She has to “wrangle”, to use Virginia Trioli’s term in a Lateline interview with the co-chair of the Indigenous 2020 summit stream, 100 delegates who include some with very deeply felt and opposed views.
Such as Warren Mundine, most of whose public interventions are couched in particularly aggressive language. Take, for instance, this story about his call for Indigenous children to be taught better English skills. It’s hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with this, though I stand to be corrected. But it’s a “demand” that he’s making and it’s something he’s going to “insist” on. All very Pearson-esque.
Mundine - along with Brendan Nelson - who’s attending the summit to “listen” despite characterising it as a “stunt” - vociferously opposes the creation of a new representative body for Indigenous leaders. So does Wesley Aird, who was one of John Howard’s handpicked advisors on Indigenous affairs. Yet it’s ALP policy.
Whatever the faults of ATSIC, that commitment exists. And what comes out of it doesn’t have to be a resurrection of ATSIC. There’s endless scope for reinvention within the framework of a representative body. It’s quite possible to envisage representation and “practical” reconciliation proceeding in lockstep, and as the Intervention demonstrates, working with Indigenous people rather than imposing solutions appears not just philosophically but practically preferable. But Mundine has framed the debate in a certain way - in the same terms it was conducted during the Howard years. And the media has followed suit, and that will affect its outcomes.
It’ll be interesting to watch whether the summit becomes a mechanism for the overturning of ALP policy. It’s also interesting to observe that the self-appointed Indigenous leaders whose voices drowned out most others in the Howard era seem so opposed to any mechanism which would let Indigenous people themselves have a say in who those leaders should be.
Update: More from Sam Clifford at Public Polity.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
NB: If you want to watch the live streaming of the 2020 summit, you can do so via the ABC’s news page.
Jackie Huggins is a good bird and an appropriate Chair for this committee. But let us pray that insights from REAL aborigines emerge from this, rather than the usual misunderstood and plagiarised nonsense from mid twentieth century Parisienne intellectuals that dribbles from Oreo carpetbaggers like Larissa Behrendt!
And I suppose you get to pick who the ‘real’ aborigine is? what a joke.
JG,
Maybe you should ask some of the Kooris I know what a REAL Aborigine is before you start throwing sneers like that around.You clearly have no idea of thje concept of Aboriginality, or, much more importantly, how hurtful comments like that hurt the feelings of people of Aboriginal descent.
Don’t feed the troll would be my big idea for this thread…
Paul Burns
Well if I have “no idea” then as a society we clearly have a problem. If something so seemingly obvious is in fact so arcane, surely this instability and confusion is the problem; not me. Or perhaps the anxiety and confusion exists only with you.
I know, Mark. That comment made me see red. I’ll conclude this little interchange with JG with this last comment, after which I’ll stop feeding him on this thread.
JG,
You should read Bruce Pascoe’s The Convincing Ground. It would open your eyes on this and many other Aboriginal issues.
Personally, I’m glad to see you back, and, if you are not going to be so mindblowingly f…ing stupid as you have been here, I look forward to interesting discussions with you on other subjects on other threads.
Indeed, I strongly recommend Pascoe’s book to any LP-ers interested in Aboriginal issues. It is stimulating, maddeningly provocarive and a work of great humanity.
Sorry (sort of) for going so OT.
Which troll? JG or Virginia?
If anybody can handle the challenge, Jackie Huggins can. She’s had decades of experience negotiating her way through fraught intellectual and political terrain with as much success as could be imagined given the context.
A good phrase to describe the first comment on this thread might be ‘repressive authenticity’.
Maybe Klaus. For mine, comments like “real aborigines” and “self-appointed indigenous leaders” come from the same source: whitefellas who would prefer that blackfellas conform to their preferred ideological ordering.
Not my ideological ordering, Geoff, that of the Howard government and the News Ltd commentariat. I’d be more than happy if Indigenous people themselves got to elect their leaders, rather than the loudest voice with the most access to the whitefella press getting the gong as a “leader”. If people like Mundine and Pearson have standing sufficient to succeed in a democratic process, then, for mine, that would give more legitimacy to their interventions.
Update: More from Sam Clifford at Public Polity.
sorry if this is a stupid question, but when did jackie huggins become the co-chair for the indigenous ’stream’? i thought when the chairs were first announced it was a younger-looking indigenous guy? who was that and what happened to him?
Dr Kelvin Kong. He pulled out for personal reasons.
thank you
No probs! He was on Lateline the other night talking about the intervention. First Indigenous surgeon, I believe…
Thanks for the link, Mark. I’m waiting to hear what John Tracey makes of all of this.
I note that Paul Burns uses “Koorie” as a universal term- this is an all too common practice. It is most definitely not universal and when I see this kind of comment it brings up a pet rant on my part which is that white Australians make the mistake of thinking about Aborigines as one group. Until we recognize that there are in fact many distinctly different groups - or Nations as they are called in North America - and are able to understand the significance of these differences, progress on issues of equality, opportunity and cultural diversity will be slow.
Also does anyone find Triolli as annoyingly brain dead (and in her coverage of Zimbabwe, irresponsible) as I do?
In general, yes, I’m not a fan, but what was it about her coverage of Zimbabwe that irked?
Ps - Murris in Qld and some parts of Northern NSW.
No worries, Sam.
Trioli was interviewing an opposition leader in exile in SA and she kept trying to get him to say what he thought the people would do or should do, if the election result came out the way it seems to be going at present. The man (who’s name I’ve forgotten) side stepped this well enough but Trioli actually got annoyed with him for not answering the question. She seems to have no idea of what she is doing - its just a kind of game to her.
Thanks for that - that’s a bit of a contrast to Tony Jones, then, whose coverage of Zimbabwe has been very good imho.
Yep I agree Tony’s one of the best in the business. His work on indigenous issues is also first rate.
ps the other reason I’m so upset with Trioli is that she’s on the ABC Sunday Arts show (with no hope of a clue there - arrgh!).
[Ps - Murris in Qld and some parts of Northern NSW.]
And in WA we have Nyungahs in the South West of the State and Yamatji and others North of Perth.
Peter Mc,
I utterly acknowledge and accept your criticism. I come from New England and that is the term used by Aborigines up here, so I guess I’ve just got used to it.
If we have a Black parliament why not an Indian, Colored and White one? All we need do is borrow the old South African model. On the other hand we could seek to unit rather than divide. Let’s stop pushing a racist agenda under the guise that it’s somehow a kinder, gentler form of racism.
Moreover- and here’s the elephant in the room- there is nothing to stop indigenous people setting up there own private representative body. If indigenous people truly want such an organisation they needn’t wait for Government to do it for them. They do, after all, have agency every bit as much as everybody else.
Since Sam @16 is curious as to my response,
As I said on public polity, the recent U.N. declaration on the rights of indigenous people gives clear guidelines as to the nature of self government which does not seem to be represented in the various models of a national representative body that are being discussed, despite the governments commitment to adopt this declaration.
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
Article 3 bis (former Article 31)
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to
autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as
ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
The national representative body is emerging as simply an advisory body, whether democratically elected or not.
Bob Brown went to 2020 with a model of regional autonomy in the Kimberly, Arnhem Land and Cape York based on the Canadian model and international precedence.
Brown’s model, strikingly similar to Michael Mansell’s proposals (The Tasmanian connection?) do not answer basic questions such as what about the vast majority of Aboriginal people who do not live in these remote areas, but the model does deal with real issues of government and self management beyond the now politically correct mantra of “consultation”.
The key issues for a new representative body is will it have control over policy, programs and funding in Aboriginal affairs? - self government. Will it have a real jurisdiction, somewhere, somehow? Or will it be a consultative body that assists the colonial government to execute its power and control over Aboriginal affairs? If it is the latter, as appears will be the case even in accordance with A.L.P. policy then it will contravene the U.N. declaration.
I have no doubt the new government is consulting widely amongst Aboriginal Australia at present and taking seriously the advice they are being given. No doubt they will emerge with a plan better than Howard and Brough’s. They may even institutionalise this consultation process into their new model of a representative body. However this is just the competent management of native affairs by a colonial government - a paradigm absolutely rejected by the U.N. and the international precedence of recognising the rights and interests of indigenous people.
I agree with Mundine that the present debate around a representative body is irrelevant to the present needs of Aboriginal Australia although I suspect I may disagree with him on the importance of developing leadership outside of economic development or mainstream structures such as the A.L.P. An autonomous political structure would be more important to developing a culture of leadership than just economic enterprise development as Mundine seems to suggest (or at least is represented in the media). Just as business leadership cannot be taught without hands-on experience of an economic enterprise, political leadership cannot develop without direct engagement with a real political process that makes real decisions about real communities rather than just being a competition to see who gets to write policy briefings for the minister..
Thats what John Tracey reckons.
John of Arkinsaw,
There are many independent democratically elected Aboriginal councils in Qld. However they are not allowed to make basic and major decisions about their communities. The Qld.state government has consistantly obstructed and over-ridden the will of the councils on everything from land zoning to Alcohol restrictions.
Similarly the federal registrar of Aboriginal corporations has absolute power over all Aboriginal corporations including the power to shut them down if they engage in activities that do not conform to government policy and program, above and beyond matters of financial accountability - a power which they do excercise and was a major pillar of the Howard/Brough scheme to repossess plant and equipment from Aboriginal corporations such as CDEP.
I must disagree with you when you say ” there is nothing to stop indigenous people setting up there own private representative body”
There are democratically elected bodies and private corporations right here right now without even thinking of hypothetical national structures for whom basic questions of Aboriginal control of Aboriginal affairs is an ongoing struggle.
Only insofar as it’s framed as “racism” by Howard, Hanson, etc. to recognise the uniqueness of the Indigenous peoples of this land. They were here first. We weren’t. Deal with it. And get over all this stuff. It’s not some sort of “special rights” - it’s a long overdue recognition of Indigenous priority and whitefella dispossession.
Though why whitefellas would object to Indigenous self-determination and representation - on any grounds other than racist ones - is completely beyond me anyway.
We had almost twelve years of this bullshit. If you oppose Indigenous self-determination, come out and say so. And explain why. Openly and honestly. Don’t be so disingenuous as to make bad faith claims that people who support it are “racist”. I’m afraid the logic of suggesting whitefellas should determine Indigenous destiny, and they should accept whomever the government or the media single out as “leaders” is paternalist. And racist.
Paul Burns
all good - guess you knew that my comments weren’t specifically aim at you.
John T, thanks for your thoughts and for replying to john of Arkansaw. I find it shocking that people in Australia can bang on about how Aborigines have it so good with all their government handouts and special consideration; how many of these whingers would trade places with these indigenous people who have got it so good?
Australia is not a level playing field, there are major barriers to entry to things like tertiary education (due to not having access to a good high school) and long-term employment.
The idea of a “black” parliament is to give the original inhabitants of this land who have been discriminated against for years, have only been classed as “human” in the eyes of our law for 40 years, whose wages were stolen, whose communities were broken up, whose children were stolen, whose homes and property were confiscated or destroyed and whose life expectancy is a whopping seventeen years below the rest of the nation a chance to get together and discuss their desires and ideas in an officially sanctioned forum which is viewed as a legitimate body by the government. It’s not about duplication of services and responsibilities, it’s about allowing indigenous Australia a place to have their voice heard as there currently isn’t one.
How many indigenous parliamentarians have there been since federation? How many politicians are getting up in the House and making passionate speeches about the rights of Aborigines and their struggle for control over their own lives? Who speaks for indigenous Australia in the public; Noel Pearson? Ernie Dingo?
Has there ever been a survey of indigenous public opinion? A huge gap in Australian social science, compare to the US where there is much research on racial divides in public opinion.
I was going to reply to John of Arkansaw, but the rest of you have done it very ably. I’ll just read his comment again, then go to the loo and have a spew, I find it so repugnant.
Peter Mac,
I didn’t take your comment personally. In fact, I already have enough knowledge to have known better than to be so thoughtless.Won’t be so sloppy in future.
“recognise the uniqueness of the Indigenous peoples of this land. They were here first…”
False. The overwhelming majority of “indigenous people” are of mixed descent, live in cities and towns and speak English and are Christian. Whatever claim still exists to uniqueness is rapidly disintegrating owing to demographics.
“… it’s a long overdue recognition of Indigenous priority and whitefella dispossession.”
False. What matters is concrete improvements in areas like family violence, rape, suicide, education outcomes and physical and mental health. Those who argue for segregation must present a case based on substance rather than emotional bleating.
“Though why whitefellas would object to Indigenous self-determination and representation … ”
False. In the USA the NAACP has 400,000 members and represents African-Americans without being a formal part of the state. In Australia, Jews and various other groups have similar bodies. There is no need for the state to be involved in representative bodies based on ethnicity or anything else for that matter.
So your argument is that Indigenous people should have no input into decisions made affecting their lives?
John of Arkansaw, how long have you been in Australia? This is not a loaded question, but the answer would help me decide what whether to think about your comments.
And speaking of having a spew, as Paul Burns so vividly was back there, I wonder whether the comment from “Jim” @ #25 needs to be removed ASAP.
Every individual makes decisions that affect their lives in a free society such as ours. An indigenous person in Australia is just as free as a Muslim or whitefella to choose his/her place of residence, religion, cultural rituals etc.. We’re not living in Chinese Tibet. The self-determination argument is mostly a furphy outside of discrete indigenous native title holdings.
J of A,
So far as I can work out, Oz’s indigenous peoples don’t think its a furphy, and they ought to know.
Paul, what they think is irrelevant. The johnson from Wisconsin has spoken.
Well spotted, Dr Cat, I’d missed that one. It’s gone now.
To quote Mr Arkansas:
“In the USA the NAACP has 400,000 members and represents African-Americans”
and to use his formulation:
False.
The NAACP may have a very, very large number of members but it does NOT “represent” African-Americans: many organisations perform that role, each in their own ways; so do elected black members of Congress, members of State houses and elected city officials.
Let’s not hear this old-fashioned (and hazardous, IMHO) notion of a body being “the sole, legitimate representative body representing XXXX”. Even when Australia had ATSIC, did other Aboriginal lobby groups and welfare associations etc. wither away? I don’t think so. Did the AMA shut up about the health problems of indigenous Australians? No.
You are perfectly correct Ambigulous: indigenous Australians are already as well represented as everybody else and thus the whole issue is redundant.
To those who push the exceptionalist barrow, why don’t we also have- among others- a:
-Gay Parliament
-Transgender Parliament
-Mentally Ill Parliament
-Tourette’s Syndrome sufferers Parliament
Who among us is not “unique” and in some way a “victim” and thus in need of “self determination”?
Australia could be known as the “land of many parliaments” in the same way that New Zealand is the “land of the long white cloud”. A budding entrepreneur could build a Big Parliament along some road in the middle of nowhere to rival the Big Banana, Big Koala and Big Merino. No one need ever feel victimised again and of course the taxpayer will cheerfully fund the whole thing.
Quit while you’re behind, dude, would be my advice.
I’m actually already well out in front, old swan.
Try this on for size:
“In 2001, 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal partner were intermixed, according to the 2001 Australian census. This compares to 64 per cent in 1996, 51 per cent in 1991 and 46 per cent in 1986.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/14/1029113955646.html
The demographic trends make your argument fanciful.
No, it doesn’t. It proves nothing. The fact that Indigenous peoples partnered with non-Indigenous Australians is an outcome of dispossession, not an argument against the reality of dispossession and for the avoidance of its consequences. It’s cultural continuity that’s important, and continued discrimination (which you’re displaying, incidentally). In any event, a fair amount of the intermixing was involuntary through rape and coercion, as has been documented.
Your essentialist views on race are all of a piece with those of the 19th century Imperialists.
And your “satiric” commentary is actually very snide. I don’t see you parodying a parliament of “Anglo lawyers” in the same way as you’re taking shots at gay people and others.
Oh, and it’s not about victimhood either, by the way.
This is one wrangle I venture into with great hesitation.
What do some people seem to fear about the idea of self determination ?
The UN gives a definition of what it expects and it is not threatening or divisive - rather it is an inclusive and reasonable way for a state to treat it’s citizens.
In the material contained in the link point 6 is particularly important and it should make doubters rethink their objections.
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/dc598941c9e68a1a8025651e004d31d0?Opendocument
6. The Committee emphasizes that, in accordance with the Declaration on Friendly Relations, none of the Committee’s actions shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and possessing a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. In the view of the Committee, international law has not recognized a general right of peoples unilaterally to declare secession from a State. In this respect, the Committee follows the views expressed in An Agenda for Peace (paras. 17 and following), namely, that a fragmentation of States may be detrimental to the protection of human rights, as well as to the preservation of peace and security. This does not, however, exclude the possibility of arrangements reached by free agreements of all parties concerned.
Australia’s gay, transgendered, mentally ill and Tourette’s sufferers weren’t dispossed of their land and systematically taken away from their communities en masse.
“In any event, a fair amount of the intermixing was involuntary through rape and coercion, as has been documented.”
Where is the evidence that most of the 69% of indigenous Australians with non-indigenous partners as at 2001 were raped and coerced into those relationships? I think you are making that up.
I also note that you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that Aboriginals favor parliamentary segregation. Notwithstanding your protestations, they have clearly voted with their loins in favor of integration.
My views are actually informed by those of my indigenous brother-in-law. Not all indigenous Australians favor segregation.
I agree. Let’s stop the State indirectly subsiding religions through their tax-empt status for starters. Shit, taxing the Roman Catholic Church alone at the minimum corporate rate would fund decent broadband around Australia.
But since all Western democracies are riddled with subsidies and support rent-seeking activities for many vested interests and pressure groups, we might as well be hung for the odd black sheep as well as a myriad of fattened lambs.
And speaking of matters ovine, I’m wondering why someone apparently from Arkansaw (sic) knows about the Big Merino. I mean yes sure it’s big but not that big in the USA.
It’s a real place, Nabs, apparently. In Wisconsin.
But he still hasn’t said how long he’s been in Australia.
Gee, so some indigenous Australians are now voting with their loins in favour of integration with Arkansaw natives?
“I’m wondering why someone apparently from Arkansaw (sic) knows about the Big Merino”
Sigh. I’ve already dealt with that particular prejudice.
I also agree that the RCC and all other religions should have their tax exempt status removed.
I didn’t say “most”.
I’m a tad sick of people who twist others’ arguments in a way that completely lacks any good faith. Just lettin you know…
Oh, you’re doing the victimhood thing now are you?
Not uncharacteristic of conservatives who claim others are motivated by it to then appropriate it themselves - “help! I’m being monstered by elites!”…
The comments policy warns against repeated comments which have the intent or effect of turning a whole thread into a debate about one commenter’s opinion. We’ve heard a lot of yours, and since you’re not willing or able to debate without resorting to rhetorical tricks and disingenuous distortions, I think we’ve had enough of hearing about your opinion.
If you don’t like that, you can raise it with the Parliament of People from Arkansaw.
Our blog, our rules.
J of A,
You seem to have a notion of Aboriginality based on race or ethnicity that is not shared by Aboriginal people. The ATSIC definition of Aboriginality which seems to be generally accepted by Aboriginal people was that Aboriginality is determined by bloodline, that is does a person have an Aboriginal parent, are they part of an Aboriginal family. Your literally racist definition of Aboriginality is a construction of your own mind, not Aboriginal reality.
Another point that you seem misguided on is the matter of law, in particular sovereignty and land title which makes the Aboriginal situation radically different from migrant cultural groups. When joseph Banks and King George the third declared this land to be Terra Nullius, a place with no system of law or government they were wrong, a point noted by the high court in the Mabo case when it extinguished the legal fiction of Terra Nullius.
Within the lawful framework of Aboriginal government and land title, your prophecy ” A budding entrepreneur could build a Big Parliament along some road in the middle of nowhere to rival the Big Banana, Big Koala and Big Merino.” is exactly what happened and it is this big banana society that you and many others now percieve as normal and legitimate and insist should be the aspiration of the pre-existing sovereign society too. You seem not to realise that each and every Aboriginal person had a prosperous family estate from which they were disposessed by the illegal occupation of their lands. It is this disposession that is the direct cause of Aboriginal disadvantage today as well as a direct consequence of the invaders society possessing the prosperity of the land.
Sovereignty, self determination and land title are not just flavour of the month welfare strategies to improve the lot of the poor Aborigines. They are human rights and interests no less valid than the rights of Australian citizenship or land tenure.
And as for….” a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that Aboriginals favor parliamentary segregation.” If by “parliamentary segregation” you mean self determination I suggest you google Aboriginal self determination and you will find considerably more than a single shred of evidence.
Sorry. I’m not a detail man when it comes to this blog commentating thang.
Incidentally would it be fair to say that, based on 12 ball-freezing hours in Milwaukee one Janauray, and an extensive study of US culture through the media and the internet, that Wisconsin is basically full of dour and primitive Wal-Mart herders in tribal orange hunting vests obsessed by some Green Bay Packer dreamtime? Maybe I’m missing some local nuances here?