reaction. At the time, actually, on the basis of his speech. What happens depends on events to come.
GregM, I’m not a lawyer, and it may surprise you that when I grew up I believe I was entirely ignorant of what was going on. Since then my impressions have been formed mainly by hearing countless stories from the people directly affected, mostly on ABC radio.
So it might be nearer to what what those involved actually experienced.
It’s not an area that I have studied or claim any expertise.
Now Brendan wants to bring Mal Brough on Rudd’s war cabinet. I distinctly remember Brough lost his seat in the last election. Whatsamatter? Don’t he trust Tony Abbott? Or is it just he doesn’t want some creep fr5om the far right peering over his shoulder. Maybe we coulod call Nelson Crocodile Tears? or The Howard Pygmy? (No offense to genuine Pygmies meant.)
Sublime cowgirl, sometimes here in Japan various people try to compare the two indigenous stories, but I think the big difference is that a lot of ainu dispossession happened back in the time when everyone in the world was a bastard (before Edo, possibly even before the 17th century). I suppose its harder to believe you are directly responsible for something which happened 400 years ago under the control of an extremely feudal and very poor society – especially when your whole society has had two revolutionary upheavals in the last 200 years. Also now Japanese people can’t identify who is and isn’t ainu, making the type of discrimination Ainu face much more subtle. The people I talk to about this are usually aware of the issue but much more ashamed of modern discrimination towards burakumin, a class of untouchables. (Although having said that, I notice a certain amount of uneasiness on the topic of the Ainu which one doesn’t see when, for example, discussing the war or whaling).
Look, we’ve had a bit of a Chin Wag down at the old Think Tank, and we reckon if any other Politicians would like to join Dr Nelson’s Charm Offensive, they could do worse than to try out the following:
1) When welcoming Homecoming Successful Aussie Olympians at a Reception, include dark hints about Performance Enhancing Drugs in the welcoming speech
2) When welcoming a group of Schoolkids from Your Electorate to Parliament House, ask the Glue Sniffers, the Victims of Paedophiliac Abuse, and those from Chronic Alcoholic Families to step aside and go and Stand in a Corner
3) When hosting a Reception for Successful Businesspersons, Large or Small, enunciate clearly your Abhorrence of Massive Tax Avoidance, and Rape of Secretaries, which You Know is Widespread in Ausssie Businesses
4) Refuse to Attend another Dawn Service on Anzac Day, until all the back pay for Aboriginal Sevicemen in WW1 and WW2 is accounted for and Paid with Interest to their Descendants, unless They’re Convicted Crims or Land Rights Enthusiasts
that should pretty much do it for the time being, toodle-pip!
5) when you do attend the Dawn Service, make sure your speech points out that the servicemen whose deaths we are remembering (i)knowingly put themselves in danger; (ii) were fighting for an Australia which had a White Australia policy and therefore were obviously all bigots; (iii) got drunk regularly and in some cases also indulged in illicit drugs; and (iv) consorted with local females, even if they had wives at home.
For good measure, you could also point out current concerns about the Defence Force, with claims of bullying, homophobia, and misogyny, and that remembering what happened in the past is meaningless unless these issues are also tackled.
You could probably also dig up a digger’s testimony where he says that he thinks ceremonies like this are a waste of time and can’t possibly compensate in any way for his sufferings.
Yes SG, historically the world has been hideous when it comes to race and identity (and gender and sexuality etc etc )issues. We just don’t do difference well.
According to Wiki, most people with Ainu heritage hide it because of the racism, in the way the jewishness can be hidden. (Interestingly the entry notes there is speculation that they share some genetic commonality with Australian aborigines).
“As the Japanese moved north and took control over Ainu lands, the Ainu often gave up without resistance, with some occasional wars in 1457, 1669, and 1789, where the Ainu were defeated. Notable Ainu revolts include Shakushain’s Revolt and the Menashi-Kunashir Battle. Japanese policies became increasingly aimed at assimilating the Ainu in the Meiji period (the 45-year reign of the Meiji Emperor, from 23 October 1868 to 30 July 1912) outlawing their language and restricting them to farming on government-provided plots and as labor in the Japanese fishing industry.
As the Japanese government encouraged immigration of ethnic Japanese to populate Hokkaido, the Ainu became increasingly marginalised in their own land. The population was greatly reduced due to hardship and diseases introduced by the immigrant Japanese. The island of Hokkaido was called Ezo or Ezo-chi during the Edo period. Its name was changed to Hokkaido during the Meiji Restoration as part of the program to “unify” the Japanese national character under the aegis of the Emperor, thus reducing the local identity and autonomy of the different regions of Japan.”
In March, 1997, the Ainu were recognized by a Japanese court as an indigenous and minority people. Until that date Ainu issues did not matter in the sphere of public policy. There was a limited outcry when one of the largest traditional Ainu villages, the upriver town of Nibutani on the Saru River, was dammed, with the land expropriated from its Ainu owners and flooded in part in order to form a reservoir that would service industrial development on the coast of Hokkaido. ”
Sounds familiar.
Yairs, that’s the Spirit, mckenzie!
Good Work, Sir or Madam; I trust You have been offered a Workchoices AWA to assist Your Endeavours ??
“Dunno. For what it’s worth: heard Aborigines in North Queensland say very nice things about Bob Katter Snr and Bob Katter Jnr – and hostile things about other politicians – some years back.”
Very true. Bob Katter Jnr was a very good State Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs 1983-87. Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs 1987-89, Minister for Community Services and Ethnic Affairs 1989, Minister for Mines and Energy 1989 and Minister for Northern and Regional Development 1989.
He often talks about his younger days plaining football with and against Aborigines.
The Public Servant in question (I won’t mention his name) had a terrible reputation in his dealings with Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
Bob Katter Snr was never a State Member.
BTW, apparently Nelson’s put his foot in it further.
He quoted some testimony from an oral history in a way that implied that a girl (now an elderly woman) who was taken was done so with the approval of her father.
That woman gave a rather tearful interview on ABC Local Radio in Victoria stating that she had been quoted out of context, that her father had never approved her being taken, and that Nelson had no right to use her words to say so.
I can’t find a link to the story yet; I might put up a new post when a link turns up.
Here is the link re Nelson not asking her permission to use the story.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23218019-29277,00.html
Yes I was, as wpd notes, referring to Bob Katter jnr. I went to uni with one of his daughters, and I’ve met him on several occasions, and in fact I used to talk with his daughter about Indigenous issues. A lot of Indigenous people I knew at the time spoke highly of him, particularly since what he achieved was in the face of Joh’s continuing premiership.
There were some real atrocities committed in Queensland in the 1970s. Well within living memory!
On the point GregM raised, to supplement what I said, I’ll also link to Naomi’s comment on another thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/02/12/guest-post-by-naomi-parry-debunking-windschuttle/#comment-438939
Wishing to remain focused on the importance of the symbolism of the apology, I was even prepared to perhaps agree with Possum on his take on Nelson – until the matter of Nelson’s failure to ask Faye Lyman’s permission to use part of her story in his speech.
You stupid man.
Either your arrogance is extraordinary, or you are incompetent. You told Faye you read the testimony three years ago. As she said, more than enough time to ask her for permission.
Brian [46]
Yeah, fair enough – reaction.
Mackenzie [50]:
So you’re a Digger-hater. Big deal. Now go and dump your bigotry on an Aboriginal war veteran and see what happens.
Thanks for providing that link, Mark. The point I wanted to make was that the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents occurred in a period where white children were being separated from their parents and placed in near-identical circumstances.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2003/38.html#British%20Child%20Migrants_T
Done with the best of intentions as they saw it, no doubt, but with wretched consequences. I just have to shake my head and wonder- just what did these people think they were doing, and could not they see the harm of what they were doing?
I’m not sure that you need to ask “permission” to quote from the historical record.
However, if you’re going to quote somebody without their permission, name them, and misinterpret what they’ve said, that’s pretty poor.
Permission most definitely not required to quote from historical record.
Graham Bell: MacKenzie @50 is being tongue in cheek, responding to [49].
The Brisbane times on Nelsons closest friend atm
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/enemy-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed/2008/02/14/1202760488843.htmlIt would have been polite, though not obligatory for Nelson's to consult Faye before including her testimony in his response speech given its import and context.
ON the other hand, the same media which condemns seems to have little hesitation in raiding file footage and archives with abandon to illustrate related stories with very little thought to the actual people involved. Not that it excuses Nelson, its just an observation.
I am not going to comment on Faye's own story at this point because of the obvious stress it is causing her, nor do i know anything about the nuances of her circumstances.
But i think it is worth observing that much of the pop commentary on
contemporary black AND white child protection policy and issues is pretty rudementary at best.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread to discuss this , but one day i would be curious to hear what people on this thread generally feel is the appropriate role for child protection in current society, what constitutes a notification, how assessments are made, and what range of interventions are appropriate, especially in cases of passive and active neglect.
There are very clear protocols as regards the use of oral testimony in public collections, which begin with the institution & the person whose testimony you wish to use. As Nelson had made no effort over the three years, I have also wondered if he just assumed Faye Lyman was dead.
&re 62. – given that the Apology had the lines “A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.” Aboriginal Australians will now hopefully legally engage with all governmental agencies knowing that actions pertaining to them based upon race are illegal & no longer sanctioned by the state. (though the Apology will not change individual’s attitudes within these same departments). Assessments & appropriate actions can now take place with the assumption that they are not racially based but must be the exact same criteria for white and black.
The line that children were ”rescued” not only seeks to excuse the inexcusable, it also carries the lie that Aboriginal people are toxic parents, unfit to raise their own kids. Rudd’s stressing of that point was extremely important.
WPD [
But he was Federal Member for an electorate with a large percentage of Aborigines.
SATP [61]:
Nuh; don’t think so; heard that rubbish before …. and it neither encourages better leadership in the ADF nor honours the war service and the peacekeeping service of Aborigines and Islanders in the ADF.
SG [48] and SublimeCowgirl [51]:
Very good points. I have been reluctant to say much myself about what happened to the Burakumin of Japan or the Sami of far northern Europe or any of the other disadvantaged minorities in case racists here used that to minimize or excuse unjustices being done in Australia. “Don’t harass us about racism. See. Everybody is doing it”.
GregM [59]:
Now that The Apology has been made to The Stolen Generations and it looks like a genuine bipartisan commitment is starting to be made towards easing some of the harm done to Aborigines and Islanders – we can turn to rectifying the injustices committed against Non-Aborigines too. Maybe those who worked so tirelessly to bring about The Apology would like to help [after they've had a well-deserved rest, of course].
Look Graham, us old fellas down the Think Tank reckon mckenzie was just buckling down & doing the hard yards and putting his shoulder to the wheel, to help wheel out Dr Nelson’s Charm Offensive across the land, well at least across the mighty urb of Canberra. Now of course he took it a bit far, but really if you understood his intentions, you’d see he meant no disrespect, but the MP who took up his suggestion and actually utterred such, would be… aw, geez… i dunno how to put this, I think maybe you MISTOOK his tone, cobber.
Take it from me,
sincerely,
Think Tank 59.
The word we were searching for @ 65 was: irony
Think Tank 59
#64 Graham Just FYI in case you’ve missed it, some important work in Qld has been underway for some time to acknowledge and assist people who experienced historical abuse in Institutional Care i.e. former Neerkol residents
http://www.han.merivale.org.au/news/items/2004/11/00014.shtml(see the Forde inquiry, the subsequent state govt and institutional apology, and redress scheme)
http://www.aftercareresourcecentre.org.au/arc.asp?PID=56Well worth a look into this area too.
The experiences of three categories of children would need to be addressed.
1. Child migrants
2. State wards and others in custodial care
3. Adoptees (in adoptions prior to about 1990)
Dr Susan Gair at James Cook University has done a lot of work in these areas, as well as with the Stolen Generations.
There are well over 100,000 people concerned. Many are now in their 60s and 70s, and many women forced to give up their babies for adoption or to institutions have died.
State governments have all had enquiries into past welfare practices with non-indigenous children as a result of both the Bringing Them Home Report and the concern over institutional sexual abuse.
Sealed records and deliberate destruction and falsification of records have hampered research, as Dr Gair has observed.
I’d like to make the point that there are laws, there are policies and then there are actions by the authorities that affect people directly. These actions are not always in accord with the laws and policies. Each event was unique as experienced by those involved.
Rudd’s starting point is the stories of people impacted by the stolen generations practices. He starts with the story of Nana Fejo with whom he spoke on Saturday morning before sitting down and writing his speech (in longhand) on Sunday. He then makes specific reference to stories “graphically told in Bringing Them Home”.
He acknowledges the pain:
He then links these back to the “decisions made by parliaments and governments.” In giving the reasons for the apology he cites human decency and
The apology is offered without qualification and, importantly, I think, he doesn’t assume that it will be accepted. But if it is he believes we can make a new beginning, then proposing the bipartisan commission.
The last part is quite magnificent in its eloquence and its hope for the future.
In this he recognises the impact of the difficulties that have arisen since white settlement. Inherent in this is the notion that the stolen generations was not just an isolated phenomenon but arose out of what came before.
Sorry to be so longwinded, but what I’m trying to say is that Rudd started by accepting the truth of the stolen generations experience as perceived by them. This approach sidelines argument about what the laws were in various jurisdictions, their intent and the intent of the officials who gave them effect.
These may have their relevance, but in the context of saying sorry they qualify the apology and lessen its import. This was the trap Nelson fell into.
SublimeCowgirl [67]:
Perhaps my comment at 64 could have been better worded. No. Definitely didn’t miss it …. nor did a couple of people I know. [b.t.w. West of Rockhampton, there's a memorial on the highway at Neerkol, just near the overpass]. Thank you very much indeed for putting up those links – how quickly people forget once an issue is off the headlines.
Brian [69]:
The misinterpretation and misuse of policies – regardless of intention – was a something that exacerbated the tragedies. The sad thing is, despite all the quality assurance that’s supposed to work in public service these days, similar tragedies can still happen. Sorcerer [at 68] also mentioned the deliberate destruction of documents: there are always colourful and hypocritical excuses for doing so; another problem is the writing of spiteful entries in records and the vicious omission of essential information in records.
You are right about P.M. Rudd taking an approach that sidelined all the quibblers, nitpickers and everyone else who wanted to impede and degrade The Apology.
Dear Graham
as some of the others have pointed out (thanks, guys) I was helping out Ambigulous with a speech in the mode of Brendan Nelson’s apology.
I sincerely and unreservedly apologise to any diggers or their descendants who took my tongue in cheek comments the wrong way.
I had very good intentions!
Mckenzie [71]:
Thanks for your clarification.
Everyone:
An unpleasant aspect of what should be a time for celebration all round: there is much resentment over the Apology and over the stampede for monetary compensation [mostly, I think, by those who were not of the Stolen Generations themselves].
All the outrageous injustices committed against members of the wider community are now gushing forth since the Apology – injustices that have been denied, ignored, hidden, neglected or shove out of the way.
There is a single consistent theme in this resentment …. “terrible things happened to me or to my loved ones – nothing was ever done to ease my/our suffering – now, because I am/we are not Aborigines, my/our hurt is being ignored all over again”.
I think this is being unfair in some cases because at least there have been enquiries into orphanages and the like and recommendations for remedial action made. However, this is one facet of a much broader and well-hidden set of problems; problems that can no longer be ignored either,.
Graham, that’s depressing, but I think it shows that Rudd’s judgement in not going the personal compensation route was good.
supercowgirl said:
I think this issue could profit from being set up in a separate post, but I doubt that any of us have the knowledge to take it on. sc, perhaps you would like to write something we could consider for a guest post. Personally I couldn’t take on the kind of moderation such a post might need as I’m not here enough during the day.
Geraldine Doogue talked to Don Watson about Rudd’s speech on Saturday Extra. Watson liked it. He thought the language used was very direct and authentic.
In other links, The World Today did a piece on Nelson’s (mis)use of Faye Lynham’s story. An apology to be effective has to be accepted. His private apology to her clearly wasn’t.
The World Today also ran yet another story of a case where the fair-skinned children were taken away and the darker-skinned ones were left. Of interest is the comment near the end that many more people had many other people had come forward to find the missing links because of the sorry event.
Brian and sublimecowgirl, I don’t have knowledge per se about modern child protection laws but I did receive training (several times) on the responsibilities of health care workers. The broad structure seems to be report – investigate – separate where necessary, subject to a general agreement that keeping families together where possible is better. And there is a separate agency (in NSW anyway) for dealing with Aboriginal families, which is associated with DoCS but Aborigine-focussed, specifically because of the stolen generation issue. In the field where I was trained, drug and alcohol, there were obvious serious concerns about passive and active neglect, but always the assumption was that parents and children should be together. So even when children were taken from parents, if the parents could get their act together (which sadly never happens) they could get them back.
Unfortunately I received the training 6 years ago, so have forgotten most of the detail.