7 posts tagged “reconciliation”

As promised yesterday -

Rudd's speech here in html and here as a pdf doc; and

Nelson's speech here in html and here as a pdf doc.

Favourite bits of Rudd's:

...These stories cry out to be heard; they cry out for an apology. Instead, from the nation’s parliament there has been a stony and stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade; a view that somehow we, the parliament, should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong; a view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon. But the stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings; human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end.

That's already been called a "shot in the culture wars".  See last night's Lateline for a debate between Gerard "I still can't believe I wasn't asked to run the ABC" Henderson and Henry "historian for the chattering classes" Reynolds about it.

And I'll never forget the cheers and tears that greeted these words -

To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without qualification. We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied. We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments.

Now then, Nelson's speech.  I think one of the problems with his speech was that it was probably largely drafted by Tom Switzer.  Who's he?  Tom is Brendan Nelson's new chief of staff and the former editor of the opinion pages of The Australian.  That would be the same newspaper that was loudly derided across the blogosphere last year as The Government Gazette for its completely biased opinion pieces.  The defence of "but we get Phillip Adams writing for us" simply wasn't enough to cut it.  So Tom's the kind of guy who knows how his bread his buttered.  Nelson got the leadership thanks to tools like Alby Schultz, Don Randall and Wilson Tuckey (who were all absent for yesterday's apology) and thus he had to walk a fine line.  Unsuccessfully, as it turns out.

So.  Here's when the jeers started -

...Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but certainly not all, cases with the best of intentions. But in saying we are sorry, and deeply so, we remind ourselves that each generation lives in ignorance of the long-term consequences of its decisions and actions. Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions.

Then there's our first WTF? moment, where after saying no compo the speech sort of meanders nowhere...

...There is no compensation fund for this—nor should there be. How can any sum of money replace a life deprived of knowing your family? Separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children. Our restitution for this lies in our determination to address today’s injustices, learning from what was done and doing everything we can to heal those who suffered. The period within which these events occurred was one that defined and shaped Australia. The governments that oversaw this and those who elected them emerged from federating the nation to a century characterised for Australia as triumph in the face of extraordinary adversities unknown to our generation.

...and here's our second WTF? moment -

Let no-one forget that they sent their sons to war, shaping our identity and place in the world. One hundred thousand Australians in two wars alone gave their lives in our name and our uniform, lying forever in distant lands, silent witnesses to the future that they have given us. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians lie alongside one another. These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights. They did not buy something until they had saved up for it, and values were far more important than value. Living in considerably more difficult times, they had dreams for our nation but little money. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, King and country and the belief in something greater than yourself. Neglectful indifference to all that they have achieved while seeing their actions in the separations only, through the values of our comfortable, modern Australia, will be to diminish ourselves.

Guh?  Whuh?  It didn't work.  So that's Nelson's moment in history.  One of the most important days in modern political times and we get a speech that sounds like it's been vetted by every Liberal and National faction with the result that it ultimately ends up sounding like it was drafted by committee. 

There's simply no comparison to Rudd's.  And if it's true that Rudd wrote it himself then well-deserved kudos should go his way.  While, after reading it, I still think it's largely functional without great rhetorical sweeps (though maybe that's just a personal preference of mine), it's a fitting marker for the step we've now taken. 

So we managed to make it to the apology this morning, with plenty of time thanks to a bit of parking-fu and managing to get both the boy and I organised in time.

We went to the Parliamentary forecourt first, to see the big queue of people wanting to get in.

Parliamentary forecourt queue

Parliamentary forecourt queue 2

I always knew that wasn't going to be possible in time given how long it can take to get through security, so headed down to where the big screens were between Old Parliament House and the new one.  There was sort of an expectant feeling about the place, almost tense.  It filled up pretty quickly, with families, indigenous people who'd travelled here for it, and a number of public servants from the local buildings.

Once things got underway a feeling of relief and joy was pretty evident, with a wonderful bit of spontaneous laughter from the crowd when, as Rudd announced a joint commission between the Government and the Opposition, the camera cut away to a clearly uncomfortable Brendan Nelson.  Long and prolonged applause, plus a few tears about the place, came at the end of Rudd's speech. 

As speeches go it wasn't quite one of the best pieces of Australian political oratory we've heard, but, suiting Rudd's style, it struck me as functional and covering all the bases it needed to without any overtly rhetorical flourishes.  He's no Paul Keating working with Don Watson, put it that way.  The occasion, however, will put it down in history.  There should be a full copy of the Parliamentary speech available soon, I haven't been able to locate a copy yet (will update this with a direct Hansard link tomorrow).

Then Brendan Nelson started speaking.  I'm not exactly sure at what point people started turning their backs to the screen (it may have been around the bit about compensation seguing into the clumsy ANZAC link), but it sort of seemed to sweep across the gathering - independent of the same thing occurring in the Great Hall at the same time.

Nelson finished speaking and, as the Speaker received a gift from the indigenous elders present and Anthony Albanese took care of the adjournment machinations, the crowd started breaking up and going their separate ways, with the boy and I again walking up to the forecourt before heading home. 

I'm tremendously glad I went, and that I took my son with me (noting that he spent most of the time charming those around us).  There's something to be said for the collective experience of warmth, gratitude and relief that was there.  But now the hard work begins - Rudd made a number of commitments which his Government now will be under deserved pressure to achieve.  The apology wasn't really ever going to be the end of the issue.  As he noted, it's more of a beginning.  This is a good day.

Further to the wedge issue post, looks like today is an interesting one for the Liberals as they decide whether or not to support the apology.  There have been a couple of good cartoons about the situation that Nelson finds himself in over the past few days, here's Moir at the SMH and Kudelka's from Saturday's edition of The Australian:

They're really into his haircut aren't they?  Not as much as First Dog on the Moon is though judging by this cartoon from a little while ago (and see here for the Crikey gallery) -

Nelson's problem partly arises from his election as leader.  He needed the Western Australian votes brought over by Julie Bishop and the one sure way he could get them (and note that we're talking about the likes of Wilson "Ironbar" Tuckey here) was by saying that - in direct contrast to Malcolm Turnbull - he wouldn't be supportive of an apology to indigenous Australians.  So he's basically made a rod for his own back, and you'd have to think that while he, personally, would support an apology, the tenuous nature of his leadership has meant that he hasn't been able to come out and say it, and that today's party room meeting will spend a significant amount of time working out how to support it without sounding like dickheads.  Phew.

Anyway, ABC online article here, one from today's Australian here plus comment by Dennis Shanahan who, now that the election is over, I'm prepared to occasionally read again.  Boy's just woken up from his lunchtime nap so gotta go and cannae really comment on it all further for now...

In a comment on yesterday's post, Chezz-C'tack made a point I also wanted to touch on - is 26 January the most appropriate day to celebrate nationhood?

Well, I'm actually partial to using another day too.  While there's nothing wrong with marking the date that British settlement started, bringing with it (eventually) traditions of government and law that we've adapted over time to generally serve us pretty well since then, here in the 21st century it may be time to move on.  As there are a lot of negative associations for indigenous people, and that it may not hold a great deal of significance for the substantial part of our population who arrived, or had predecessors who arrived here well after original settlement (I'm thinking particularly of the post world war two migration into Australia) it's worth considering alternatives. 

Let's face it, it would need to be a public holiday, which may be problematic for choosing January 1, New Years Day, as the anniversary of Australian Federation.  Though it could work, maybe if we tacked on an extra day.  Federation was quite an achievement for a modern democracy, reading through all the convention transcripts last year really opened up my understanding of how distinctive our system of government, and the way we came to it, actually is.

Perhaps 27 May would be appropriate?  It marks the date that Australians decided to extend Commonwealth constitutional powers, over-riding State laws, to create and implement law benefiting indigenous people (I think the ABSTUDY scheme might be a good example, along with land rights law).  By celebrating this event, a symbolically powerful act where over 90% of the population voted in favour of the amendment (and constitutional amendment in Australia tends to be pretty hard to achieve here for various reasons), we could in effect take the day to celebrate indigenous culture and achievement.

Which I think is what I'll be doing tomorrow with the boy, right after his daily nap.  The National Museum of Australia is having a family day full of activities, demonstrations and whatnot celebrating indigenous culture.  In light of these posts I thought it appropriate, and I'm now really looking forward to the time when R's old enough to start asking questions about our country's indigenous past - both good and bad. 

I think the best thing I can do is to be honest with him.  Yes, some Australian settlers killed indigenous people, and they, too, fought back.  Sometimes with good intentions, and sometimes with bad ones, government officials took the children away. 

But there's a lot for us to learn if we want to, and we have to want to, about country, about this land which simultaneously compels and repels us with fire and flood, sun and rain.  Step out onto the inland plains on a clear night and watch the galaxy for a while.  Go for a swim in a clear water pool and look out for bunyips!  Search for the tell-tale signs of pipis on the beach as the waves run back to the ocean. 

Love where you are and where you come from, because it's special here.  And don't, don't be afraid to say sorry, and to do what you have to do to be able to move on, to grow, to change.  I think that's what I'll have to say, and how I might be able to explain to him the framed photograph with that grinning kid, hanging on my parents bedroom wall.   

The issue of monetary compensation for the damage caused to individuals and families, as a result of the child removal policies of previous governments, appears to be difficult for many Australians to process.  We are, broadly speaking, perhaps very broadly speaking, supportive of the need for an acknowledgement of past wrongs.  But I can't help wondering if the idea of "giving more cash to blackfellas" is one affected by Hansonesque notions of indigenous Australians currently receiving more government benefits and handouts than "ordinary Aussies". 

The Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has already ruled out a compensation fund being set up -  

An inquiry into the Stolen Generations recommended reparations be made but Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has ruled out compensation as part of an apology.

"What we will be doing is putting the funding in to health and education services, and providing additional support for services needed for counselling, to enable people to find their relatives," she said.

"We think the best way to give force to the apology is to provide funding to close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians."

"So we won't be creating a compensation fund."

But there's no reason why the states and territories couldn't set up their own - Tasmania already has, for example -

It is the only state to offer a compensation scheme and Premier Paul Lennon is urging other government's to follow Tasmania's lead.

Mr Lennon says the 106 people will be compensated for being taken from their families.

"The Aboriginal children who were taken from their parents, for no other reason than the fact they were Aboriginal, were denied the right that children shouldn't have to argue for in our community, and that is right to be bought up in a family," he said.

There was also a significant case before the Supreme Court of South Australia last year, Trevorrow v State of South Australia, which determined that the state was liable for damages caused by failing to heed the advice of the Solicitor-General about the removal of indigenous children.  It's a long decision (1,240 paragraphs) so probably for legal geeks only, but here's an excerpt from the conclusion reached by Justice Gray -

1233	I am satisfied that the conduct of the State, amounting to misfeasance in public office, together with the false imprisonment of the plaintiff, has been a material cause of the plaintiff’s long-term depression. It was this conduct that ruptured the bond between the plaintiff and his mother and natural family. The breaches of duty of care that occurred were also a material cause of his depression and other losses. Those losses include the loss of his Aboriginal identity. Although there may have been other contributing causes, the conduct of the State was a material contributing cause.
1234	In the result, the State is liable to the plaintiff in respect of misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment and breaches of duty of care both in regard to his removal, placement and return. The misfeasance in public office and false imprisonment occurred in circumstances where the State acted deliberately and unlawfully and in circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk of harm. The same damages are recoverable as a consequence of the common law causes of action for breach of duty.
1235	Where it is clear that a plaintiff has suffered loss the court should do its best to place a dollar value on that loss notwithstanding the paucity or absence of evidence. The court is not permitted to abandon the task through want of evidence, but a discretionary judgment should be formed.

 From what I remember and have read in one of the news articles linked to above, a case brought before the High Court of Australia in 2000 failed to get started as too much time had elapsed.  But the decision above, to me, highlights that legal remedies may be available, but it'd be a whole lot easier for everybody if we saved money on the legal fees and put it into an actual fund instead.  It's difficult to determine amounts, I know, but I remain confident that we're cluey enough to be able to work out a scheme that is fair and reflective of community expectations.

Ok, long post already.  Might do a part 4 instead about Australia Day to finish this up.

[Update 30 January] Last night, ABC Radio National's Australia Talks programme considered this issue as well and it's well worth a listen.  Go here to download the whole show. 

Not so preachy today, just a bunch of links to the facts about current indigenous health and disadvantage:

First up, the Bringing Them Home report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families;

Summary at wiki of the health and other issues of disadvantage experienced by the Australian indigenous population;

At the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a summary of selected findings from the 2002 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey, and a range of other statistical information available here at the ABS;

Publications available online at the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs;

and finally, the Reconciliation Australia homepage.  There's some really good info here, with part of the site specifically dealing with an apology including a FAQ section. From the "sorry" section -

There are a range of opinions in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community about the apology, some based on fact, some not. We don't all have to agree, but it's important that Australians understand the background and meaning of the apology and its potential to generate better outcomes for all of us.

...and in reference to the beginning of yesterday's post, here's an excerpt from the FAQ -

4. Why should Australians today apologise for something we aren’t responsible for?

Individual Australians are not providing the apology.  The apology is being provided by the Australian Government in recognition of policies of past governments.  Similarly, the former Australian Government apologised to Vietnam veterans for the policies of previous governments.  The current Government is apologising for wrongful policies of governments.  No individual Australian is being asked to take personal responsibility for actions of past governments.

Tomorrow, part 3 - the C word, compensation, and maybe a conclusion of sorts considering Australia Day itself.   

I've been mulling over whether or not to write this but the issue has simply been bugging me for the past week and a bit, especially in the lead-up to Australia Day.  I've been prompted by the following statement at the site of local blogger Samuel Gordon-Stewart  at this post -

...I did not steal children and therefore I have nothing to apologise for...

It was the only time I'd ventured a glance at his stuff and, given it appears that Samuel regularly checks Google for his own name, it may be that this will prompt another post by him on the same topic.  We'll see, and welcome Samuel if you do read this.  I don't expect nor necessarily intend to change your opinion or that of anyone else.

I acknowledge at the outset that I believe it's hard for a white Australian to write about indigenous issues without having some sort of academic, policy or life background.  Professionally I've had some exposure (in a way it's been hard not to) but I think I'll kick it off with a personal recollection of my exposure to just one or two aspects of the maelstrom that is the Stolen Generations issue.  Part Two will be about the facts and Part Three will touch on the vexed issue of compensation and seek to come to a conclusion of sorts.  I expect I'll be updating and adding as time goes on but that's just the way I do it.  I didn't want to spend several days writing an essay prior to putting it up.

My simple view is this:  In the same way that we, as Australians, take pride in our past achievements and successes, we also have a responsibility to take responsibility for what we have done wrong.    

So.  Me.  And Dwayne.

Some day I'll have to talk to my child about one of the family photographs hanging on the wall of my parents' bedroom.  It was taken in Townsville in the early 1980s, and shows all of us seated against a blue sheet background.  My two sisters, toothy grins and pretty little dresses.  My father, army fit but with hair just beginning to thin.  My mother in a dark blue dress with just the hint of stress in the corner of her eyes.  Me, the little blond-haired boy, smiling and looking off centre, presumably at the photographer.  And Dwayne, light brown skin, liveliness in his eyes, his typically huge cheeky grin and a hearing aid just visible in his right ear.

Dwayne came from Palm Island and his mum was having a few problems looking after him given his hearing problem and other dramas.  His dad was out of the picture and, honestly, that's all I know about the whole situation.  My mother, who knew Dwayne from the special school that she helped out at, agreed to take him in.  So that's how we came to have a foster brother for about a year.

I think I've mentioned before how the several years I spent as a small kid in Townsville are the ones that have left the deepest impression on me.  Dwayne was a big part of that.  Kids being kids, we didn't really start to get along at all until towards the end of his time with us.  He was a year younger than me, in between me and my sister J.  I don't think they remember much about him but it's something I'll discuss with them the next time we see each other (which, as I've gotten older and my affections mature, feels increasingly like too long a time).

The primary school we went to, Vincent State Primary, had a special school attached for kids who couldn't hear, or who had cerebral palsy, or other difficulties, and we all shared lunchtimes and play facilities.  Given mum's involvement with the classes we often went on the weekend outings to places like Blue Creek, or the Botanic Gardens, wherever.  I'd like to think that back then I stood up for them whenever they were teased by the other kids with the usual cries of "spastic!" flung at them, but I honestly can't remember.  I probably stayed silent, cowardly, not letting on that just the other day I'd played, laughed and chased in the clear and clean waters of Blue Creek with the very objects of their derision.  It's something that's really stayed with me though, manifesting itself as a deep seated protective and defensive instinct, an emotional reaction, that I don't think I'll ever be able to shake. 

But when you're six or seven years old you don't really think too much about why that kid's a different colour or why that kid's walking funny, or why that kid talks weird and can't seem to hear you.  Kids are just kids.  And people are just people.  We're arseholes, heroes and ordinary schmooks, all of us, sometimes simultaneously and sometimes stubbornly.  

It sort of meant that as I got older the usual, everyday prejudices of colour and disability that I encountered never quite sat right and I couldn't seem to overlay them onto my personality like everyone else seemed to.  It was like that at Loganlea High when I was 12 years old - why did Bruce, a brilliant fellow student and indigenous kid, have to cop so much shit just 'cos he was black?  Why was his older brother expected to be a vicious fighter at the train station after school - was it because "their heads are harder with their thicker skulls"?  Why were people being so fucking stupid?

Several years ago I attended cultural sensitivity training run by an indigenous man who started off my asking us to talk about our experiences with black people.  So I talked about Dwayne, about how we'd taken him into our family for a while.  But this bloke evidently decided that Dwayne, from his point of view, had been removed and proceeded to snark me for the rest of the afternoon.  And what could I do?  I wanted to explain that it wasn't like that, that we didn't take him on because he was black and needed to be rescued, he was just a kid who needed a home while his mum got it together.  Did we really do something wrong?  If it was ultimately a rewarding experience for me, not knowing how Dwayne feels about it, does that still make it an injustice perpetrated against him and his family?

As I've been writing this the boy has woken up, and I've been playing with him, changing nappies (category 5 with B grade viscosity and a near hull breach in the upper right quadrant, thanks for asking.  Wait, you didn't actually ask did you?), and thinking back to the question I posed at the beginning about how I'll talk to him about Dwayne, and about the broader issue of our nation's indigenous past and what it might mean for the future he's got a part in.  It's starting to come together with the aid of posts like this one, and of course it's something I'll also have to discuss with his mum.  But basically - I had a brother named Dwayne for a time, and, with the usual dramas families have, we got along alright.  We weren't really that different - we both liked playing with toy soldiers and tanks in the gravel amongst the stilts of the house, and we ran around and chased and fought each other a bit as well, just as kids do.  He was always faster than me, but I was stronger.  I think about him from time to time, and I hope he's doing alright.  That's about it.

Part Two tomorrow, perhaps - the facts.