Mission & Justice

Gavin Lower; 17/4/10;

The South Australian government has decided not to appeal to the High Court against Australia’s only successful claim for compensation by a member of the Stolen Generations. Late last month, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the state’s appeal against a 2007 landmark judgment that found Bruce Trevorrow was taken from his parents without their consent when he was a baby in 1958. Trevorrow, an Aboriginal man from the Coorong region, south of Adelaide, was awarded $775,000 in compensation.

(more…)

Wayne Bergmann; 5/4/10

This is an edited extract of a speech by Kimberley Land Council executive director Wayne Bergmann given in Darwin last month.

Kimberley Aboriginal people have a track record in environmental management and looking after our country. We also believe in looking after our heritage and creating a future for our kids. Our determination to look after country while pursuing economic opportunities has shaped our approach to the Browse Basin. Jabirr Jabirr traditional owners have given in-principle support to develop a liquefied natural gas processing facility at James Price Point, but subject to world’s best practice in environmental, cultural and heritage standards. The Jabirr Jabirr people are the only people who can make this decision about their country and their decisions need to be respected. The Kimberley Land Council works for and takes instructions from traditional owners. The KLC does not make decisions for them. We support the decisions of our people and their right to make those decisions.

(more…)

Wesley Aird; 19/3/10

Wesley Aird is a member of the Gold Coast Native Title Group and a board member of the Bennelong Society.

Once again, we are reminded there are things we should and shouldn’t say in relation to indigenous people. When Tony Abbott recently called into question the practice of the welcome to country ceremony, his comments attracted strong reactions for and against. There is a time and a place to respect culture but not for tokenism. When it comes to the common welcome to country ceremony, what happens far too often is an in-house event manager looks around at the last minute for an elderly Aborigine to do the welcome or the event host delivers some droll recitation lacking any feeling for relationships or land. To hear our culture being used to tick a policy box is infuriating. Ceremonies such as this probably do more harm than good and, to quote the federal Opposition Leader, “seems like out-of-place tokenism”

(more…)

Lanai Vasek; 16/3/10

Aboriginal elder Allen Madden thinks Tony Abbott’s views on traditional indigenous ceremonies are rubbish and to abandon them at the start of important gatherings amounted to trespassing. Mr Madden, who performs two or three welcomes a week to Sydney’s Gadigal land at $250 to $300 for each welcome, said the Opposition Leader’s comments were “just political noise to get a headline”. Mr Abbott told The Advertiser the ceremonies were an “empty gesture”, prevalent because of the Rudd government’s “obsession” with acknowledging the traditional owners of land. “It’s like a stranger coming over to your house and barging their way in … isn’t it correct to actually welcome them in properly? That’s what these ceremonies are all about,” Mr Madden said. “It’s not a token … it actually means something and is very important.”

(more…)

17/12/09; The Australian, Letters; No Internet Text

Leaving aside the issue of allegtions being exactly that and not roof of an event, Keith Windschuttle continues to ignore the fact that the documents he finds and the issues he raises are subject to interpretation (“Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate: Windschuttle,” 14/12). Having sexual relations with a minor was a crime then just as it is now. The fact that the authorities considered it more appropriate to remove the victims of the crime and further victimise them by separating them from their families and community suggests that the course of action was motivated by something other than concern for the girls’ welfare. As we cannot now query those involved, we will never know for certain if racism affected the decision- making process, but at a minimum the decision lacked compassion for the girls and their families. It’s time for Windshuttle to acknowledge that what he describes as truth is merely the reading he chooses to ascribe to an event. Tina Dolgopol, Associate Professorof Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA

15/12/09

It’s a pity that Keith Windschuttle did not continue his research into Molly and Daisy’s removal (“Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate: Windschuttle”, 14/12). He might have “discovered” the rest of the correspondence in this case. Yes, Mrs Chellow wrote to A. O. Neville complaining that the girls were “running wild with the whites”. Following this letter, Neville wrote to a Mr Keeling, the superintendent at Jigalong. Keeling replied, saying that “Molly and Daisy were not getting a fair chance as the blacks consider the H/Cs (half-castes) inferior to them.” Nineteen days later, on July 10, 1930, he had had second thoughts. He wrote again to Neville: “They live with their mothers in the blackfellow’s camp and therefore have not been in touch with the whitefellow much. They lean very much towards the black and, on second thoughts, I don’t suppose there would be much gained in removing them.”

(more…)