|
News Report Issue
78
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a
revolutionary act." George Orwell Index
1. Thought for the day - Shondra
Briton
2. Request:
3. Opinion: Gun Control Legislation &
Slavery - Omega
4. Opinion: More "benefits" of
globalisation - Antonia Feitz
5. Opinion: Dick Smith sees what's wrong -
Antonia Feitz
6. Opinion: The apology saga - Antonia
Feitz
7. Article: "Burn baby burn, How Charles
Perkins incinerated sympathy for the stolen generation" - by Malcolm
Farr & David Ludlow, Daily Telegraph, forwarded by John
Massey.
8. Article: "The power rests with the
Australian Consumer" - Forwarded by John Massey
9. Article: Human cloning coming to a town near
you - Forwarded by John Massey
10. Life Sciences: The most atrocious,
appalling manipulation invented, Including article by Dr. Mira Fong "Genetic
trespassing & environmental ethics part 1" - Forwarded by
Veronica Griffin
11. Feedback: Gun control - Martin
Essenberg
12. Feedback: Sugar, Sweeteners - John
Coppi
13. Feedback: A stamp for the Queen Mother -
Richard Woods
14. Feedback: Native title and mining rights -
Onyx
15. Parliament: Adjournment debate: Aboriginal Reconciliation -
David Oldfield
16. Feedback Contacts:
17. Editorial Policy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Thought for the
day:
"To live a pure unselfish life, one must count nothing as
one's own in the midst of abundance." (Buddha)
Forwarded by Shondra Briton
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Request:
For this online news report to be ultimately
effective it must grow to such a size that it and the ideas it espouses can't be
ignored. So do your bit and help circulate it far and wide. If we are to
challenge the elites (the Packers and the Murdochs) view of history, politics,
economics, the environment, the structure of society etc., then we are going to
have to do more than wait. We are going to have to be very active and vigilant.
We have given you one of the tools (information & a medium for comment) you
will need. Help us to help you. Lets fan the flames of knowledge. Spread the
word. Editor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Opinion:
Gun Control Legislation &
Slavery
In 1911, gun control was established in Turkey. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, gun control was established in the Soviet Union. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1935, gun control was established in China. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1938, gun control was established in Germany. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1956, gun control was established in Cambodia. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." In 1964, gun control was established in Guatemala. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1970, gun control was established in Uganda. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, ask them, "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects. Omega -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1990's, Australia enacted Gun control
legislation. On whose real behalf was this anti
democratic totalitarian measure enacted. Who are to be
its real victims? Anyone who challenges the status quo? Anyone who
challenges the privatisation of its public industries? Anyone who challenges the
sell-off of the country to foreign multinationals? Who are the targets?
And whose eyes will be behind the gunsights?
The lesson of the past are there for anyone
with the eyes to see and the ability to think and hear and speak for themselves.
"No man is an island .... John Donne. Canberra is not, the last
time I looked, an island. "... Therefore never send to know for whom the bell
tolls, it toll for thee". Canberra's mandate is wearing decidedly thin these
days.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Opinion
More 'benefits' of globalisation
On Wednesday morning the Reserve Bank announced that interest rates would rise by one-quarter of 1 per cent, even though there was no evidence of over-heating in the Australian economy. Market economists claimed to be shocked, not by the rise itself, but by the reason given: the low level of the Australian dollar. Previously the Reserve Bank only changed Australian rates because of domestic reasons, mainly to control inflation. It seems that despite a 'booming economy' and no inflation, Australian families and businesses will face increased costs because of our 'basket case' dollar which is at the whim of the markets. Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was not pleased. He said, "They need to make sure that they keep their decisions focused on their main game, which is inflation, not chasing around what might be fluctuating levels of the Australian dollar at any particular point in time." Welcome to the globalised economy, Mark. You've been praising it for years. Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5. Opinion:
Dick Smith sees what's wrong There was an interview with Dick Smith on ABC radio New England Northwest last Wednesday morning. Mr Smith is considering financially backing an independent candidate to stand against Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson in the NSW federal seat of Gwydir. He's appalled at what the government's policies have done to regional Australia. It wouldn't be too hard to unseat Mr Anderson, even without Mr Smith's help. Gwydir recorded a large One Nation vote in the last election, and any credible independent candidate would do very well. The farmers of the Gwydir valley have been knocked for six with the massive caps to their water allocations. Add to that the electoral fury at the introduction of a GST - if it happens - and Mr Anderson should be a very worried man. John Howard can say, "Well I can understand that" till the cows come home about every legitimate criticism of his government's policies. His 'understandings' count for nothing until there's some action to match them. But don't hold your breath. He's promised the bankers and the IMF he'll be a good boy, and that seems to be a core promise. Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6. Opinion:
The apology saga The hurt of the Aboriginal community and their supporters over the "stolen generation" report was entirely predictable given they've been led to believe that Australians are all desperate to apologise for the sake of reconciliation. But as recent polls have indicated, while sympathetic to current Aboriginal disadvantage, most people see no need for an apology. Consequently this hanging out for an apology is getting ridiculous. What's the good of demanding something that's worthless unless freely given? There's a precedent in Canada. In response to a 1996 Royal Commission report on aborigines, the Canadian government formally apologised to its indigenous people and offered a $C350 million 'healing fund'. And the result? Did the long-desired apology magically reconcile the nation? No. After the apology, indigenous Canadians were just as dissatisfied as they were before. Most leaders ungraciously said that the apology was too little too late, that there was not enough consultation, that the response didn't deal with substantive issues, blah, blah blah. According to Marilyn Buffalo, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian government insulted aboriginal people with its weak response. Given such an attitude, why bother. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7.
Article
Burn baby burn, How
Charles Perkins incinerated sympathy for stolen
generation
By MALCOM FARR and MARK LUDLOW
04apr00 The Daily Telegraph WITH just 139 bristling, menacing words to a huge overseas audience, Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins yesterday undercut a wave of renewed sympathy for the stolen children. Mr Perkins told BBC radio, with its potential audience of 200 million listeners around the world, that the Sydney Olympics would erupt in "burning cars, burning buildings". The ATSIC director appealed to British tourists not to come to Sydney because "it's turned nasty, ugly". He told the BBC World Service the row over the "stolen children" definition "would force direct conflict between white and black Australians". And for home consumption Mr Perkins told Australian reporters it was going to be "burn, baby, burn, from now on" in the lead-up to the Olympics. "We are not going to lie down like a mongrel dog so people can come along and kick us. We are going to start biting," he said. Mr Perkins's comments came in response to the Federal Government's refusal to acknowledge the term "stolen generation" in its submission to a Senate inquiry committee. Prime Minister John Howard and Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron stood by the submission yesterday which argues that the removal of only 10 per cent of Aboriginal children from their families did not amount to a stolen generation. But the Human Rights Commission said Senator Herron had misrepresented its "Bringing Them Home report" in "a hurtful rewriting of history". Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation chairwoman Evelyn Scott and her deputy, Sir Gustav Nossal, accused Senator Herron of greatly harming the reconciliation process. And Aboriginal actor Justine Saunders returned her Order of Australia Medal in protest at the Federal Government's denial. Mr Perkins's comments to the BBC outraged the Government and were rejected by Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley and the NSW Premier Bob Carr. Mr Beazley said: "I would strongly urge Aboriginal Australians to leave the Olympics alone. The Olympics ought to be off limits." Labor's Aboriginal affairs spokesman Daryl Melham later spoke on BBC radio. Opposition sources said he was hoping he was able to negate Mr Perkins' threats. Mr Perkins had told the BBC: "We didn't want to complicate the Games. We wanted the Games to go on. All the Aboriginal people, we said let's have peaceful protests here and there. Now it's turned very nasty, ugly. It is going to be violent, and we're telling all the British people: 'Please don't come over. If you want to see burning cars and burning buildings, then come over. Enjoy yourself. But if you want to come to the Games, come to the Games and go straight home again." BBC reporter: "This is strong language, Mr Perkins burning cars, burning buildings." Mr Perkins: "Yes. What else can we do, brother? Two hundred years the white people have taken everything from us, and we stood up to it and we said: 'Right, do things peacefully, according to the law of the land, everything in a proper manner, administration and all the rest of it.' What has that got us? Nowhere." His comments came as Prime Minister John Howard privately criticised the wording of Senator Herron's submission, which he read for the first time on Sunday after its contents were revealed in Saturday's The Daily Telegraph. Sources said Mr Howard had disagreed with the wording, telling colleagues several generations were affected when a child was taken away. In Parliament he confirmed the wave of anger against the Government by dismissing a Labor claim he had provoked controversy with the document to distract attention from other issues. "No party leader and no prime minister in his right mind would set out to get that kind of reaction," said Mr Howard. The Prime Minister defended his concern for Aborigines and for the reconciliation process, which has been damaged by the stolen children row. "We remain committed to that cause. We do not pretend that it is a journey that will easily be completed." He said: "The thing we find on this side of the House completely unacceptable is the moral unction with which the Labor Party approaches so many of these issues, the idea that the Australian Labor Party would argue that they alone have a monopoly of compassion on these issues." Forwarded by
John
Massey ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8. Article:
The .. power .. rests with the Australian
consumer A good point is raised by Mr Campbell in his letter to the Canberra Times below, which is equally applicable to the introduction of GM foods into Australia. As consumers, we have "the ultimate and absolute power in these matters", which we would like to exercise with the mandatory labelling of all foods so that we can say "No to GMO's"! John Massey St Lucia Residents' Association Canberra Times, Letters, 27 Mar 00 One way to stop salmon imports If all Tasmanians simply refuse to buy any
imported salmon none of it will find its way into the Tasmanian environment to
pose a potential hazard. And after the first consignment fails
to sell, and has to be destroyed after passing its use-by date,
there would not be many more following it. Forwarded by
John Massey
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9. Article:
Human Cloning coming to a town near you.
If you have asked, the answer is
NO! Human embryo clones close in UK
From JAMIE WALKER
Europe correspondent
04apr00 The Australian THE British Government is poised to approve the cloning of human embryos, opening the way for scientists to create "spare parts" for the body through tissue engineering. An inquiry headed by Britain's chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, has told the Government it should approve the use of cloned embryos to provide tissue to treat the sick, after concluding the potential benefits outweigh ethical and moral concerns. London's Daily Telegraph last night quoted unidentified government sources as saying ministers were almost certain to end the ban on the "therapeutic cloning" of embryos for research that could eventually cure kidney, liver or heart disease. No immediate comment was available from government officials on the report. But the decision is set to trigger a furious debate on how far scientists should interfere with nature. The Catholic Church rejects the "harvesting" of human embryos. Pro-life campaigners have warned of the creation of a "Frankenstein" underclass that would exist only to provide body parts for the ill or disabled. But with millions of people languishing on waiting lists for organ transplants around the globe, pressure is intensifying on governments to consider alternatives to traditional donor programs. British doctors already have voted in favour of an "opt out" donor system, meaning the deceased would automatically have their bodies harvested for transplant parts unless they had specifically requested to be exempted. Therapeutic cloning would allow scientists to create an embryo clone of a sick person and extract cells genetically identical to the patient's for use in treatment. Eventually, researchers hope to use the cells to grow organs, or sections of organs, that could be used to replace damaged or infected tissue, such as the bone marrow of a child with leukaemia or the damaged heart muscle of a heart attack victim. Such research is illegal in Britain, which, like Australia, bans the use of human embryos in scientific experiments. The issue came to a head in the early 1980s, when scientists pressed unsuccessfully to use discarded human embryos from invitro fertilisation programs for research purposes. If it adopts the inquiry's recommendations, the Blair Government will have the formidable task of selling the law change to a public already off-side over the genetic modification of food and the use of genetic information by insurance companies. Complex moral and ethical questions will need to be addressed. For example, to what "age" will embryos be experimented on and how will the cells be disposed of. Forwarded by
John Masey
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10. Life Sciences:
The most atrocious, appalling manipulation
invented.
The fast growing new field of biotechnology will eventually usher us into a brave new world beyond imagination. Not even Plato, Darwin or contemporary evolutionists and ethicists can provide meaning for such a strange world. These are strong sentiments! What are we getting ourselves into with the construction of the Institute for Molecular Biology, in our back yard, at residential St Lucia, in Brisbane's inner west ? "It's a bad science and a bad business making (a) dangerous alliance." John Massey Biohazard Action Alliance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permission granted by author to post the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GENETIC TRESPASSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS By Dr. Mira Fong (Part 1) Faces of hope, voices of space, None for us to seek and prey They are children from the sun Innocent in their mortal wound Singing earth songs The Metamorphosis Will fish mate with tomatoes or soybeans crossbreed with petunias? Will pigs mate with humans or rabbits with mice? Of course not, but some scientists are combining the genes of these diverse creatures against the laws of natural selection. This unsacred liaison invented by chemical corporate giants is called genetic engineering. This high tech species metamorphosis makes the Existential writer Franz Kafka, with his man Gregor who woke up one morning and found that he had become a giant bug, a prophet of our time. Millions of cows imprisoned inside factory farms suddenly wake up to find their udders engorged to an enormous size. Instead of carrying twelve pounds of milk to feed their calves, the cows are forced to pump out fifty to sixty pounds of milk just for human consumption, not knowing they've been injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone. Genes are blue prints composed of thousands of genetic codes. They carry information for the proteins that make up the structure, function and outward traits that constitute the individual organism. DNA ultimately dictates the distinctive qualities of a species, from micro-organism to insect, plant, animal and human being. The genetic codes in DNA determine physical forms, skin colour, size of fruits, sensory structures of animals, types of trees, specific times for flowers to blossom, and billions of other features and functions. Genetic engineering (or bioengineering) is a technique to splice, delete, add, isolate, recombine or transfer genes from one organism to another that may be totally unrelated. Alteration in genes and chromosomes causes disruption and disturbance in the biochemical structure of species and can result in species mutation. It is a kind of artificially programmed evolution (or devolution) changing the individual organism as its starting point, in contrast to natural evolution in which changes occur among diverse populations through natural selection. Since the early nineteen fifties, biologists began to turn their attention to the mysterious double helix called DNA. Within twenty years scientists were already mixing DNA extracted from different species. The quantum leap of this new technology allowed the human creature to become the new creator of life on earth, creating a variety of plants and animals. Now natural evolution can be halted at our fingertips, forever altering the meaning of life and forcing us to redefine religion, nature and individuality. Cellular dynamics in all living systems requires mutual acknowledgement and interdependence, a constant co-operation between the individual life and the entire biosphere to maintain the stability and equilibrium suitable for species survival. The holistic concept of the Gaia Hypothesis proposes a subtle mutual participation between organic life (the moving part) and the geological environment (the unmoving part) as an integral whole in the evolutionary journey. Bioengineering disregards this fundamental intricacy by disrupting species integrity, a gesture in contempt of nature's wisdom. Science can alter other creature's very genetic structure to suit our desires and the market value. Do animals, plants, forests, mountains, and oceans exist only for human benefit? To be continued.
Articles Forwarded by Veronica Griffin Ph.D..
Kerawa Qld.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11. Feedback:
Gun Control. Refer to Moles comments in Issue 71.
Mole said -Crime is a social problem.
Lack of social cohesion, overpopulation, cultural conflict,
urban density, unpoliced immigration, family breakdown, poor parenting,
the watering down of "Christian" morals in a multicultural society, drug
addiction... all these things and more, add up
to the increase in crime. Just an increase in immigration alone
will cause an increase in crime statistics.
Re[ply- True Crime is a social problem but
the government is failing to address these social problems and instead tries to
see controlling guns as the solution.
Mole said- There are lots of other lies and misinformation bandied about by Phil and his ilk. Too much to argue here. Reply- and there are a lot of lies and misinformation
bandied about by Anti- gun people. Too many to argue here. They should
never have been argued. There should have been an impartial Royal commission or
similar to find out the TRUTH rather than a hasty ill-conceived imposition on
the law abiding gun owner.
MOLE- The solution is NOT a firearm.
Reply- Society wide the solution is not a
firearm. If however society FAILS to address the problems of poverty,
drugs etc and FAILS to have an adequate Police force / Judicial
system then the individual members of society should have access to a
firearm for self defence, if they choose. To put people in a position, where
they have a problem created by society, but are denied a means of
defence is criminal.
As example- I had a problem with members of the Sadist Bike
gang. Police could not do a lot until an offence was committed.
That offence could have killed me. So why shouldn't I have a gun to defend
myself when society cannot. Better to defend oneself and be tried by 12,
than carried in my coffin by 6.
Martin Essenberg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12. Feedback:
Sugar, Sweeteners
Subject: who controls who Date: 01-Apr-00 at 15:00 From: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED], INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The article below I copied from a newsletter on Health issues that I receive weekly. It seems that what some of us, mostly a lot of us, have been saying about big business controlling the legislatures, and controlling our politicians is true. When is the world going to wake up and realise that we are being controlled by big money .. For those of you who do not know what stevia is, It is a natural sugar..but with no calories and no refinement. its in the plant family ....judge for yourself. Maryann Made In America (Not) --Stevia (Wealth of the Rainforest) "Countries from Japan to Brazil use extracts from the leaf of the stevia shrub to sweeten products like tea, soft drinks, pickles and confections. Stevia was used in South America for hundreds of years before the Spanish Conquistadors reported its use, but modern interest in stevia's properties did not begin until the early part of the twentieth century. Since then, it has been the focus of numerous studies that show it is non-toxic, is not mutagenic or genotoxic, and does not affect fertility. Stevia exhibits a hypoglycaemic (lowers blood sugar) action. A double-blind study of 25 patients showed their mean blood sugar levels dropped 32.5 percent six to eight hours after ingesting stevia. Stevioside, the main constituent responsible for stevia's sweetness, is hundreds of times sweeter than sucrose. Multi-national companies like Coca-Cola and Beatrice Foods have chosen to use stevia to sweeten their foods in countries where stevia is approved as a food additive, replacing aspartame and saccharine. But don't expect to find such products in the United States. The FDA has specifically prohibited stevia from being used as a sweetener or a food additive. It seems the big sweetener industries like NutraSweet(TM) feel they have a lot to lose, and have been strongly lobbying the FDA to ban its use in America. In 1991 they were successful, and all imports of stevia were completely banned. The ban was lifted in 1995 after fierce lobbying by the American Herbal Products Association. Stevia is now legal for sale as a dietary supplement. " Forwarded by John
Coppi
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 13. Feedback:
A STAMP FOR THE QUEEN MOTHER
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 07:49:49 +1000 The tremendous success of The 2000 Royal Tour of
Australia leaves us with two issues that must be resolved if Australia
is to continue without further divisiveness over the defeated proposals for a
republic.
The first is the persistence of the media to in refusing to except the defeat of the republic on the six of November last and distorting facts and in their extreme bias and prejudice even lying to the public as they promote their views. The second issue relates to politicians who are so removed from the wishes of the electorate that to the disgrace of Australia they have used opportunities provided to them during The Queen's Visit as a matter of parliamentary courtesy to promote a republican agenda In May we will be hosting a public meeting to debate these matters and will be inviting persons with legal and legislative experience to enable us to benefit from their guidance in our discussions and deliberations. Of prime and urgent concern is the continued refusal of Australia Post to produce a special stamp to commemorate the one hundredth birthday of Her Majesty The Queen Mother. Monarchy 2000 will not give up in our campaign to honour this occasion. Countries throughout the Commonwealth are producing stamps of Her Majesty and it will be to Australia's everlasting shame if the republican sentiments of persons within Australia Post are allowed to prevent us from paying tribute to this Century's most outstanding lady. The attached will take you to a petition form. Please download it and if you are in Australia print copies and collect as many signatures as you can. If you are outside Australia please consider sending copies to persons known to you who may be sympathetic. (Those who want copies can email Richard direct on: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) This goes beyond the issue of Monarchy verses republic for we are talking about common decency, respect and credibility. Accordingly your support in this matter will be most warmly appreciated. Yours sincerely, 14. Feedback:
Native Title & Mining Rights
Date: Tuesday, 4 April 2000 12:35
Subject: [ATSIC] Media Release: The Queensland Mining Council
'caught out' by QIWG
Statement by the Queensland Indigenous Working Group The Queensland Mining Council has been caught red-handed making "misleading and deceptive public statements" on native title. The Queensland Indigenous Working Group says the QMC's Chief Executive, Michael Pinnock, made three misleading and deceptive public statements on commercial radio last Friday. In his first wrong statement Mr Pinnock said that the
Queensland Government has not been able to issue exploration permits for four
years because of the native title process. The facts
are that the Queensland Government could have issued exploration permits at any
time over that time, irrespective whether native title existed or
not.
The Borbidge Government chose not to do so
for political reasons. The Beattie Government and the mining
industry have also chosen not to issue these permits for a further two
years. They pinned all their hopes on the passage of the Queensland
native title legislation through the Senate.
In his second wrong statement Mr Pinnock said that
under the Commonwealth Native Title Act, the Government cannot issue permits
until agreements are reached with native title holders. The truth is you
don't need agreement with native title holders to issue permits under the
Commonwealth Act.
If no agreement is reached, then the National Native Title
Tribunal decides whether the permit is issued, and on what terms. The
Tribunal's decision can be overridden by the Minister in certain circumstances.
The whole process must be completed in less than 12 months.
In his third wrong statement he claimed that until the
Queensland native title legislation comes into effect "there is absolutely
nothing anybody can do. There is no shortcuts" The facts are that QIWG
has already engaged with the Queensland Government in 1998-1999 to clear the
backlog of small opal and gold mining leases. The QIWG is now actively
engaged with the Government in a similar strategy for all exploration
permits in Queensland.
There is plenty of work to do, but the QMC prefers to
put its efforts into lobbying politicians to enact unjust laws. Instead
of rolling up their sleeves and working with
QIWG members to fix the problem fairly for everyone's
benefit.
The underlying message in Mr Pinnock's false
statements is that you can't get agreements with Aborigines, so you
have to take their rights away. Yet the scorecard of facts puts the lie to this
proposition. The facts are that every week in Queensland and elsewhere
native title holders are making agreements so that new developments of various
types can get moving.
Unfortunately it appears the public will suffer
more campaigns of fear and deception from the QMC. But
the truth is that it's been open for the miners and explorers
to use the processes of the Federal native title act for
years.
It is they and successive Queensland governments who have
chosen not to.
Media Comment: Terry O'Shane, Chairman QIWG, mobile: 041776499 Forwarded by Onyx
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Parliament:
Aboriginal Reconciliation
Adjournment Speech 4/4/00
Mr Deputy President, I rise this evening to speak on the issue of reconciliation or should I say the question of when will reconciliation be reached and by who's judgement will reconciliation be considered to have been achieved? Is there a panel of experts that have been appointed? Will it be solely Australians of Aboriginal descent that make the determination? Regardless of who it may be, by what criteria will such determination be made? Will the issue be settled by money, by housing, by land? Will the issue be settled by the continuation of, and increase in, special benefits and if so, will this special treatment be expected to last forever? Will the issue be settled by the sorrowful pleas for forgiveness and the saying of the word 'sorry'? Will the issue only ever be settled by the acceptance of responsibility by every non-Aboriginal person in Australia, most of whom were either not born or had not yet arrived in Australia at the time of issues such as the so called stolen generation? That issue in itself only now being put slightly in honest context by the brave and unfairly ridiculed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator John Herron. The 1994 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survey ABS catalogue number 4190.0 page 7 to the question, "Were you taken away from your natural family as a child?", gives an overall result of less than 6%. No doubt other factors would increase the results slightly but in essence, by following in the footsteps of what One Nation has always said, the government is on the right track. Equally, it must be accepted, at least by rational people, that the taking of part Aboriginal children was because of the assessment of the dire and dangerous circumstances those children were in, and that today children of all skin colours are still taken from those who fail to look after their welfare. Mr Deputy President, If you turn to the internet page of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, even they are not especially helpful in answering, in many respects, the previously unasked question of, what will have occurred and been accepted to have been achieved, that will ultimately signal that reconciliation has been reached. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation lists 3 goals as their priorities for 1998 to the year 2000. Whilst these goals make mention of seeking equality, each is filled with the expectation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are to be treated in a positively unique and separate manner to other Australians. This expectation from the so called Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is in fact not related to equality but rather to discrimination. If we turn to ATSIC, a group funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars supposedly to assist in removing the disadvantages suffered by Aboriginal Australians and in that sense be a part of the reconciliation process, equally we find little joy for Aboriginal Australians as a group, rather we see only the profit of certain individuals within that group. Without question, ATSIC themselves lists health and education as the two most particular areas of screaming need amongst Aboriginal Australians, and yet, they, who determine their own expenditure, have no programmes for primary health care or education. Mr Deputy President, Reconciliation, and I question if that is the right word in these circumstances, may only have truly occurred when the time comes that all Australians are genuinely treated equally and the same. When there are no special benefits based on race and when colour and cultural backgrounds play no part in the determination of the delivery of government services. When every citizen of this country enjoys the fruits of their labour, democracy and equal access to justice and opportunity as well as the social dignity that should be the right of all law abiding citizens. When we are truly one people with a true understanding and acceptance of the past and more importantly a commitment to a common and positive future as Australians and only Australians and nothing else, then Madam President, we may well have reached what so many call reconciliation. Speech by David Oldfield, NSW Upper House
MLA,
Leader of One Nation, NSW
Forwarded by Chris Spence
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let us know what you think. Feedback is important. Comments
on articles read would be of value. Do you agree / disagree? Can you add more or
a different perspective. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
Send this email on to as many as you can.
The more that read it the merrier. In time email communication will make
government censorship impractical and the newspapers will have to start
reporting it as it really is, rather than the smoke and mirrors tricks they
currently indulge in, or loose readership, and therefore advertising monies.
While we have a long way to go before that happens, each epic journey
must start with a single step.
Antonia Feitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editorial Policy
If you wish to raise an issue without being
identified as such, please make it clear that this is your wish, either by
marking the correspondence Private & Confidential, in which case nothing
will get printed, or by just stating that while the issue can be raised, your
name is not to appear with it. Failing which all items received relating to the
News Report are considered publishable (subject to a common sense
test).
Disclaimer.
Opinions posted on the News Report are those of
the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the News
Report or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted
works. |
