Orble - Outrage!

Outrage!

follow this blog

2 daily readers

rank of 5351

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Spotlight Posts

A concise list of all things Australians should be 'outraged' about!

[ more ]

'Welcome to Country'

June 16th 2008 11:17

© Kathryn Killeen 2008

At the opening of the of the 42nd parliament, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wasn’t the only new fixture to the event, for the first time in its history the launch was preceded by a ‘welcome to country’ ceremony performed by representatives from Indigenous communities. This is to be the first of many as both the Prime Minister and opposition leader Brendan Nelson agreed that it was to be a permanent feature of all future openings of federal parliament.

In 1927, at the first opening of parliament house in Canberra no Indigenous Australians were invited. Prime Minster Kevin Rudd spoke of this at this years opening, “It's taken 41 parliaments to get here. We can be a bit slow sometimes but we got here. When it comes to parliaments of the future, this will become part and parcel of the fabric of our celebration of Australia in all of its unity and all of its diversity." (Coorey & Davis, 2008)

"Despite the fact that parliaments have been meeting here for the better part of a century, today is the first time that as we open the Parliament of the nation that we are officially welcomed to country by the first Australians of this nation," (ABC, Feb 12, 2008) he said.

Indigenous Australians have seemingly grown accustomed to important decisions taking a long time. However it would seem that 2008 is a time for change for Aboriginal people, as just a day after the first ‘welcome to country’ ceremony is held at the opening of parliament a formal apology is given to the Stolen Generations.

University of Technology Sydney Professor and Barrister, Larissa Behrendt says, “As somebody whose family was affected by that policy, with my father and my grandmother both being affected by it. I felt the apology was a very important thing to do.”

‘The interesting thing will be when people say ‘hang on a minute, what comes after sorry?’”

On the back of both of these gestures made by the government to the Indigenous people of Australia, many schools are now being encouraged to adopt ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies at their school assemblies and other such meetings of importance.

A traditional ceremony usually states, “I would like to respectfully acknowledge the (insert tribe) people who are the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we stand." (Metlikovec, 2008) So far these ceremonies are most common in New South Wales, Queensland and West Australian schools.

However the Australian government will not be forcing schools to participate, as Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard points out, “These things are best left to emerge organically from a community movement.” (Metlikovec, 2008)

A nice sentiment, however it is not so much an ‘organic change in community movement’ that will see a new era of all schools making the move to publicly acknowledge the land they are on. It is actually how are new are being educated that will be the turning point for ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies to become common place our school system.

Robert Bess, a post-graduate student studying teaching at Deakin University says, “On the front page of our unit guides, and at the first lecture of the semester, there is usually a small ‘welcome to country’. This is my second degree, and I never came across anything like this when studying my first degree, and as far as I can tell it is purely an education faculty thing where this occurs.”

Mr. Bess is quick to point out that he doesn’t disagree with this new tradition. But it does make clear the future of these ceremonies entering different facets of the community.

Victorian Principles Association president Fred Ackerman, and Victorian Aboriginal Education Association programs manager Lowana Moore both support this new shift in thinking when adopting a formal ceremony to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land.

A collaborative effort from The New South Wales Department of Education and Training, the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Inc. (NSW AECG Inc.) and the New South Wales Teachers Federation have together compiled a list of protocols and guidelines that public schools and TAFE institutes should follow when performing a ‘welcome to country’ or ‘acknowledgement of country’ ceremony. The protocols outline the appropriate steps that should be adhered to when performing either of these ceremonies.

Although a small ceremony at the opening of parliament, or even a school assembly may seem like a nice gesture to most in the community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, there are those who find the ceremony racist and insulting.

In the Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt, an opinion columnist wrote in his article, ‘The Great dividing rage’, “I had hoped that racism was dying in this country, but it's back - in a funkier and official form. Almost no government ceremony now starts without a new little ceremony to make clear that we really do rank each other by race.’

“It was bad enough that such thinking took hold of our political class, but worse is that it's now being foisted on school children - building a culture of ethnic separatism that's already causing us too much trouble.'

“Several state schools in Victoria (where else?) now have these Welcome to Country ceremonies at assemblies or special days, as do some in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia.” (Bolt, 2008)

Larissa Behrendt recently spoke at the University of Technology Sydney, where she addressed, ‘What follows sorry?’ She said, “When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to members of the stolen generation on the 13th of February 2008, it was indeed a historic occasion. It was a significant day because the apology was long overdue. Having been a key finding in the 1997 ‘Bringing them Home’ report…it made the recommendation that an official apology should be made by all governments.’

“The day (of the apology) was also important for many Aboriginal people I spoke to around the country as they were heartened at just how many non-indigenous Australians obviously believed that the day was significant and important to them too.”

Despite Mr. Bolt’s view that the ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies, “fight alienation with a ceremony of reverse alienation, or racism with reverse racism.” It would seem more likely that people are simply becoming more aware of Aboriginal history and are now accepting it as a part of their own history.

This awareness will continue to grow ever present in our education system as a new generation of teachers enters the arena and with further advances in a national curriculum in history. Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey has indicated that it is; "The Government's intention to develop a national curriculum in history offers the prospect that more of this history could be incorporated into our education programs." (Coorey & Davis, 2008) This just makes the ‘welcome to country’ ceremony a nice way to combine the old and the new.

Secondary References
Bolt, A. (2008, May 02). The Great Dividing Rage. Herald Sun. Retrieved, May 2nd 2008, from Really Long Link

Coorey, P, & Davis, M. (2008, Feb 13). Welcome Ritual Marks Opening of Parliament. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved, May 11th 2008, from Really Long Link

ABC. MPs ‘welcomed to country’, February 12 2008. Retrieved May 20 2008 from, Really Long Link

Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country Guidelines and Protocols for NSW Public Schools and TAFE NSW Institutes, (n.d). Retrieved June 1 2008 from Really Long Link

Metlikovac, J. (April 30 2008). Schools urged to go with welcome to country. Herald Sun. Retrieved May 12 2008 from Really Long Link

Vote

Comments (2)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Kathryn 1 - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Can democracy and free trade be spread by force?

May 26th 2008 10:37

© Kathryn Killeen 2008

“Many wars were fought by states to achieve their mercantilist goals.” (Burchill, 2001:62) War is costly. Money can be the catalyst for going to war whilst at the same time it can be the thing that brings it to an end. The idea of spreading democracy and free trade by force is almost counter intuitive in that it opposes the very ideals it sets to instil in oppressed people. Traditionally violence and a sudden uprising has been the only way to challenge the current status quo. More recently however we see that no matter how many military resources one may have at hand in the end not be enough to overthrow a politically stoic nation.

Historically, the achievement of free trade or democracy within the nation state had been exceedingly difficult to achieve, particularly for a young nation. From the first battle for independence in the 1700’s to much later independence movements within the now developing world, democracy and free trade have always been the elusive goals. In certain circumstances, the use of force has not been necessary to change the representation or the organisation of a set of peoples within a predetermined boundary. Clear examples of this can be seen in the cases of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and federation of British colonies to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. Free trade and the establishment of trading blocs such as the European Union have demonstrated that free trade can be spread without force but with the lucrative financial guarantees and political sacrifices that come along with it.

Free trade is weakening the nation state. There are no longer squabbling super powers of the world. Everyone is so interconnected financially that we may finally be removing the threat of imminent destruction. Burchill suggests that “Free trade and the removal of barriers to commerce is at the heart of modern interdependency theory…This would encourage states, such as France and Germany, which traditionally resolved their differences militarily, to cooperate within a commonly agreed economic and political framework for their mutual benefit. States would then have a joint stake in each other’s peace and prosperity. The European Union is the best example of economic integration engendering closer economic and political cooperation in a region historically bedevilled by national conflicts.” (Burchill, 2001:64)

From the point of view of a nation state there are certain advantages as well as clear disadvantages, of which a nation itself must grapple with. Rather than free trade or trading benefits be achieved through force, it is suggested that these trading advantages be obtained “…via membership of international institutions, (and) states can significantly broaden their conceptions of self interest in order to widen the scope for cooperation. Compliance with the rules of these organisations not only discourages the narrow pursuit of national interests, it also weakens the meaning and appeal of state sovereignty.” (Burchill, 2001:64)

Without these firmly defined boundaries, “…the growth of economic interdependency has been matched by a corresponding decline in the value of territorial conquest for states. In the contemporary world the benefits of trade and cooperation among states greatly exceed that of military competition and territorial control.” (Burchill, 2001:65)
Modern trade differs greatly with the issues colonial Australians entertained in the times preceding federation. However, in both cases these ideals (democracy and or free trade) were spread without the use of force. Australia achieved democracy by referendum which was preceded by years of debate, not ward. “After more than a decade of discussion, planning, campaigning, politicking and bickering, six of Great Britain's colonies in Australasia united as a nation when the Commonwealth of Australia was officially inaugurated on January 1, 1901,
‘…Progress towards nationhood remained slow across those ten years and was never a forgone conclusion. It was regularly scuttled by fragmentation and jealousy among the seven colonies, but in the end, six managed to unite as a Commonwealth within the British Empire.” (Federation Story, accessed 20.05.08)

Whilst the Australian case demonstrated a peaceful union of existing colonies into one Commonwealth, the dissolution of the Soviet Union into small self-governing states was indeed quite the opposite, however it still maintained a degree of decorum.

“On 25 December 1991 the red flag was lowered from the Kremlin and by the end of the month the Soviet Union had passed into history. Fifteen new states stood where one mighty superpower had recently held sway,

‘Seldom, if ever, has a highly authoritarian political system, deploying military means sufficient to destroy life on earth, been dismantled so peacefully. Never has an empire disintegrated with so little bloodshed. Although huge difficulties remained for the successor states, the way Soviet communism came to an end was one of the great success stories of 20th century politics.” (Brow 2001, accessed 20.05.2008)

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a key shift in global politics which transformed the opinions, outlooks, and policies of nations worldwide. Whereas the use of force was negated by mutually assured destruction, the lack of a second super power, led to the certainty of force and violence when achieving free trade, independence, and democracy. “The collapse of bipolarity in the early 1990’s was a cause for grave concern. Mutual nuclear deterrence maintained a stabilising balance of power in the world, whereas unipolarity would not last, eventually leading to volatility and war.” (Burchill, 2001:61)

As mentioned, democracy and freedom in limited circumstances have been achieved without force and without bloodshed. This being so, force in itself can struggle to solve conflict, as directly opposed to initialising it. A number of wars were fought in order to decide ideas of independence and freedom, and force was used to promote these ideas and was countered with force to crush them. This collision has led to a number of ‘stalemates’ on the battlefield where an armistice has been agreed upon to purely end years of suffering. These instances include, Korea in the 1950’s, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

The WWII Allied summit meetings determined the fate of Japan, at the time Korea was a Japanese colony thus had its fate decided on that day pending the return of Korea’s independence. At the summit it was decide that the North of Korea should be occupied by the 38th parallel by Soviet Russia and the South would be controlled by a United States military administration.

Under the umbrella of Soviet control, the North with Kim Il-sung created the North Korean Peoples’ Army which was equipped with the might of the Russian arsenal. In the South, the US administrations openly declared its commitment to unifying the two Korea’s by force. The American trained South Korean Army was limited artillery and could not match the force of the North.

“After several years of increasingly bloody frontier incidents along the 38th parallel, the Republic of Korea was invaded by the North Korean Peoples' Army on 25 June 1950.” (Hickey 2001, accessed 20.05.2008)

Although there was an obvious military discrepancy between the North and South it still wasn’t over. The United States employed the member states of the United Nations to rally against Russia and their new ally China.

“The allies achieved total naval supremacy when the North Korean navy's torpedo boats were blown out of the water by UN firepower. For the rest of the war, American, British, Commonwealth and other allied ships maintained a tight blockade on North Korea.” (Hickey 2001, accessed 20.05.2008)

In 1951, Korean land was in stalemate, both sides agreed to armistice talks. These talks continued for 2 years, their main point of disagreement being future of communist prisoners of war in camps on Koje Island.

“In July 1953, a great calm descended over the battlefields and in Operation Big Switch, thousands of former prisoners on each side were returned. A Demilitarised Zone or DMZ was established on the border. Both sides withdrew from their fighting positions, and a UN commission was set up to supervise the armistice.” (Hickey 2001, accessed 20.05.2008)
Vietnam is a prime example of the US trying to suppress an addition to the growing communist states. “During the ten years of America's commitment to the Vietnam war, 55,000 servicemen would be killed or listed as missing; the presidency would change hands three times; and the American people would wage their own war at home against the United States government.”

Vietnams guerrilla style combat kept the technologically advanced US at bay, and ultimately led them into defeat.
“The conflict's roots took shape in July 1954, when France was forced out of Vietnam after one hundred years of colonial rule. In the peace process, the country was partitioned into northern and southern sections, with a U.S.-supported government in the south and a communist republic in the north. On December 20, 1960, the northern Communist Party formed the National Liberation Front (NLF), with the ultimate goal of reunifying the country. In response, U.S. President John F. Kennedy began supplying military equipment and advisors in 1961.” (Vietnam War, accessed 20.05.2008)

Similarly to the previous conflicts where the use of force in regards to democracy and free trade broke down, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan ended in stalemate and withdrawal.

The Soviets brought hundreds of thousands of soldiers over to secure Afghanistan. They did this for a number of reasons – to expand their influence into Asia, to preserve the disintegrating communist government, and to protect the disintegrating nation from Iran and Western nations. Although the Soviets were well equipped they were nevertheless unable to cope with the harsh terrain and found themselves fighting off the Mujahidin. The Soviets found themselves at the mercy of the mujahidin as they had no central base from which they could be annihilated as they were scattered and attacked randomly.

“In 1979, the USSR took control of the Afghan capital, Kabul, and tried through the following decade to gain control over the whole country and its people. The invasion was a failure, costing thousands of lives and having serious consequences still felt today.” (Zhang and Jacobs, 2001)

Zhang and Jacobs further this point by addressing issues of civilian casualties and support for the invading force. “The Soviet invasion had a devastating effect on the Afghan people. Because the rural population fed and housed the mujahidin, the Soviets tried to eliminate or remove civilian populations from the countryside where resistance was based. Soviet bombing destroyed entire villages, crops and irrigation, leaving millions of people dead, homeless or starving. Land mines maimed unsuspecting Afghans, especially children who mistook them to be toys. Refugee camps around Peshawar, Pakistan sprang up and quickly became overcrowded, unsanitary and insufficiently supplied. In addition, many internal refugees fled from their region.”

Due to these successions of crippling blows to the core of the nation itself, and the dramatic internal problems within the Soviet state, “In 1989, Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan. Fifteen thousand Soviet soldiers and countless Afghans had been killed in the decade-long war. Billions of dollars had been spent each year to support troops in Afghanistan. Unable to defeat the mujahidin and pressed by world opinion to leave Afghanistan, Soviet leader Gorbachev decided that the USSR had to get out.”

Despite problems encountered in post WWII times, democracy and free trade have always been most successfully administered and implemented through force. Traditionally democratic ideals were held in high regard as it were in many instances the solution to years of oppression, persecution, and lack of opportunity for the uneducated proletariat. Their only route to a prosperous future for them and their descendants was in many cases a violent uprising to achieve representation. The two key examples of the success of force in achieving these goals lie in the cases of the United States and France, in which revolutions occurred within the same quarter century. Furthering this point is the idea of mercantilism, as well as isolated cases of post-imperial Africa.

The American Revolution was the first situation where a group of people declared their own independence to rule themselves free from an existing noble class, parliament or monarchy. However, as still being colonies of Britain when the declaration was inaugurated on 4th of July 1776 a war was certain to ensue. The war with Britain lasted seven years and the success of the thirteen colonies holding off the British Army was largely assisted by naval support from other European powers, France and Spain. In such a situation where independence was arbitrarily declared force was necessary because Britain would not willingly lose an extremely valuable asset, whilst the Americans, spurred on by years of taxation without representation, would fight to the death for these new ideas of self governance and freedom.

The die was struck when “56 rebel leaders signed their own American declaration of independence on 4 July 1776. In defence of their stand they could not appeal to the familiar symbols of power and loyalty, the King and the parliament. They simply appealed to their own people.” (Blainey, 2000:436) This proactive move changed the course of concepts of freedom, independence, and the right to self determination and outlined a clear message to the British that the Americans were prepared to die fighting for these ideals.

Whilst the use of force was not decisive, its necessity in backing up the articles of the declaration of independence could not be questioned. After a number of years of war, with neither side gaining any considerable ground, the conclusion was borne out of severe financial loss rather than a military one. As Blainey describes, “…with the British Army subdued but far from defeated…and still entrenched near the city of New York, in November 1782, Britain accepted peace rather than continue such an expensive war.” (Blainey, 2000:437)

The effects felt from the American Revolution are what put in to motion a chain of events that spurred on the French Revolutionaries to their later actions. In a society which was so clearly divided between rich and poor, bourgeoisie and proletariat, and at the brink of violent collapse, the use of force was as inevitable as it was necessary.

A chasm between new democratic rights of the worker and the old system that was overthrown through force. The old ways had to be overthrown by force because a privileged ruling elite would not allow their power to be eroded without a sudden uprising. While the revolution did not drag on violently for months, it was marked by two key violent acts – the initial storming of the Bastille, and over three years later the execution of King Louis XVI.

Following the French revolution of 1789, when the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was written. Article 6 of this declaration state, “the law is the expression of the general will. All citizens, or their representatives, have the right to work solemnly towards its formulation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, posts and employment, according to their abilities, and without any distinction other than that of their virtues and their talents.” (Dywer, 2002:27)

Although these set of events chronicle democratic revolutions experienced by nation states, the core issue of free trade spread through force has not yet been dealt with. There are two prevailing world views that typify the combination of free trade and force, one old, one new. Mercantilism, in its essence, is the direct combination of free trade in its purest form and its alignment to the development of wealth by any means necessary. In modern times force is used in conjunction with free trade as a threat, as a means of achieving one’s national policy objectives and goals when dealing with other nations. Examples of this can be seen in the relationships between Israel and Egypt, as well as China and Taiwan.

As Burchill states, the aim of mercantilism “was not to promote the welfare of the community and its members, but to augment the power of the state, of which the sovereign was the embodiment….wealth was the source of power, or more specifically of fitness for war.” (Burchill, 2001:62)

The use of force in achieving democracy and spreading free trade is often a role that is necessary whilst not being the defining element of success. Democracy and free trade are regularly changing, not just in the sense of the people involved in such movements, but also in the era these events take place. In some instances democracy and free trade can succeed without force, and in some instances force fails to achieve these goals. But ultimately in the ideal circumstances, and in the approach that all modern governments consider initially, free trade and democracy are best spread through the use of force. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, ‘with great victory comes great sacrifice.’

References

Blainey, G. A Short History of the World. 2000, Penguin books, Austalia.

Burchill S, et al. Theories of International Relations. 2001, Palgrave, New York.

Dwyer, P. The French Revolution and Napoleon; A source book. 2002, Routledge, New York.

Federation Story. (n.d). Retrieved May 20 2008, from Really Long Link

Brow, A. (2001 October 12). Reform, Coup and collapse: The End of the Soviet State. BBC – History. Retrieved May 20 2008, from Really Long Link

Hickey, M. (2001 August 1). The Korean war: An Overview. BBC – History. Retrieved May 20 2008, from Really Long Link

Vietnam War. (n.d). Retrieved May 20 2008, from
Really Long Link

Zhang, S, Jacobs M. (2001). The soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Retrieved 20 May 2008, from
Really Long Link

120

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Kathryn 1 - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

A concise list of all things Australians should be 'outraged' about!

May 5th 2008 09:39

Is Justice delayed really justice denied?

© Kathryn Killeen 2008

Many regard the delays experienced by our criminal justice system as appalling while some argue that they are a necessary function of a fair and unbiased system. Former Legal Ombudsman for Victoria, Kate Hamond lists delays as the most frequent complaint her office dealt with. One question we must ask ourselves is if justice delayed is really justice denied?

Dr Ian Warren, Lecturer of Criminology at Deakin University explains the reason for delays as “a bit of a snowball effect, so if one case gets delayed, for whatever reason, it sets off a chain reaction for other cases and courts can’t create time to resolve this problem.”

More than just being inconvenienced, delays in criminal trials produce many other undesirable by-products, as outlined in the Report on Criminal Trials for the Shorter Trials Committee, the National Centre for State Courts in the US attributed the following as a result of drawn out trials, “deterioration of evidence; jail overcrowding; prison riots; prolonged anxiety for victims of crime; prolonged anxiety for persons accused of crime; the undermining of the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system; leniency in sentencing; the greater reliance on disposition by plea bargaining; higher incidence of absconding by persons on bail; erosion of citizen respect for the criminal justice system; diminished likelihood of offender rehabilitation.”

However Dr Warren is quick to add that “Speedy justice is not necessarily good justice. Having said this, I would hate to be on remand for a serious crime, knowing full well that I was innocent,

‘The yard stick for me would be whether a speedier trial process would actually have a better hit rate and therefore reduce the number of miscarriages of justice and produce more accurate and fairer outcomes.”

The recent 2020 summit held in Canberra put the Bill of Rights debate back on the table. Australia is the only country in the Western world not to have a Bill of Rights. Under the Bill of Rights in the US, “every citizen has a right to a fair and speedy trial.” Would a similar such clause in any proposed Charter or Bill of Rights in Austalia cut down the time it takes to get to court?

According to Dr Warren, the answer is no, “the US system runs very differently and there is usually a lengthy appeals process, particularly after convictions for serious crimes, which means that cases can be dragged on for years,

‘In addition, you can have a right stated on paper, but whether it would actually bring about the intended effect is debatable in practice.”

Although ‘ignorance is no excuse’ under the eyes of the law it seems that the average Australian is far more familiar with the US justice system thanks to the plethora of crime dramas on television, “The average consumer of legal services is usually very ignorant of the law, often being more familiar with USA than Australian legal practice,” says Kate Hamond.

As more and more of our behaviour becomes subject to scrutiny by the courts is it unreasonable to ever think that the judicial process will ever be able to handle the amount of cases is receives in a timely manner? As with most issues it all comes down to money, Dr Warren explains, “Ultimately, the question gets down to the amount of money governments are prepared to invest in terms of court administration and legal resources. The higher the public investment, the higher our taxes become. Do we care enough about these issues? Some do but I doubt that covers the majority of the population.”

Quite often the first argument that is raised when questioning the efficiency of our legal system is the prolonged anxiety suffered by victims of crime. On November 1 2006 the Victims’ Charter Act became law, the charter sets out principles which criminal justice agencies must follow when dealing with victims of crime. However, as Dr Warren explains, victims and their need for closure often cloud the courts ability to administer justice fairly.

“While speedier trials might be beneficial for victims of crime and give them the closure they need, the problems with having too much direct emphasis on closure for victims have long been recognised in compromising the impartiality of the adversarial trial,

‘Too often, if victim sentiments get in the way, the wrong person can be convicted,

‘I am quite happy to tolerate delays in our system if these produce more accuracy and give accused people enough rights to ensure they receive a fair trial.”

In the Australian Journal of Human Rights, Larissa Behrendt wrote, “It is easy to say that the system ain’t broke so you don’t need to fix it if it has always worked for you,

‘When I hear people talking about how well our legal system works I feel a great chasm between what their experience with our laws are and what those of my own family are.”

The 2020 summit also addressed how best to formally recognise Indigenous Australians. One of the ideas submitted to the PM was to rewrite the preamble of the constitution in order to recognise Indigenous Australians. This suggestion comes shortly after the government said sorry to Indigenous Australians.

University of Technology Sydney Professor and Barrister, Larissa Behrendt says, “If you put it in the context of just how bad John Howard was when it came to this issue it was always very easy for Kevin Rudd to show strong leadership on it,

‘As somebody whose family was affected by that policy, with my father and my grandmother both being affected by it. I felt the apology was a very important thing to do.”

Although Ms Behrendt does agree that, “it would be important to have recognition in the preamble to recognise the symbolic place of Aboriginal people.”

Even after the apology Ms Behrendt explains, “It was always a question of how far he will go beyond that,

‘The interesting thing will be when people say ‘hang on a minute, what comes after sorry?’”
Last year the Howard government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act in order to proceed with the Northern Territory intervention. This is the third time the Act has been suspended. As Ms Behrendt explains the Racial Discrimination Act has been suspended, “Once in relation to the native title amendment, once in relation to the Hindmarsh Charlton debate, and the third time to the Northern Territory intervention.”

As it stands today the Racial Discrimination Act is still suspended, Ms Behrendt points our the irony of this when compared to the speed at which the PM signed off on the Kyoto protocol; “It doesn’t surprise me that the government is being very reluctant to make that symbolic act of signing it (Racial Discrimination Act). And when you look at how quickly they send somebody over to sign the Kyoto protocol, I think there is a really interesting difference there.”

With an ironic laugh, she continues, “But I just think that if a government can move that quickly on an important issue like climate change. Then the fact that they are not moving as quickly on this is always cause for concern,

‘Many Indigenous people like myself argue that in addition to a Charter of Rights we should have the right not to be discriminated against entrenched in the Constitution,

‘When the 1967 referendum came in it gave the government power to make laws in regards to aboriginal people, and they have extra power in the Northern Territory because it is a territory not a state, so they can basically do whatever they want. And the reason they can do whatever they want is because when the framers of our Constitution were looking at what sort of legal system we should have they made this decision that instead of putting rights into the Constitution like the American model, that we would leave all of the decisions about rights to the parliament.”

How can Indigenous Australians continue to have faith in a legal system that has failed to protect them three times? This is a question that Ms Behrendt continues to struggle with as both a barrister and an Indigenous Australian.

“I often feel that I am working within a system that works against my own people,

‘As and Indigenous person it is a terrible message to get from your government that it’s OK for you to be racially discriminated against, and there is no other message that you get when your governments decides to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act,

‘Its not a legal test, It’s a commonsense test to say that if you have to suspend the Act to do what you want to do, then what you are doing is racially discriminatory,

‘The fact that this Act is suspended and that Australians aren’t outraged by it is a terrible message to send to Aboriginal people.”

127

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Kathryn 1 - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

June 2008

1 Posts

May 2008

2 Posts

Older Posts