Although I am sure the aims of all these committees are intensely worthy, and I share the embarassment Howard Glenn describes when our human rights' record is aired in such a forum, I also experienced a twinge of discomfort. If this type of exchange is typical of the workings of CERD, I have to believe that the entire exercise is a thoroughgoing waste of time and space.

I wonder how much of Australian taxpayers' money went into this ritual humiliation? I doubt whether it will change one single mind, alter any conceivable strategy, or even slightly raise or lower our standing in the world, on any possible measure. It is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and is a credit to no-one. least of all the UN itself.

As a measure of this, consider the priceless irony of being the butt of a snide remark on our human rights record... from the Chinese delegate.

Again, I read with amazement at the Australian Govenments lack of insight into its actions regarding refugees and the Indgenous people of this land. Now with the final demise of ATSIC, Indigenous people have no real means of influencing or being heard by Government - instead they have become further disenfranchised. CERD is necessary, regardless of cost!!

I would have thought the first agenda of the UN was to support the rights of citizens of a country to uniform and equal rights.

Firstly illegal-entrants to Australia are not citzens and have attempted to infiltrate Australia by evading the processes of migration to suit their own illegal purposes. Thus the UN should have no regard to the oppulence of the conditions in which they find themselves "detained".

Secondly - aboriginal Australians have not sought equal rights, they have sought special and exclusive rights which place them in a position beyond the status of "ordinary Australians" (we can start with those of us who will be penalised for not voting in elections versus the right of aboriginals vote or not as suits their mood on the day and go one from there).

Because some quasi-developed "social order" has aquired an influence and disagrees with us - let us look at the record of their individual homeland and measure them against how they behave when at home.

Australia is a sovereign nation and the sole occupier of a single continent. Look at anywhere else around the globe, no other "continent" can demonstrate such a common commitment to universal values of equality of its citizenry as we do.

So coming to the point - people who live in glass houses - should not throw stones. On such a scale no one will be throwing anything our way, except possible garlands......

Australia has been a leader in human rights since the beginning of its national history. There is no country in the world that has behave with greater humanity or compassion in any decade. Australia has spent more money per capita than most other countries not only to enhance the circumstances of residents and citizens than most others.

The likes of Mamdouh Habib, who would have been rightly thrown out of a plane for their ingratitude and their treachery 50 years ago, instead benefit by a grant of $200,000 to return to Australia. In a contemporay Muslim country, this monster would be tied to the blades of the plane assigned to repatriate him.

I fail to understand why we, as Australians, and westerners in other progressive countries, are expected to make mawkish gestures indicating a willingness to participate in grotesqueries like "Harmony Days". I don't see that multiculturalism is a success. Of course, some groups can co-exist happily and constructively. But others don't. Crime rates, delinquent behaviour, demands from some groups for flexibility and behavioural and financial concessions, are forever uni-directional, so that migrants from developing countries demand benefits of the cultures that built developed nations. In the same way, developing countries demand concessions by way of trade and access to markets and dispensations for their abuses of human rights, and requests for aid.

Migrants from such countries cost more socially and financially than they ever repay or contribute. No one asked me or anyone I know if we wanted the current form of multiculturalism; and no one I know wants this current extreme form of multiculturalism.

I say to hell with Harmony Day.

Yours in measured harmony,
Greg Deane

Some comments posted in response to this article amount to racial vilification and are apt reminders of the urgent need for the elimination of racial discrimination in Australia.

When you say "CERD is necessary, regardless of cost!!", annie02bell, exactly what is it that you believe we are paying for?

And you don't actually mean 'regardless of cost', that's just an emotional outburst to show that you really care. Which is fair enough.

Except that these remote bodies, who meet every two (or maybe five) years, and spend a couple of days tut-tutting at each other, are far less engaged with the issues than you are. They have no responsibility for outcomes, no budget for real activity, they are simply talking heads justfying their generous travel and accommodation expenses. Their sanctions extend, Howard tells us, to Australia "[b]eing talked about, being included on lists, having unpleasant statistics circulated, speeches made in international seminars: it’s about as bad as it gets." Be still, my terrified beating heart.

So I'd say "annie02bell is necessary, regardless of cost", because it would appear that you actually care.

As Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, published 30 September 2003, it appears to me that Howard Glenn obviously lacks a proper understanding what is constitutionally applicable in the commonwealth of Australia!

Human rights, whatever the may be in another country, do not dictate what is or isn’t constitutionally applicable in the Commonwealth of Australia. Like the UN cannot dictate/authorise if the Commonwealth of Australia can go to war, neither can so the prime minister, as this is in the hands of the Governor-General, as I have set out extensively in my book.

Say, that someone by error build a house on your land and have it painted purple. Would you argue about the purple colour or rather about the building being illegally on your property?

The same is with Human Rights. No other country can interfere with State rights unless the states themselves joint such membership of nations. The Commonwealth of Australia does not appear to have any constitutional powers in that regard. It has no constitutional powers to hold refugees in the concentration camps named Commonwealth Detention Centres either! Further, only the States can enforce commonwealth law against citizens. Therefore, it is useless to argue issues if you are not first addressing what is constitutionally appropriate!

The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers as to the liberty and property of citizens, but as long as we permit them nevertheless to do so what is the sense in arguing they are not doing it in a humane way?
If we stop in the first place the unconstitutional conduct then no need to argue about denial of human rights!
If just, people consider the most obvious first!

As the Commonwealth Detention Centres are unconstitutional, any State can refuse the Commonwealth of Australia to transport people to and from such Commonwealth Detention Centres using its territories!
The solution is more obvious then what most people seem to be aware off!

Fi "Some comments posted in response to this article amount to racial vilification and are apt reminders of the urgent need for the elimination of racial discrimination in Australia. "

That is an opinion which you are entitled to express. However, simply aluding to supposed racial vilification means nothing - if you have an "issue" with what someone has posted here, I suggest you identify and address it to the "poster" which you claim so offends.

If you do not have the courage or courtesy to make direct challenges, do not bother with pointless asides which go nowhere - they are a waste of time reading and thus a waste of time you posting.

And to be honest, as nations go, Australia is one of the most "racially tolerant" nations on the face of the earth, considering how "tolerant" most African, South American, Asian, European, North American and Middle Eastern Nations are (I think that covers the rest of the world at least - and none of them can afford to point a finger at Australia).

QUOTE
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, March 21, 2005 4:51:54 PM
Posted by Hamlet_Ofinn, Monday, March 21, 2005 6:14:05 PM
Some comments posted in response to this article amount to racial vilification and are apt reminders of the urgent need for the elimination of racial discrimination in Australia.

Posted by Fi, Monday, March 21, 2005 7:37:21 PM

END QUOTE

NONE OF THEM APPEARS TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISCRIMINATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!

While personally, I deplore discrimination, nevertheless, I must bow to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which specifically was designed, and approved by referendums, to discriminate.

If we do not wish to have any from of discrimination then we ought to put it to a referendum to omit Section 51(xxvi) from the constitution!
For those who are unaware of it, section 51(xxvi) cannot be used against the “general public”, hence the Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional, as I have set out in my book As Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, published 30 September 2003

As to the issue of being a citizen, not even the judges of the High Court of Australia understand this issue.
“citizenship” is normally attached to a person who by State legislative provisions obtained State citizenship, and by this AUTOMATICALLY obtained Australian citizenship.
Being a citizen of a suburb, village, etc can be any person when residing in that environment.
Australian citizenship cannot be applied for, it can only be obtained by obtaining State citizenship.
And, those of British blood coming to reside in a State in the Commonwealth of Australia AUTOMATICALLY obtain State citizenship and so Australian citizenship!
Australian nationality has got nothing to do with Australian citizenship!
Neither has the Commonwealth of Australia any constitutional right to define/declare the nationality of a person born in the Commonwealth of Australia, as they are natural Australian nationals, regardless if both parents are “aliens” (refugees or otherwise)!
And, refugees are no illegal immigrants, as only a State Court can determine their guilt or innocence.
Check your facts!

Mr. Hore-Schlovka is quite wrong in several respects. There is nothing equivocal about being a citizen: citizenship is conferred by birth or naturalisation within a nation. There is a connotation to do with being a citizen of any given community, which implies accepting civic responsibilities, and receiving civic benefits, but this meaning is loosely derived from participation in ancient Greek polites or a Roman civitas, though citizenship here was very clearly defined with sharp distinctions made between citizens and metics or preregrines.

So far as anyone being able to turn up from Britain and claim citizenship, that is a sheer nonsense. There was a civic reciprocity some years ago when Australians were British subjects, but it no longer exists. Many Britains are now refused citizenship, though of course this is unfortunate, don't you think.

If you want to be an an arbiter, develop a deeper knowledge of your subject.

Greg Deane

Col Rouge claims that we are the most racially tolerant nation on earth. Yet one of the key planks for federation in 1901 was the formalisation of state-sanctioned racism inflicted upon the hapless Chinese for the previous 50 years. 'Australia for the White Man' was on the masthead of the Bulletin until the late 1960s. Even now under our much debauched multiculturalism, the Chinese are still being treated as second class sometimes. (See my essay, White ghosts and Chinese middlemen devils,OVERLAND 175,2004)

The fact that China is not as lucky as we are on the Democracy stakes does not in any way invalidate its observation on our shameful treatment of our Aboriginal peoples. I would have thought that there is no argument now that the Brits stole their land and decimated their numbers and cultures through disease, the destruction of their hunting grounds, the 'dispersal' practices, and even the poisoning of water holes and flour.

CERD may be a cause of embarrasament for us from time to time. But if we are to claim to be high up on the totem pole of humanity then we have to take critcism in a 'manly' fashion. John Howard's track record is that he is not averse to playing the race card to his political advantage.(His 1988 anti-Asian immigration stance; his 2001 transmorgrification of the 'yellow peril' to the 'brown peril'.) But even he wants a legacy, an honourable one. Remember how Lynton Crosby designed a market survey after their victory in 2001 to tell us that voters voted on the economic record of Howard and not on his puffed up border security patriotism? There is also a chance that Howard's recent $1bn gift to a failed state is just another plank to an honourable exit into the sunset.

Progress is often slow. It took the two Wars to dismantle European colonialism. It might take a generational change for us to become more civilised and mature. Hang in there. Give our descendants something they can be proud of.

Chek Ling

Also Col Rouge, it is irrelevant how tolerant we are in comparison to other countries. The idea is to aim to be the best, not to be self-serving, self-satisfied and pat ourselves on the back for being better than everyone else.

To be even better, we need to constantly look at the areas in which we are failing and the plight of the Indigenous people is quite obvious evidence of this.

Chek Ling – whatever your opinion of “Australia” at the time of Federation may or may not be, it matters not one iota. We live in the present.

As for dismantling European Colonialism, I would suggest
1 A lot of Africans would welcome back the sort of colonialism which a least protected them from the excesses and genocide of tribal politics.
2 A lot of Tibetans would observe, their experience of “Chinese colonialism” has little merit.

Mollydukes – you are wrong.
We might be measured on a "world best practice" standard - in which case we are "head and shoulders" above the rest.
But measuring Australians against some "mythical perfect standard" is ambiguous, impossible, pointless and the sort of woolly-headed thinking and mumbo-jumbo which naive and self-indulgent socialists of the Early 20th century thought would be achieved if they surrendered sovereignty to the horror of communism.
Now Aboriginals – one day they might realise that “human dignity” comes from self determination and exertion, not the hand outs of a nanny state.


As for Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “Those of British Blood … AUTOMATICALLY obtain State citizenship and so Australian citizenship!”

Being of British blood – let me assure you – I did not receive my citizenship “Automatically” – I had to apply for it.
I guess the rest of your rant is as accurate as this – and thus I will ignore it and your self-serving advertisement for your CD.

Oh and I look forward to following your challenge to the authority of the Commonwealth Government through the courts – is it listed yet?

Col I do not have a ‘mythical perfect standard’. To dismiss my argument in that way is woolly-headed thinking and the sort of mumbo-jumbo rationalisation that people who imagine themselves to be 'hard-headed realists' use to respond to suggestions that social problems can be improved.

Surely even supremely intelligent and clear-headed free-market capitalists (after all they are not all greedy grasping fraudsters) aim to improve on what exists. Perhaps you might recognise this trait if I refer to it as 'having aspirations’?

I would like Australia to aspire to provide Indigenous people with adequate health services and housing and to acknowledment that the problems that they have arose from white settlement and white racism.

White racism still exists and it is difficult for an Indigenous person to do well in this society. Of course some do it.

The hand-out system were instituted by whiteys. Rather than pay wages to Indigenous workers they provided them with rations. This was also the official way of dealing with the ‘Aboriginal problem’ while we waited for them to decently die out and leave the country to us.

The problems that this attitude created are still extant and it is stupid to think that we can suddenly say, okay you mob, now we want you to be like us, so get off your arses and do something for yourselves.

This very good idea needs to be supported by more than a belief that ‘they’ should be able to see the advantages of individualism and simply need to work hard. It is quite difficult to know how to go about being a 'decent member of this society'.

Why do you think that some Indigenous people choose to remain in their 'hand-out lifestyle", living in squalor, dying so many years earlier than we whiteys, and having so many of their babies die?

Col Rouge, I have no opinions on the Tibet question. I know so little about the history of Tibet, even though I am of Chinese descent - born though as the subject of the White Rajah of Sarawak.

As for Africa, I know even less. But is it possible that the "divide and rule" trick of the European invaders and exploiters - picking out the obsequious few amongst the conquered to keep the rest in perpetual subjugation and ignorance - might have a part, a big part even, in the chaos that followed the largely unplanned departure of the colonisers. Oh dear...this reminds me of the "black birding days" of Australia. In one infamous case, members of two warring blacks from some island were 'captured' and locked up in the hold of the boat overnight. In the morning most of them were dead.

The White Australia policy, 1901 to say 1972, has a profound effect on the soul of Australia. Even in 1966, Robert Menzies still hoped that it would never be changed. In 1984 Geoffrey Blainey fought a yearlong campaign against Asian immigration. In 1988 John Howard publicly followed Blainey's advice. In 2001 Howard played the race card deftly.

The White Australia policy still colours our outlook towards Asians. They are inferior! Howard told the previous President of Indonesia what she ought to do, through "megaphone diplomacy"; not so long ago our consular officials in one Asian city urged an Australian paedophile awaiting sentence in that country to escape the country, and issued him with a new passport to replace the one confiscated by that country. And did you notice our fellow countrymen bursting out in applause in the courtroom in Indonesia when the judge handed down a death sentence for one of the Bali bombers?

We may live in the present, Col, but we cannot escape the past. More to the point, we may learn from the past so that we can leave something worthwile for the inheritors of our genes. Racism like terra nullius should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Chek Ling

Part 1
Re;Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:26:22 PM

If you were a British born subject of the Queen, then I would suggest you log into the Federal parliament website, then check for the Hansard 2 and 3 March 1898 and read those pages!

That you were forced to apply for “Australian citizens” purporting to be “Australian nationality” is not my doing!

Due to the limited space allowed I will provide some quotation, albeit it would be sheer impossible to set everything out. Still, enough to indicate that you and many others are fooled constitutional legislation!
Only States have legislative powers to define/declare “citizenship” and the commonwealth has only power to “naturalize” “aliens”. British blood are not “aliens” and the constitution does not permit them to be regarded to be “aliens”!

Hansard 2-3-1898
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
And;
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament.

Part 2
Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002) High Court of Australia I noticed some of the following comments;

KIRBY J: There is no mention of citizenship in the powers of the Federal Parliament.

GLEESON CJ: What is the source of the Parliament's power to make laws about citizenship?

GLEESON CJ: How does the power to make laws with respect to naturalisation sustain section 10 of the Citizenship Act, which says that:

KIRBY J: My recollection is that the powers of the Congress do extend to citizenship.
The US Congress has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Australian citizenship, this as the US constitution has “citizenship” and “Naturalization” together, while the Framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1989 (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) held that the powers to define/declare citizenship rested with the States and was and remained their sovereign powers, while the powers of naturalization was provided to the Commonwealth, upon federation.

As Barton stated on 2-3-1898;

“I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects pf the British Crown.”

Therefore, your purported “naturalization from being a British subject born in the UK to a British subject under the British Crown does not seem to make sense to me!

Again;
“we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.”

Your attack upon my credibility clearly was without bothering to get the facts to prove me wrong!

Also, where does it fit in to have a “Queen of Australia” considering we are all alike “subjects of the British Crown!

The fact that you were fooled to naturalized, purportedly being deemed an alien does not mean that this was constitutionally valid!
No Act of Parliament can possibly override constitutional provisions and limitations!

Oh all upright and uptight.

Good to see what happens when we stir up the mud and the bottom feeders drift to the surface.

Now
Mollydukes - using my own words back at me shows a lack of imagination on your part - I guess notions of "World Best Practice" fall on dead ears.

Same applies to you Chek Ling - we are shaped by our history and must learn from it - hence we are where we are - not where we were, get over it. Suggesting my view is racist is silly - I demand only one thing - all people to be treated as equals, not setting up aboriginals above the status of ordinary Australians.

Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - same applies to you - you can blow and bluster as much as you want - whatever Mr Barton said to Mr Gleeson over a hundred years ago does not bind us inexorably to what we can or cannot do today - any more than we are bound for the rest of eternity to the historic authority of our original Colonial Monarch.
And if your credibility is so precious - I suggest you don't other to post where it might become so challenged.

Col, I wouldn't say that your view is necessarily racist. I have not seen substantial evidence of that in this discussion. Underdeveloped, yes, quite often. Even bigotted perhaps.

I generally only engage in ideas and views, not personal traits. So please don't assign to me opinions I have not expressed or inferred.

It does take quite a lot not to respond in kind sometimes, but that's the price of being a member of a civilised society.

Chek Ling

Col your response did not refute or provide any explanation as to why my ideas and aspirations are 'wrong'. You seem to engage in mud-slinging and denigration than debate - perhaps it is you who is down on the bottom of the pond?

What do you mean by "worlds best practice and how does this negate the 'need' to ensure that all citizens of our country have equal access to health services, equal access to quality housing, equal life-spans, equal chance of having a healthy baby, etc.

The simplistic notion of 'equality' for all is a wooly-headed and fuzzy feel-good idea that has never and will never work.

It is impossible to have equality of outcome. All you can do is provide equal opportunity and let people do what they will with their talents, strengths, weaknesses etc.

In Australia everyone has basically the same access to services - if they don't use them or if they can't use them as well as others that's life.

Not everyone gets exactly what they want.

From what i gather all Col is saying is that if you don't use what youv'e got, no one else should be expected to pick up the tab for you.

t.u.s.

In Australia we do not all have equal access to service. People in the bush do not have equal access to communication technology and we are not prepared to shrug and say 'that's life'. We are fighting for the government to guarantee that we continue to get adequate services.

There are other groups of white people who get 'special' treatment and 'special' access - sugar farmers who have not moved with the times and no longer have an income.

Indigenous people living in ghettoes do not have equal access to services. As I previously stated 'life' and 'achievement' have been and still are more difficult for people who come from these enclaves of poverty and despair, who are regarded as 'bludgers' and 'no-hopers'.

Get off your ideological high horse and consider the 'reality' of the circumstances for an Indigenous person from these communities who wants to be equal to you.

If we do not like the terms of the Constitution then we can always hold a referendum, but unless and until we amend the Constitution, we are bound to follow the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, as time passed does not alter it.

To me, Aboriginals are equal to all other Australians but are wrongly robbed of equal rights far to often.

Their right to education, health provisions, and other basic services, etc, should be as like that for any other Australian regardless of their place of residence. That was the very intention by the Framers of the Constitution.

And, not just for Aboriginals but the same applies for other Australians residing in remote area’s.

Regretfully, governments are more interested in votes then in equality.

Take for example a person residing in a remote area, and wanting to stand for Federal Parliament as an INDEPENDENT. This person would have to travel perhaps for days trying to get 50 signatures for being allowed to be accepted for nomination, where as if he stood for a political party just one signature is enough.
Meaning, we rob eligible people of their equal rights to be a candidate. Yet, people living out in the bush may at times be more experienced to deal with certain issues then some city slicker, who may never have spend a night out in the bush.

The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that even the “poor” should be able to stand as a candidate, as they held a persons financial status does not mean the person is less competent! As they made clear we all can at times fall on hard time.

If we were to operate within constitutional confinements then most likely a lot of racial discrimination, human rights abuses, and other discriminations would be avoided!
If you accept to ignore constitutional limitations now, fundamental to a society, then who knows you can be the victim tomorrow, if not today, but by then it might be too late to object, as you wasted your time to do so while you could

Mollydukes,

I am indigenous and I live in the bush, thank you very much.

Communication services may not be the best where I live but there is nothing stopping me from moving somewhere that it is better.

I don't move though, because I would have to give up a lot such as the country lifestyle, the low levels of pollution, the clear night skies, the low mortgage, the safe neighbourhoods.

There are certain sacrifices people have to make. Having access to everything does not mean you can have everything.

This is not utopia, if you haven't noticed, it is the real world where there are winners and losers. Most of the winners are the people who make the most of what they have.

I suggest you read Pyjama Boy by Steven Murphy and see what can be achieved by someone who came from a living hell who made the most of their opportunities.

t.u.s.

In a society we need people of different trades, being it plumbers, carpenters, farmers, etc.

While we could argue that farmers simply could move to the city as to get equality of access to basic services, then whom ever will be taking over the farm still would be robbed of equality.

Having resided in a country town for 15 years, and still having a property there, I know the difference in services.

Now, take for example people living in the country a bit out of a large town usually are incurring long distance charges (STD) charges to phone a doctor, hospital, etc.
Yet, the Framers of the Constitution specifically arranged for postal and telecommunications to be put in the hands of the Commonwealth of Australia so all people across the nation would be provided at the same charge the same service.
Meaning, no difference between local and STD charges, but all phone calls being at the same charge!
Selling Telstra is not only unconstitutional but also likely will further disadvantage people residing in outer area’s.
As the Framers made clear they didn’t want telecommunications to go into private ownership as in the USA, and as such the commonwealth of Australia lack any constitutional powers to sell of Telstra.
However, most people could not care less because it doesn’t affect them, and this is how gradually one undermines democracy, until one day, bit by bit your own constitutional rights are found to be lost!

You may argue; Who cares about farmers, we can always import. Just that if this is applied then once the farmers are gone, prices will rise steeply and it be too late. Then we end up paying a lot more for services and products then had we just looked in the first place at the rights of all people within our nation!

What we need to do is to apply a decentralization policy, as many would like to reside in the country (for whatever reason) and we then could in the overall reduce overhead cost!
It can be done, if just we have the right mentality!

Mollydukes – “People in the bush do not have equal access to communication technology.”

The people of the bush have the same right as people in the metro’s - to move to the metros.

As TUS stated living in the bush is a matter of choice and for him his choice is the bush for a host of reasons far more fundamental and important than “access to broadband”.

I would note “sugar farmers” are not subsidised because they are “white” – just as symphony orchestras are not subsidised on the basis of their ethnic origin either.

TUS –
“Most of the winners are the people who make the most of what they have.”
I would agree totally and add
“Most of the losers are the ones who demand the most of what other people have”.
We can and will only find self respect, esteem, fulfillment and value from the results of our own personal efforts. It has little to do with particular economic circumstance or relative government services.

I congratulate you on finding your “place and space”. I am about to move from a metro to a country location for similar reasons – in simple words “quality of life” – without it and the right to create it by making personal choices – life becomes a mere existence.

Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka – Decentralisation policy – I agree.
I thought we had one for a long time.
Maybe the issue is –
a decentralisation policy creates an “uneven playing field”.
Better the “market” determines the success of otherwise of centralised versus decentralised development, one thing is a certainty, the cost of future water resources and water supply reliability will play a heavier part in the equation of the future.

Col I am not suggesting that Indigenous people are specially funded on the basis of their ethnicity, but on the basis of 'need'. We need to have a decent society for all - not only the 'winners'. We need this just as much as we need symphony orchestra's.

I need to live in a society that makes the best of all of its resources and the Indigenous people should be a 'resourse' not a problem. It's all to do with quality of life.

You can't believe that 'the market' is an adequate way to determine economics. Surely not? That is as idealistic as believing that Socialism can work. The market is manipulated by powerful people, corporations and by governments.

Why not manipulate it some more to produce a better outcome for all of us by attempting to provide whatever it is that the Indigenous people need so that they can achieve something that makes us all proud to be Austalians?

What is it exactly that indigenous people need that is different to everybody else?

They need access to healthcare, education, food which are all available if they want to utilise them.

It seems, correct me if I am wrong, that you are saying aboriginals are not equal to us so they should be treated differently while at the same time talking about equality.

Which is it?

t.u.s.

What often or generally is overlooked is that we “DUMP” people who may have lived their whole life in small villages in large cities. Not only displacing them but also likely creating unemployment while farmers in the country have a problem to get workers.

If we used a DECENTRALIZATION policy, that would enable people to move to the right area in the first place, when settling, and others assisted to move to country area’s where they desire to do so then we are all better of.

For example, many elderly and self employed people who are not having any strict need to live in a city could more to the country, provided the public services were available.
As such, if we update our public services, we may resolve a lot of problems, and so unemployment also.
People moving into country area’s would create employment, while not needing themselves to have employment, or having their employment already.

During the 1999 Victorian State election, I pursued decentralization and the then Premier Jeff Kennett subsequently also began about the same, but he lost the election and got out.

We need State government to deal more with decentralization and we may resolve a lot of problems. After all, less pressure on housing in large cities, less pressure on rental properties. Meaning also less pressure on house prices to rise. Etc, etc.

We now have local schools closing in country towns, and slowly tons becoming ghost towns, whereas we can reverse the trend if we decentralized.

My wife, needing often to attend to doctors would not want to move to our country property, as there is basically no medical facilities she need.
Whereas it might not be worth to have a hospital in a small community, if we decentralize and a greater demand is created then we can provide in the process a better service for those living in small towns.

It is like the chicken and the egg, as to what goes first.
If we simply try to work on both then we may have a win-win situation

'The Usual Suspect' wrote:

"I am indigenous and I live in the bush, thank you very much."

Interesting that you haven't alluded to your Indigenous heritage before in these forums, despite having contributed to many debates in which an Indigenous perspective might have been informative.

So are you a particularly well-assimilated Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander, or just a mendacious correspondent trying to score a few points? The reason I ask this is that I live in the bush and know many Indigenous people, and have never heard any of them express the attitudes you have in these forums.

And in answer to your question "What is it exactly that indigenous people need that is different to everybody else?", my Indigenous friends and acquaintances might answer that an apology by the Prime Minister on behalf of the nation for their dispossession, two centuries of racist treatment, and the destruction of their cultures, would be a start.

Morgan

Morgan,

What do you mean by indigenous perspective. There is no one indigenous perspective that I know about. I suppose I am being unaboriginal by not demanding an apology from the Government.

If the aboriginals in so much need you are talking about need an apology to get on with life - then that is their problem.

But maybe they should also demand apologies from the elders in tribes which turned their backs on half castes.

And many of the aboriginals I know (outside my family) should also demand an apology from their parents and grandparents for not providing a stable loving home life.

I see myself as an individual with opinions, feelings based on my life experience.

I may be indigenous, but I also have Maori, Danish and English heritage as well.

Like I said before, people will make do with what they have on an individual basis.

I don't need an apology to make my life better, I just do my job, look after my kids and contribute to society as anyone else would. My indigenous background does not make me any better or worse than anybody else, my actions and life is what counts.

t.u.s.

BTW,

Is there anything else you want to know about me which may help you prejudge what I am going to say or judge whether that is an appropriate attitude given by demographic and background?

I am 24, married with 2 children, I have a mortgage, I have an arts degree majoring in politics and geography, I have 12 months to complete a science degree in environmental science, I live in regional Australia, I am a journalist, I am heterosexual, I am an athiest, I have four sisters and one brother, I have voted Labor, Liberal, National in the elections I have been eligble for, I voted yes to the republic, I drive a station wagon and I spend too much time reading and responding to opinions on OLO.

happy profiling

t.u.s.

Thanks, 't.u.s.' - certainly from your last post you'd have to be an unusually well-assimilated Aborigine. Congratulations are in order, I suppose. While I agree that there is no coherent Indigenous perspective at the moment - and there is hardly likely to be one while our Federal government continues its program of 'practical recolonization' - yours would have to be the antithesis of one.

Of course that's the answer: assimilate them, breed them out, remove any form of organized representation, get them to realise that they are responsible for the racist attitudes of the dominant culture towards them, bulldoze the Block, revert Palm Island back to its concentration camp origins...

I don't suppose that you heard this morning's 'Background Briefing', which vividly demonstrated the differences in outcomes between Australia's and Canada's Indigenous peoples over the past couple of decades - it's certainly worth a listen if you're interested in alternative approach that has apparently achieved much better results than ours has, in a structurally comparable ex-colony.

Morgan

if the ususal suspect thinks that Indigenous people have equal rights to health and housing services, perhaps a visit to some of the Indigenous settlements would provide a more realistic perspective.

If they have equal rights then why are they not using them to their best advantage?

Hi t.u.s

I certainly admire the position you have reached if in fact you grew up in an Aboriginal community. You may well belong to the class of 0.1% or 0.001% of indigenous people in Australia.

All the same I am a bit saddened by your apparent attitiude towards the less fortunate amongst the indigenous people. I sense a certain lack of any empathy.

Amongst oppressed minorities it is not uncommon for the small number who make it with the 'mainstream' to look down upon those they left behind. Perhaps unconsciously to distance themselves from the background they come from; perhaps to make themselves more identifiable with the mainstream.

Amongst Chinese Australians in the 20th century, it is not uncommon for parents to do their upmost to prevent their children from knowing that they were Chinese. They would deliberately not pass on any Chinese culture to thier children. For they knew from their own growing up in Australia that to be Chinese is to be discrimanated against.

We all know how much worse off the indigenous people are compared with the Chinese who are descended from those who came before Federation.

Chek Ling

Mollydukes –“If they have equal rights then why are they not using them to their best advantage?”

That is a question I ask of many people most days – regardless of their ethnicity.

The thing even less creative than an “indolent” individual is

the most creative bureaucracy of the state ever inspired which demands individuals conform to the edicts of the state and denies all individuals, equally, the right of self determination.

To quote another poster here on this thread -

TUS “Like I said before, people will make do with what they have on an individual basis.”

And thus, some will fall behind whilst others will rise to achieve for themselves and lead by example.
I have the feeling TUS and I are reading from the same book (of life).

Re; Posted by the usual suspect, Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:29:59 PM

Remarkable that despite being a journalist, voting for a Republic, being Aboriginal, majoring in politics, etc, you simply do not seem to be aware that Aboriginals are no longer Australian citizens, as I have set out in my book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP!

Perhaps, with your education, you could put it to good use and really expose the rot that is going on?

However, if you voted for a Republic, I doubt you really understand what it is about, regardless of your education.
And, those voting against a Republic also would not know what they were voting for.

When we have judges in the High Court of Australia who do not even understand, let alone comprehend, the difference between Australian citizenship and Australian nationality then perhaps you may seek comfort in that, albeit it is hardly any excuse.

At 24, you have ample of time to learn about it all, just try to deal with it before you cast a vote! After all, you do not want to end up voting for a party that robs you of your constitutional rights? Then again, they all do!

Molly, Morgan, Chek,

This is probably getting off topic but I will post one more time from “my indigenous perspective.”

I don’t see myself as an unusually well assimilated aboriginal as you suppose. I see myself as a person making do with what I have access to and what opportunities and talents I have used in my life.

I don’t think you get my point – waiting for a government or agency to pick you up is not the way to better yourself. You do it yourself, regardless of race. Sure it may be harder for some people but what is wrong with a bit of elbow grease. It makes things all the more satisfying when you achieve. People who wait for change can be left waiting a long time.

Your attitude of the helping the poor defenceless aboriginals does more harm than good and is more racist than someone who tells us to get on with life.

I don't think doing that has made me well assimilated, perhaps maybe just well adjusted, a hard worker or just damn lucky. Whichever way, I am no going to apologise for having a bit of success in my life.

Although I am sorry for not fitting your aboriginal in distress stereotype because I don't live in squalor waiting for an apology and a handout.

Chek, you spoke of empathy. I grew up in a what you would consider a poor suburb with many indigenous and non-indigenous people. The problem is not ethnicity it is low socioeconomic status. Many of the people i went to school with have made something of themselves and many haven't. All with the same access to Government services. The big differences usually have something to do with family and parenting but you can't stop people breeding can you.

I play football and I have seen some very talented young men throw away what could have been a professional career. I have not turned my back on anyone, but what is the point of trying to help people who won’t help themselves.

That’s my 350 words

t.u.s

Col do not be so patronising. To infer that you speak from your knowledge of life and I do not does not get us anywhere. I have experienced 'life' and have as much common sense as either of you do.

Sure people are individuals and have responsibility for themselves and there will always be people who do well and those who do not.

But this simplistic platitude does not explain the huge difference between the proportion of white people and Indigenous people who are disadvantaged. Obviously there is something worse for Indigenous people than for white people.

T.U.S. I would say you were lucky that you learned that you could manifpulate your environment. That is the difference between those who help themselves and those who do not. Those who do not help themselves do not know how to go about it, did not learn the skills that you did learn. These skills may seem obvious to you but they are not.

You are right that it comes from the family and you can't stop people breeding but you can provide opportunities that increase their chances to do better. One long term study found that a nurse visiting a family once a week for a year after the birth of a child, correlated with better outcomes for these children, 16 years later.

It is quite obvious to me that people do not 'choose' to live in squallor if they believe they can do better and it is also quite obvious that we can do better in providing all children with opportunities to learn the skills that allow them to see that they have a choice.

Aboriginal or not, the Framers of the Constitution held we were all alike!
It was however, after federation, that legislation was put in place to unconstitutionally rob Aboriginals of electoral rights, etc.

I could not care less if a person is Aboriginal, Chinese, or whatever, they are human beings and have every right to equality!
Regretfully, because of the 1967 con-job referendum, Aboriginals are more harmed then most Aboriginals ever may be aware off, albeit the electors were made to believe it was for a better deal for Aboriginals, but, that is beyond the scope of this notice to set out.

One of my daughters, first cousins 5 children are Aboriginal, and they made clear to me they just wish people treated them as any other Australian.

How we provide services to people in remote areas should not be based upon the race or religion of the people living there. We must provide for all people the same services, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or colour of skin.
However, when for example a man of about 55 years old separate with his wife and then start living with a woman of aboriginal decent and for this get access to Aboriginal welfare system, etc, then people obviously are starting to complain as to this kind of discrimination!
We have a so-called “white-man” who merely by living in a de facto relationship suddenly gets all rights as that of an Aboriginal!

This created discrimination, between “white-man” and “”white-man” merely upon the basis with what the racial background is of the women they are happen to live with (even so not married to).
Funds, that might be needed for Aboriginals themselves are by this siphoned off for a person who should not be entitled at all to those funds.

However, when people are told about the total funding for Aboriginals, it does not disclose how much of it is actually used by people who are not Aboriginal at all!
This further accelerate some deep resentment by many against Aboriginals, even so this is a misperception, albeit understandable.

Mollydukes – I am not being patronising, as you claim. I was observing t.u.s. and I share similar “values” and expectations – that is the equal right to exercise our freewill in pursuit of personal excellence.

Simplistic demands to ensure no one is allowed to rise or fall by their own efforts (socialist nanny-state thinking) simply ensure the mediocre will be the best available for all, having outlawed the “excellence” which is achieved by self determination.
And helping oneself is not a matter of “manipulation” at all – it is called “facing the facts and realities of life” and dealing with them.

Nanny-politics, which is what you are espousing, is the source of the warm fuzzy feelings stemming from “theoretical social merit”, untested by any hard and cold measure of “real social value” (a bit like building infrastructure for the social good without testing for “financial viability” – a favourite socialist sink-hole).

As for people living in squalor – go and ask them. However, do not assume your “personal standards” are universal – one of the problems of socialism is it “presumes” too much and “accepts” too little.

Back to the topic of the article – I see no opportunity for any other nation state to dare question the performance of Australia on assimilation standards when no other state can come any closer to “Worlds Best Practice” than Australia.

As for Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “Funds, that might be needed for Aboriginals themselves are by this siphoned off for a person who should not be entitled at all to those funds.”

I guess you recognising and blaming ATSIC ? – which has (at last) been fixed by the incumbent government

The easiest way to fix the problem is to make all social benefits universal, administered with the mainstream of benefits and no distinction under any circumstances – One system, One standard, One audit trail. No exceptions and fewer loopholes.

Re;
“The easiest way to fix the problem is to make all social benefits universal, administered with the mainstream of benefits and no distinction under any circumstances – One system, One standard, One audit trail. No exceptions and fewer loopholes.

Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:25:42 AM”

That would be the perfect solution, but the 1967 con-job referendum with subsequent legislation prevents this currently to occur.
We should altogether abolish Section 51(xxvi) and take the position that no form of discrimination/racism is accepted.

Once the PEOPLE vote in a referendum to abolish Section 51(xxvi) then this in itself will be an endorsement for prohibition for any kind of racism/discrimination based upon race or colour of skin.

Albeit little known to people, without Section 116 of the Constitution the Commonwealth cannot at all enforce any religious observations. The States however retained the rights to do so!

To stop that, then we ought to introduce in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act a provisions such as, for example;
“Neither the Commonwealth of Australia and/or any State or Territory shall legislate or allow any form of discrimination based upon colour of skin, race and or religion!”

I accept that some form of discrimination at times is warranted. For example for a person in a wheelchair to be allowed to enter a sporting station first as to enable them safely being positioned rather then getting caught in some kind of stampede where people are trying to rush for a seat and then a wheelchair can be dangerous as people may trip and cause a blockage endangering others also.

Still, this kind of discrimination (if you want to call this discrimination rather then safety precaution) ought not be a blockage to a general deterrent to discriminate.

As for ATSIC, I viewed it was unconstitutional, but its demise would not likely alter the abuse of funding by non-Aboriginal persons. What is an Aboriginal in the first place, as many call them selves Aboriginal regardless being of that race? Perhaps indigenous would be a more appropriate term?

"we can do better in providing all children with opportunities to learn the skills that allow them to see that they have a choice."

There are opportunities Molly. All the people I talk about sat next to me in class and attended the same school, played at the same football club. Our opportunities were exactly the same as far as government services go.

ATSIC and welfare depenency is not the answer.You only have to look at the gross corruption in land councils to see they are not doing what they are supposed to. They have not solved anything.

Neither will an apology.
Positive role models may though, which I try to be - visiting my former primary and high school regularly to chat with the kids
or coaching junior footy teams where I get a chance to hopefully have a positive influence on both indigenous and non-indigenous kids.

You are the one who is treating indigenous people differently, not me, which is the definition of racism.

Thanks Col for understanding the perspective I am trying to put forward. You treat people on merit not on the colour of their skin. Too many people are wound up in identity politics judging people by race, ethnicity, sexuality or gender when we should treat people based on what they do and achieve.

That is what this country is based on and why our human rights record stacks up well against every other country in the world.

t.u.s

Tus I too came from the wrong side of the tracks – many years ago. If the Labour government in the 70’s had not made it possible for poor people to go to uni, I would not have had that experience.

But more important than that, if I had not had help from government agencies (ie counselling and welfare for many years), I would not have done well when I got there.

Others from my street did okay but it took many years of living in drug induced squalor before I was lucky enough to learn that I not stupid and useless (as I was told in the privacy of my home over and over again) and could be part of the world.

You cannot know about the damage that is done to children in the privacy of the home and how that affects the rest of the way they react to the world.

I do treat some Indigenous people differently. Many of the people I worked with are different. They are like I used to be, only more so – more damaged for any number of reasons that have to do with the racism and the other extra problems that come from being an Indigenous person.

It is terriffic that you provide a role models for the kids. That is what is needed but they also need more opportunities to learn and develop skills like organising, like planning ahead – really simple things that are so important to fit in to this society.

It is simple to say lets treat people based on what they do and achieve. But think about what women had achieved in the areas of maths and science 50 years ago. Bugger all compared to men, but it wasn’t because they weren’t capable of more.

I am not advocating more welfare dependency. Why would you assume that? And I agree that our human rights record does stack up well. But that it could be better.

You have bettered yourself using the available resources. My point exactly.

t.u.s

tus you must be deliberately misunderstanding my argument for your own reasons. Whatever, if you can't take advantage of this opportunity to increase your understanding of the world you live in, I guess that is your perogative.

Col the assumptions you make about what I am espousing (nanny-politics indeed!) is patronising and indicative of an ideological unthinking prejudiced approach to the issue. For example ‘simplistic demands that one is allowed to rise or fall by their own efforts’. This indicates that you misunderstand what I am asking for (not demanding at all) because of your ideological blinkers.

You need to realise that the simplistic division between right and left politics, between individualism and socialism is over. Things are and always were more complex than that. But for sure the old bogey man of the communists and the yellow peril, should no longer scare you. Please note that not only socialists believe that things and people can be improved.

I want every child to have the basic physical, emotional and intellectual health that will allow them to compete and achieve excellence. Whether you want to see achievement as the ability to manipulate the environment or prefer to use words that suits your world view is irrelevant to the issue but it does indicate that it is your emotions that drive your response – not your intelligence.

If the people living in squalor were able to articulate what they wanted they would be able to go about getting it.

And Col, if I have an immaculate house with a pile of stinking rubbish in the middle of the kitchen floor, it is still true that I have a problem, even if my neighbour who lives with stinking rubbish everywhere, is the one who points it out.

I still don’t get what you mean by worlds best practice. Speaking from a commonsense approach, if there is a group of people in our society who are so badly off in terms of all indicators, health, economic etc, anyone should be able to see that we have a problem.

"I want every child to have the basic physical, emotional and intellectual health that will allow them to compete and achieve excellence"

And no Australian child will ive in poverty by 1990.

Don't take the moral highground by espousing you have the interests of children at heart and people like Col do not.

I cannot see where anyone has said they want to be detrimental children.

regards your life on the wrong side of the tracks and living in a drug induced squallor - how is this the government's fault. Unless you were forced to use drugs, both your life of drugs and the steps you took to escape were your choices. I don't advocate getting rid of counselling services if people need them, never have said that.

You seem to think that government intervention and apologies are the best way and I think that encouraging people to take responsibility to improve their lot is the best way.

and I still maintain that the government, through public education, health and minimum welfare programs does provide basic building blocks for everyone. I do not know of any aboriginals who have been turned away from a school or hospital based on race. It is how these services are utilised by individuals and families which determines outcomes in life.
Not everyone will end up millionaires but there are adequate opportunities for people to live at a decent standard.

t.u.s.

Mollydukes – what you deem as patronising is entirely up to you.

However, to correct what you wrote –
I agree, - “Socialism” is into decline and might well be over but
I disagree - “Individualism” is doing better than ever.

“I want every child to have the basic physical, emotional and intellectual health”

That is best achieved by parents exercising the special, particular and individual love they have for their own children, not some substitute sponsored by the state and enshrined in platitudes and motherhood statements (Like the one of yours above).

“if there is a group of people in our society who are so badly off in terms of all indicators, health, economic etc, anyone should be able to see that we have a problem.”

WE do not have a problem. A group may have a problem and they also have a responsibility to and for themselves.

The rest of us are responsible only to make the fabric of the “commonwealth” sufficiently generous to allow all those capable of improving their circumstances aware that it is within them to do so, not to underpin a supply of endless indulgences, featherbeding a cargo-cult mentality.

The following is an edited definition of WBP from

http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/pagebin/bestgenl0001.htm
World best practice is a process by which “organizations”
• continuously reflect on their practices and how they impact on conditions and outcomes;
• look and learn from, what other, better performing organizations are doing - irrespective of the activity in which those better performers are located; and
• adapt the practices of others and continuously improve their practices and outcomes with the objective of being the best

TUS
“…there are adequate opportunities for people to live at a decent standard”
Exactly – the opportunity is there – as they say “you can take a horse to water but not make it drink”.

TUS your earlier “thanks” is appreciated but reading your expressions as a “like mind” is worth more than any thanks.
“Individual Merit” is the only basis by which we "collectively" advance.

So how do children learn when the parents don't have the skills and don't know what to teach?

Mollydukes "So how do children learn when the parents don't have the skills and don't know what to teach?"

The eternal challenge - some might suggest parents who do not live up to their responsibilities should have their children taken away.
However, the result of that strategy is usually more disasterous than leaving children with poor parents (be it the stolen generation, Lenins ideas of "state parenting" or poor English children shipped to Australia and systematically abused by Christian Bothers).

I have also known and experienced the resulting twisted nature of someone who was abandoned by her mother at age 7 - the result of that separation from the parent is the worst thing that can happen to a developing child, leaving them with a fractured personality.

My view - people will rise or fall based partly on their parents and partly on exposure to the greater general circle of people. An inquisitive and questioning mind can and will overcome almost anything - but thinking you are doing any good by state sponsored institutional equality is too niave for words - all you get from that is the the glorification of the mediocre.

To quote dearest Margaret Thatcher "Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so."

Nothing will hold some back - just as anything will hold others back.