The Sydney Morning Herald
Letters: Focus on the effects of forced removal
Date: 22/08/2000
Peter Howson tells us ("Stolen generations report a 'disgrace"', by Paul
Sheehan, Herald, August 19) that his study of the evidence in the
Cubillo-Gunner trial has convinced him that "no Aboriginal child was
forcibly removed in the Northern Territory" after World War II and
that "Commonwealth policy was not based on racial motivation".
How does this equate with the letter from the NT's director of Native
Affairs, Frank Moy, quoted in the trial?
In 1950, he wrote to the administrator of the Northern Territory: "It is
the policy of this Branch to remove the [half-caste] children from
their native mothers as soon after birth as is reasonably possible.
"However, this is not always possible. Half-caste births are sometimes
not known for some years [especially if] the mother takes the
child 'bush'."
How does it equate with the report of Harry Kitching, the patrol officer
who visited Utopia Aboriginal camp in 1955?
He wrote: "The majority of children disappear quickly ... frightened
that they will be taken away."
Justice O'Loughlin comments in his judgment: "Why would the mothers and
children flee when a patrol officer appeared? There can be
only one answer: the presence of a white patrol officer was synonymous
with children being taken from their families; and, clearly, such
takings had occurred with sufficient frequency that the urge to flee was
uppermost."
Please, Mr Howson, can we try to answer the effects of forced removal,
rather than continually argue that it didn't happen?
John Bond,
Hughes (ACT).
Paul Sheehan's piece makes me wonder if we should treat Sir Roland
Wilson's report, Bringing Them Home, as the last word on the
matter.
Or does former Federal minister Peter Howson's 6,000-word submission to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's
inquiry into the stolen generations offer a more honest assessment of
what really happened?
After all he, with Kim Beazley snr, were joint authors of the 1962
report which recommended that Aborigines be given the right to vote -
and as such he could hardly be called a biased or racist observer.
Sir Roland was not there, but Howson, as Aboriginal affairs minister
during the relevant post-World War II years, was not only there but
was intimately involved.
Joan Croll,
Woolwich.
Many of those who approve Noel Pearson's views on Aboriginal welfare
have not read his book Our right to take responsibility. It is
about the struggles with the welfare system of the Cape York Aborigines.
He states:
Among Cape York Aborigines there is little prospect of economic
self-sufficiency, therefore there is no alternative to continuing the
financial subsidy.
The public subsidy should be paid to regional Aboriginal
organisations, such as the Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation
(Pearson is an adviser).
Such organisations will partner government in the definition and
enforcement of the "mutual obligation" of all recipients.
These organisations are essential to the formation of "mutual
obligation" among Cape York Aborigines because no level of Australian
government has sufficient moral authority for this task.
Pearson has so far said little about how these regional Aboriginal
bodies are made accountable to Aboriginal people.
The fundamental value underpinning Pearson's support for "mutual
obligation" is "recip-
rocity".
In short, Pearson is a welfare reformer, not an opponent of welfare. His
ideas about Aborigines' future economic self-sufficiency are
complicated by his expressed fidelity to indigenous values. Pearson's
arguments should be appraised in all their exploratory complexity.
He is not the One Nation sound-bite monkey that some of your
correspondents have taken him to be.
Tim Rowse,
O'Connor (ACT).
The statement of the former Aboriginal affairs minister Peter Howson,
together with the decisions in the legal cases of "Williams v NSW
(1999)" and the recent "Cubillo v Commonwealth (2000)", could perhaps
put to rest the misnomer of the term "stolen generations" and
appropriate terms can hopefully now be used to describe the children (of
any race) who were rejected by their tribes and given up by
their mothers and those who were legally removed for their own
protection.
Dr Francis Khoo,
Wilberforce.
"Deadly visions of the desert children" (Herald, August 21) was a
horrific reminder that Australia will never be the lucky country and
certainly not the clever country.
How can we continue to deny resources to areas such as Papunya in the
Northern Territory?
John Howard is content to spend indecent amounts of money on advertising
the benefits of a new tax system, one which only seems to
benefit those already financially comfortable.
He is now content to waste precious resources and money attempting to
deny access to IVF to those who, clearly, given the emotional
and physical impact of the procedure, want to provide love and affection
to another human being.
His expensive personal moral hit-list just goes on and on.
Just look into the eyes of those children on the front page of the
Herald or wander out to Alice Springs as I have done, Mr Howard, and
contemplate the utterly sickening waste of humanity and it may even make
your heart heave with distress.
Forget about saying sorry for past injustices, say sorry for doing
absolutely nothing in your entire political career for anyone in need.
Lynn Rutherford,
Merewether.
The moves by South Sydney Council to remove the Aboriginal tent embassy
from Victoria Park are shameful.
This peaceful protest is about a fundamental injustice that must be
addressed for the sake of our nation's future.
Unlike New Zealand, the US and Canada, Australian governments have never
recognised indigenous people's inherent rights of
ownership of their land, nor negotiated a treaty to sort out this
injustice once and for all. Until that happens, the tent embassy must be
allowed to stay.
B. Doyle,
Paddington.
--
**********************************
'Click' to protect the rainforest:
Make the Rainforest Site your homepage!
http://www.therainforestsite.com/
**********************************
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
