In the (new) tradition of rich dude saves the world, someone I’d never heard of, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest – apparently Australia’s richest man, has been putting his head together with Noel Pearson and Kevin Rudd to announce a plan to create 50 000 full time private sector jobs for Indigenous Australians. Incidentally, I’m sure Pearson is behind the phraseology of a “covenant”, which no doubt appeals to our religiously inclined Prime Minister as well. No doubt such proposals should be judged on their merits, and the whole thing appears fairly sketchy at the moment.
But it is fair, I think, to say that it’s consonant with not just corporate social responsibility agendas, but also with the broader phenomenon of the privatisation of development assistance which we see worldwide – also in the field of public health. One of the criticisms of such programs – often delivered by NGOs deriving funding from foundations owned by benefactors of great wealth – such as Bill Gates – or foundations which leverage money off showbiz or biz or even political celebrity (as in Bill Clinton’s activities) is their paternalism and the lack of an integrated and properly public focus on the true dimensions of a problem – and the tendency or at least the temptation to focus on outcomes which make for good pr. Of course, in the symbolism driven political environment in which we live, you could make equally telling criticisms of a lot of public sector programs. This proposal also obviously partakes in the notion – beloved of Noel Pearson – that work and all its associated ethical dispositions are the solution to most – if not all – social ills.
There is also an obvious line of trajectory from one if not several of the logics of the Northern Territory Intervention. Given that Mal Brough’s fantasy of a vibrant private sector in remote communities was always just that, there’s clearly also a labour market element to this – particularly in terms of creating employment not so much in the mining sector per se but through ancillary (and lower paid) service and unskilled jobs which service and facilitate capital and labour utilisation in mining. It also implies – and here we’ve got the Third World parallel again – a sort of remittance based economy for those who remain in remote communities. Very similar things have been happening in Queensland on a much smaller scale – targeting Indigenous workers for jobs in retail, construction and labouring in mining communities. And it’s interesting to observe that Pearson himself has framed his rhetoric very much in terms of young men’s opportunities under this scheme.
The assertion often made with regard to Indigenous policy is that the “rights agenda” is or was pre-eminently ideological. It’s worth pointing out, with Professor Jon Altman writing in today’s Crikey, that this sort of proposal isn’t exactly “evidence based policy” either. Altman poses a range of questions that need to be answered – whatever assessment you might have of the political underpinnings of this agenda (and it definitely has them) – particularly when the commitment of so much public money in providing the training and the changes to public policy involved are at stake.
Shame on you Mark – this is a political blog and you didn’t even know who Australia’s richest man is ! Being left-wing isn’t all about gender – entertaining though that is. (Adrien and Pavlov’s Cat do a good George and Martha – do they look like Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor?)
Twiggy’s intervention chimes in exactly with the W.A. government’s philosophy. From Eric Ripper (W.A. treasurer) in November last year: “Deputy Premier Eric Ripper said the key to addressing long-term disadvantage in indigenous communities was employment and engagement with the real economy …. In recognition of the need for appropriate support and job readiness services, the Carpenter Government has recently committed almost $10million for the Indigenous Trade Training Package, which includes funding for job and training readiness support, mentoring and cross-cultural training in the workplace”
I guess the reason people will be happy that Twiggy is going to do something is that something might actually get done. He didn’t become so rich by doing nothing. And some of the mining companies have very impressive records of recruiting and supporting indigenous workers. As opposed to the government’s very, very poor record of, it seems, having done virtually nothing.
Go to the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ website and you find that … they’re developing plans. They’ve been developing plans for as long as anyone can remember – the Department must be bursting with reports and plans. It’s a bit like a recent post here from some guy who was helping the W.A. Department of Culture and the Arts develop new policies. Hopeless. Whether it’s indigenous affairs or arts I look at the last 25 years of government achievement and think – give it all to Twiggy, give it to someone who might actually get something done.
Russell, I do concede that it’s true that I don’t keep up with the BRW rich list or follow the celebrity cults of CEOs or mining billionaires (or the sorts of people who are called “Twiggy” – mostly) and the sort of writing that hangs on their every word. In general, I think when they intervene in political and social issues, big biz types act fairly predictably and are driven largely by self-interest of one sort or other. That’s not necessarily an ethical reflection, more a statement about the sorts of personality types that end up at the top of those sorts of trees.
But leaving that aside, your comment seems to me to indicate the appeal this sort of move may have – that is to say, to a sentiment that the private sector “gets things done” – rather than contributes to an assessment of it in a policy sense.
As I suggested in the post, I’m well aware of some of the initiatives that have been taken by industry with regard to employment in and around the mining industry in Queensland. A first order question might be – given that these initiatives respond primarily to labour supply issues rather than seek to achieve social ends (except by indirection as it were) – why they should receive very substantial public financial support – and the carriage of much of the political risk – if they’re probably the sorts of things the private sector might do so in its own interest anyway. In other words, as with so many forms of public funding of training, we’ve got a classic free rider situation.
And there are a lot of other questions – some of which I’ve alluded to, and some which are raised by Altman in the linked article – which require answers somewhat more searching than “yay! go private sector!”…
I think you’ve hit the nail smack on the head Mark.
My brother has worked in the Pilbarra. It’s a million miles from anywhere and Mr Forrest needs to provide extra-generous wages and conditions (such as flying workers in and out) in order to procure the labour needed. Despite forking out all this, he has still managed to become Australia’s richest man.
Now if only there were people living in the area who could be partly funded by the government to work for him, the saving might just allow him to overtake Bill Gates in the most ridiculously wealthy stakes………..
I would be very interested in what is planned for the ethical oversight of any such scheme, depending as it does on the willingness of the covenanted indigenous workers to move with their families to where the work will be.
Mr Forrest may well be as ethical in his intentions towards these workers as the day is long (noting the Boy From Flynn’s point about him benefiting from the lower labour costs anyway). But what about less scrupulous employers? It looks like a scheme that could easily glide into a form of indentured servitude to me.
Thats one of the fundamental problems isn’t it? There aren’t jobs where they currently live and getting people (indigenous or not) to move to areas where there are jobs has always been difficult.
I don’t really care if he makes a buck out of it as well, but I’d certainly hope that the participants weren’t legally bound to work for his companies.
I think thats a bit unfair to him Mark. There’s a difference between identifying a specific issue that needs to be fixed in order for general improvement to occur and claiming that fixing that issue will fix all other issues. Having jobs is a requirement to improving conditions, its just not necessarily sufficient by itself.
He has thrown down a direct challenge to the state government here though. He has reiterated that it is the States responsability to ensure the workers are “job ready”. For to long the Aboriginals have been expected to put up with substandard teaching in the remoter areas, which leaves many with a bare understanding of even spoken english. This effectively cripples them for most mainstream work.
That means some literacy, and lack of substance abuse.
There seems to be this idea that Aboriginals are discriminated against by mining companies because of race. This is extremely rare (maybe in some 1 horse operations). My own minesite has Aboriginal, African (various), Asian and an number of others. The employment market is so tight a company silly enough to restrcting hiring like that would be cutting its own throat.
They have a stated policy that any trainee positions should be taken by locals first, rather than fly in/fly outs.
The sad fact of the matter is any employable Aboriginal (or other) living near a mine at the moment will be snapped up in a heartbeat. The biggest barriers are lack of an education (which generaly results in bottom entry positions and lower wages) or substance abuse. The “Superpit” in Kal would absorb every unemployed Aboriginal in the Kalgoorlie region. From a business point of view it would save them money. Much less “fly in/fly out. They Advertise for Aboriginal preffered positions and have dedicated programmes to assist in making some work ready.
As part of my other duties on a gold site I was responsible for assissting the Gold Squad (police) in vetting new employees for suitability for working on a gold operation. I saw that as a greater barrier to people who had gotten their lives together than race. Again Aboriginal people were more likely to have been caught up in petty crime (mainly due to substance abuse) and had their employment ability cut off because of crimes they would no longer commit.
The government has failed to produce people capable of work, Twiggy has basicly called them out on that.
Clive Palmer was also in the news in February this year offering $100 million to help Aborigines in Western Australia.
No reports yet of any monies actually delivered. Cheap publicity, I suspect because there are lots of ‘ifs’.
Mark – what area of government action, over the last 30 years, has been as unsuccessful as indigenous affairs. I’ve run out of patience with the politicians, bureaucrats and academics who have been running this miserable failure, so, while not expecting much, I’m pleased to see Twiggy have a go at motivating people to make a difference.
I think it would be better to hold off with the negativity this time and encourage the government to at least do its bit with the training. To warn that we need to be careful “particularly when the commitment of so much public money in providing the training and the changes to public policy involved are at stake” seems to be searching for faults – after all how much of the education budget goes to aborigines?
Jon Altman is also desperate to find reasons to criticise: “If such a goal [50,000 jobs] were achieved in two years, serious consideration needs to be given to the likely social and economic impacts of such an unprecedented transformative project on Indigenous families, home communities and societies”. And who better than academics to spend more public money on more reports and studies and analysis of the potential harm of this transformative project?
The politicians and bureaucrats have failed badly in indigenous affairs. Politicians like Premier Carpenter have, I guess, assumed there are no votes in spending on indigenous affairs, and only votes to be lost in providing ‘welfare’ to disfunctional communities, so they’ve just washed their hands of the whole business. There’s almost nothing left to hope for but that someone like Twiggy provides a bit of energy to get things going.
Russell, having been (tangentially) involved in an effort to improve Indigenous employment outcomes in Central Queensland, I’m well aware that the heavy lifting here is that done by the public sector in the training area – and this was on a scheme where there was no compulsion. I’m not disposed to cast stones here, and I could have been a lot more negative than I am being, but I think Altman has put his finger on some real practical issues. They don’t appear to be the ones that business is offering to take on, waiting for the “job ready” workers to be delivered to their door step.
In addition, I’m very concerned that this might be some sort of replacement for the good aspects of the CDEP scheme, which in some instances, does bring genuine benefits to communities.
“… particularly when the commitment of so much public money in providing the training and the changes to public policy involved are at stake.”
How much public money is going into the scheme?
Well, we don’t know, mel. Which raises the question of why these announcements are made before the detail has been thrashed out… but if you think about the cost of “intensive” training for 50 000 people, obviously it’s going to be considerable, and it may be that the Commonwealth will bear other costs.
I nominate defence procurement. That’s been every bit as unsuccessful as indigenous affairs, vastly more expensive, but has drawn a fraction of the criticism.
There’s a point to be made there, Mole. However, in some of the initiatives that have been taken in remote areas of Queensland, there have been substantial improvements in education and particularly technical education and the mining sector has ponied up some of the money – as they should, because as you rightly suggest, they benefit from a local source of labour to a much greater extent than importing labour. That also raises the question of the motives behind the apparent compulsion that’s mooted or suggested for people to move to “where the jobs are”, and why such a scheme has to be delivered with so much of the “tough love” big stick approach beloved of Pearson and Rudd.
“why these announcements are made before the detail has been thrashed out… ”
Because by the time the bureaucrats have produced plans with evidence-based detail a new idea has come along, so that all stops, and they go to work on the new idea. Nothing actually ever happens though.
Mark, you’re sounding very mean about this training money. What effective education have these people had from the state if we’re talking about training to give them the most basic literacy and numeracy skills?
You need to read what I’m saying more carefully, Russell. I’m very far from objecting to intensive training. What I am questioning is whether it should be in the interests of working in particular businesses rather than creating transferable skills which would allow people to move into jobs of their choice rather than ones that they are compelled to take to further the self-interest of those businesses.
And I just don’t get your complacency about big picture announcements which are completely lacking in detail and practicality. We’ve seen – very starkly – the gap between the claims made for the NT intervention and the performance, even if you accept its aims and goals. One would think that government might learn from that, though apparently as soon as you mention “private sector” it’s a magic incantation which absolves anyone from having to think about the implementation.
“I nominate defence procurement. That’s been every bit as unsuccessful as indigenous affairs, vastly more expensive, but has drawn a fraction of the criticism.”
Given the misery and mortality afflicting indigenous Australians I’d be very upset if this WAS NOT the case. Nonetheless you have raised a point worth making.
Here is some like research, this small summary is part of a much larger report – but it’s bang on topic in terms of training, mining and indigenous Australian in remote Australia:
“My Country, Mine Country: Indigenous people, mining and development contestation in remote Australia”
http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/educationfutures/ref100.pdf
sorry wrong link….half doing something else, and Australians…
this is the summary:
http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/educationfutures/ref100.pdf
The incorrect link is to an environmental group campaigning against longwall mining under aquifiers in the Sydney Water Catchment Basin. Cause mining companies always have our best interests at heart.
Just a decade and half ago, when commodity prices weren’t going gang busters and indigenous land rights – hello Mabo & Wik were the big issues – mining and indigenous Australia was not about ‘training opportunities’ that’s fer sure.
You can’t separate mining from a 200 year old campaign to regain Native Title in this country. It was mining companies who helped fund much of the hysterical “they’ll take your backyard” stuff that hit the front pages. It was base, partisan and nasty and mining companies, the big pastoralists and the LNP should hang their heads for this tawdry slice of our history.
Mining companies also had to be pulled into line over mining on sacred sites, were forced to undertake rehabilitation work on old mines and are still pushing the envelope in terms of the direct environment effects of mining in regional and remote environments, let alone climate change etc.
The triple bottom line and CSR agendas are pretty recent stuff and I very much welcome any positive change in corporate behaviour including ththese types of initiatives, BUT that doesn’t mean that corporates should be given a free ride & no detail required blah, just cause they have buckets of after-tax profits rather than buckets of extinguishment.
gads, it was the correct link in the first post – sorry, was up half the night with child w/gastro.
the link that isn’t relevant to this topic, but as I mentioned it, & for Sydneysiders:
http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/CatchmentMining/CatchmentMiningBriefing.htm
Ben Cubby, the SMH environment reporter often has updates about this issue, I saw one in today’s SMH about farmers locking out BHP for the same reason – longwall coal mining draining their aquifiers.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bhp-relents-on-longwall-mining/2008/08/05/1217702042561.html
Sorry Mark back on on-topic.
In many cases its not a huge amount of training needed. Most of the machinery positions (loader, bogger, truck etc) earn v-good money, and are lifelong skills easy to move over to the “outside world”.
It is the basic education that is missing in many cases. This can be overcome, but to expect mining companies to teach basic mathematics, literacy and primary school level education is a little unfair.
Its not a skillset any company (bar remedial learning/adult education specalists) outside the government put any time into.
One of my duties at our site is to run inductions for new starters twice a week. Its like putting brains in statues sometimes. Many mining employees arent from acedemic backgrounds, so getting them to sit still for 1&1/2 days of classwork is like pulling teeth.
I have on only 1 occasion inducted a man with severe literacy problems. He wasnt “dumb” he just couldnt read at all. Instead of 1/2 a day (it was surface induction only) it took the whole day. I would read out the questionare and he would give me the answers oraly. We got him through and he worked for us for a while as a surface truckie.
The government has broken its obligation to educate these people. If an employer takes them on and spends the extra time/resources to employ them then good. But it would be unfair to expect it to be done on a mass basis.
The point you’re missing here, though, Mole, is the degree to which these people will be effectively compelled to take these jobs.
They are free to move about as any other person in this country. If they choose to limit their employment prospects by living in a location which offers fewer opportunities for varied work. Every year thousands of people move for educational and work reasons.
To what extent does society in general or mining companies in paticular owe a interesting career path to local people? They can offer the educational and training opportunities to those who are suitable, but little else.
Hypotheticly: Should a mining company take an Aboriginal (or other local) with little education and try to make them an engineer? How should a company pick the “winner” who gets a start at a low level of skill/education, without seeing them work.
Theyd prefer a person who has at least demonstrated academic achivement as a way to “cull” people who may not be career oriented (if somebody has achived a qualification you know they must be at least partialy keen on the position). Without that its a bit more like picking names from a phone book.
Almost nobody starts off in mining in a plum machinery or management position without tertiary qualifications. My own site has a training plan where it take around 2 years of truck driving/nipper/service crew/paste plant work (around $50-$60K per year for week on/week off position) before you are eligable to move up to the bigger and better toys. The most highly paid of the “uneducated” jobs (jumbo operator, $120K+) generaly arent open to anyone with less than 10 years experience underground. Although for the last few years due to demand many people with less experience have been fast tracked, usualy at the cost of both production and safety.
In short the only realistic way open to “sexy” non machinery work is through training , all the way through to tertiary as a usual minimum.
Mole, removing someone’s welfare payments if they don’t move to a specified location for a specified job hardly constitutes “freedom”.
So as long as I isolate myself in a location where there are no realistic work prospects society is obliged to fund me?
If I chose to lead a lifestyle marred by substance abuse society is obliged to fund me?
A completely traditional Aboriginal lifestyle cant exist with full time normal employment. BHP has been at the forefront of offering extremely flexible work conditions and training. What has to happen is a hybrid, where local “holidays” for ceremonial or clan activities can be incorporated. But would the supporters of Aboriginal rights accept lower pay if that meant less hours worked or much greater levels of support were needed?
I strongly believe many here are making the automatic assumption that miners would just like the Aboriginals gone, rather than as people they can work with. Educated and work ready they are a godsend for companies.
http://sustainability.bhpbilliton.com/2004/repository/caseStudies/socioEconomic33.asp
Heres an excerpt from that bit of company material.
The importance of education initiatives to the overall success of the program cannot be underestimated. BHP Billiton Iron Ore is now the primary sponsor of two education programs that we conduct in partnership with the Western Australian Department of Education & Training, the Commonwealth Department of Employment & Workplace Relations, the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science & Training, the local indigenous community and the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation. One of the programs is at Port Hedland and another recently commenced at Newman.
The Port Hedland Partnership program is now into its third year. Through mentoring, homework supervision and work experience, the program aims to assist indigenous children to achieve their full potential. Students attending school in Years 8 to12 can apply to be selected. A compact is established with the selected students, their families and the partners, which includes a commitment to work towards set educational and personal growth goals. A dedicated coordinator is jointly funded by the partners. In addition, we have provided a building that is available for student use after school. It contains computer equipment and facilities for tutoring, homework, recreation and dining. A bus is available for student pick up and drop off as well as for excursion activities.
Applying for positions in the partnership program is highly competitive; for example, in 2003 there were 32 applicants for the five vacant positions. The students selected are those who show promise, are committed to their education and have family support and encouragement. Overall, there has been a noted improvement in grades and school attendance by the participating students and they are becoming role models among their colleagues, family and the broader community.
So Forrests idea isnt new.
I could object to your conception of “choice” here on a number of grounds, Mole, but I doubt we’d get very far. It should be noted that people aren’t chattels to be moved where they might best “work” regardless of either labour supply issues or some crisis of “dysfunction” (and let’s not forget there are many Indigenous communities where this “dysfunction” – at least in terms of substance abuse – just doesn’t exist). However, let’s be clear about what we’re talking about here:
That’s probably a more relevant indicator than the unemployment rate, for the reasons the ABS gives:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6287.0/
The strong impression I had from what Pearson was saying on Lateline the other night (link in the post) was that this initiative was targeted at males in remote areas. Why? Levels of literacy and numeracy are probably higher in urban and regional areas. Is it just males in remote communities who can “benefit” by being treated as labour units to be moved to where the supply is? Why?
Previous programs I’m familiar with have worked reasonably well because they seek to target local labour, not move people around the country. There would clearly be cultural impediments to all this which people like Forrest ought to be aware of. It seems to me that it’s yet another instalment in Pearson’s agenda of “orbiting” – taking selected males out of communities and establishing some sort of remittance economy. Leaving aside all the other questions I’ve raised, it appears to me that one of the continuities that exists with the Intervention is the tendency to want remote communities to disappear altogether in the interests of economic factors. That appears to be the way you would like things to go.
“It should be noted that people aren’t chattels to be moved where they might best “work” regardless of either labour supply issues …”
People have moved about in search of employment since Adam was a boy. I moved from rural Victoria to the big smoke and so did 90% of my peers back in the late 80s when there were virtually no jobs available.
No-one who is capable of work should expect ongoing welfare payments if they refuse to take all reasonable steps to find work, and that includes a change of location.
I also note your failure to give voice to the indigenous Australians who stand to benefit from this programme. Why do you feel entitled to speak on their behalf?
That’s fine for you, mel, but that was your choice. The contrary argument – when made about obscelescent brown jobs – that people shouldn’t lightly be forced to leave communities to which they’re deeply attached no longer seems to be even considered when it comes to blackfellas.
As to your last point, it’s silly. I’m not speaking on anyone’s behalf. I’m more than entitled as an Australian citizen and a tax payer to raise questions. You don’t seem to feel any reticence in supporting it, and I’ve noted that a number of Indigenous leaders are also raising questions. There is naturally nothing at our end stopping any Indigenous people who want to comment on it here from doing so!
“… that people shouldn’t lightly be forced to leave communities to which they’re deeply attached no longer seems to be even considered when it comes to blackfellas.”
You have a peculiar obsession with this whitefella versus blackfella thing. You are also being simplistic. Remember how the very whitebread Paxton kids were exposed in the media as lazy “job snobs” and “dole bludgers” a decade or so ago? That was front page news and intensely personal. We aren’t seeing anything like this in relation to the indigenous people who choose to absent themselves from the job market.
“I’m more than entitled as an Australian citizen and a tax payer to raise questions.”
Me too. I’m sick of funding other people’s lifestyle choices.
So living in a remote community, in your view, mel, is a “lifestyle choice” and a choice to “absent [oneself] from the job market”? That’s all?
Personally, I don’t regard obeisance to the almighty dictates of the “job market” as compulsory or even laudable, but that’s my choice. But I can see that the situation is a lot more complex than some risible dichotomy about “job snobs”. I can also see a case for the facilitation of Indigenous engagement with the labour market, but I don’t see that case is furthered by kneejerk support for proposals which appear to be at best sketchy.
I do think that compulsion is not just philosophically wrong, but also often highly counter-productive in achieving the goals set out for it, and indeed unnecessary for a genuine attempt to achieve those same goals – which in this instance are at least supposed to be about providing opportunity rather than the way you appear to be characterising them – freeing you from having to pay for others’ “choices”. It’s actually not about you, I don’t think.
Perhaps because he sees the high unemployment rate of males in the remote communities as being the cause of much of the dysfunction in those communities? You’re probably right in that it would be easier and cheaper to recruit people from urban and regional areas, but that would do nothing to help the remote communities.
Well, perhaps he does, Chris, but you know, evidence based policy and all that! Do we know this in any meaningful sense other than Pearson’s suppositions and what appears to be the new common sense from the “welfare to work” mob? And do we really want to be intervening in a differential way in order to target males of a particular race in a particular place? I’ve long since given up expecting most of the so-called “libertarians” and “liberals” to make points like these, but talk about social engineering!
Then there’s the fact that all this is basically assimilation – and compulsory assimilation – in a very real way. Which is surely why – since we’re going further down the track of policy that has differential application dependent on the race of its targets – we should be very very careful indeed in attending to compulsion. Which I will continue to oppose on a variety of grounds.
Oh but that was just an election mantra, not a policy
I agree its a bit odd to see things like this get such quick agreement from the Labor party. But it is consistent with the Kevin Rudd that was elected.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember Noel Pearson saying that he thought these sort of schemes should be available for the wider population as well eventually. Kind of like what is happening with welfare quarantining in non indigenous areas now.
In terms of assimilation, I think it very much depends on exactly what you mean by assimilation? If changes in in life expectancy rates are going to change, then I’d expect at least some assimilation would be happen. But this doesn’t mean that you would lose all of the culture – anymore than an immigrant does when they move to Australia.
Mark,
Are you sure indigenous people are going to be drafted into this programme and have their welfare cut if they refuse to comply?
Also you misinterpret my motives. I favour a “tough love” approach because I think it will help these young blokes in the long run. When I was 18, living with my parents and unemployed I was given the choice by the old man- get a job now or get out. So I left. It felt cruel at the time but I’m thankful for it now. Paternalism isn’t always a bad thing.
mel, that’s the assumption I’m making on the basis of what Pearson said on Lateline (link in post).
Yes, he did say that. But what we’ve seen – unless I haven’t been keeping up with it – is a limited trial of welfare quarantining in a Perth suburb. Which Macklin said would only be extended if it works.
Yes, they’re using small groups to test social engineering techniques for the wider community. There are ethical questions about this approach especially when its race based. I think its better than just rolling out large changes to everyone at once, but does need to be thought out carefully.
Northern Land Council (NLC) chairman Wali Wunungmurra has backed the Forrest plan:
“”I welcome this bold initiative and the willingness of the Australian government to join with employers to prepare Aboriginal people for employment and to create real jobs for our people,” he said.
Mr Wunungmurra said the NLC wanted to join the steering committee, chaired by Mr Forrest, to prepare a blueprint for the plan.
“The Prime Minister has talked about the need for a strong and close partnership with Indigenous people in order for this plan to have any chance of success,” he said.
“I wholeheartedly agree with this.”
http://www.nit.com.au/breakingnews/story.aspx?id=15694
It is apparent that Mr Wunungmurra rejects Mark Bahnisch’s welfarist and segregationist vision. Is he now going to be demonised as per Noel Pearson?
sorry. link for above quote: http://www.nit.com.au/breakingnews/story.aspx?id=15694
Mel, no, because:
(a) I’ve pointed out that the current “debate” over Indigenous policy is as stereotyped, ideological and falsely polarised as the previous one;
(b) I don’t accept those dichotomies.
I think that you’re unwilling to read what I’m actually saying (which is by no means a wholly negative reaction) so you need – for some reason which actually has little to do with me – to position me within the terms of a “debate” I’m actually trying to transcend.
You haven’t transcended anything. You played the race card, which I deflected by reminding you about the Paxton drama. You also made this baseless claim:
“Then there’s the fact that all this is basically assimilation – and compulsory assimilation – in a very real way.”
All Forest wants to do is bring indigenous folk into the paid workforce. Bringing people into the paid workforce has nothing to do with assimilation. In multicultural Australia it isn’t unusual for example to have an Indian Sikh, a third-generation Jew and a white overtly homosexual male all working side-by-side and very definitely unassimilated.
Your graceless attitude to what is an entirely positive development is utterly baffling.
I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to say with regard to the Paxtons, mel, and I don’t know what you mean by claiming that I’ve played “the race card”. All I’m doing is asking some practical questions and raising some philosophical points. You seem to think that everyone should agree with you (and/or Pearson and Forrest) and that anyone who doesn’t is doing something wrong or illicit. I disagree, but since I don’t think that you’re treating what I write with any desire to understand, but rather attempting to box me into some corner of your own making, I have no intention of engaging with you further on this topic.