It’s time to Reconcile Reconciliation

David Russell calls for an investigation into Aboriginal Welfare:

It is a legitimate expectation of governments that they spend taxpayer funds wisely, even if this maxim is so frequently honoured in the breach. Almost a Greek tradition, one might say!

In this spirit, we can be grateful to the rowdy ratbags who displayed their true colours on Australia Day at the Lobby Restaurant in Canberra. Such was the heady aphrodisiac of that eventful afternoon that they had a real morning-after outside Parliament the next day with a burning of the national flag.  Just not sure their spittle was intended to extinguish the flames.

Remarkably, the symbolism of these two events appears to have truly registered on the national psyche though in a way quite contrary to what the aboriginal cause may have wanted to achieve. For many, this appears to have been a seminal turning point. And, yes, it is valid to recognise that these were the actions of the few and not the many. As such they should not be used to hold guilty those who neither took part nor endorsed such protests. Yet, as with a genie out of a bottle, getting it back in can be a bugger.

Over the past four decades we have provided untold assistance packages, welfare programs, support services, interventions and just plain handouts to assist the cause of aboriginal betterment. But on every front we are told that things have not improved and may even have become worse. How could this be? It is clear to all that real change has not been achieved.

It is time for a reconciliation of accounts to determine value for money.

It is time to uncover the truth of what four decades of assistance have achieved

It is time for a Royal Commission into aboriginal welfare.

Let us start with tallying the outlays. So, from the instigation of the aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra let us be told just how much funding has been applied to aboriginal betterment, welfare, reconciliation and allied issues. This is the foundation of any assessment. Debate as to effectiveness may well be inconclusive yet it is surely a debate that must be had. We keep getting told, after all, that the eyes of other nations are upon us as we consider amending our constitution to entrench aboriginal advancement. Frankly they appear to have their own share of problems. Certainly, the down-trodden, oppressed masses in the rest of the world could only pray for the largesse the Australian people have lavished on our own indigenous peoples.

And while on the subject of the so-called aboriginal tent embassy, let us acknowledge the farce that it is. After four decades, any potency of symbolism has waned to the point of irrelevance. Worst is that the occupiers appear entirely unaware of the fraudulent nature of their ‘permission to remain’. If there is a worse example of white, middle-class patronage than the generally well-off Canberra bureaucrats tolerating this smudge on their otherwise orderly landscape, it is difficult to imagine. How smug they must generally feel to know they are playing their part in the advancement of indigenous people by letting them have their little plaything in the heart of town. Such a patronising pat on the head. Quite sad, really, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

As for the rest of us racist, rapist invaders, let us shrug off the yoke of tyranny we allegedly have imposed on this land’s traditional owners. Let us treat them with the respect they deserve and be mindful of the injustice their forebears suffered. Yet history cannot be rewritten. What has been done cannot be undone and none of us today had any part in the events of yesteryear so we cannot legitimately bear the guilt some try to impose on us. Those who cannot or will not get over their grievances must pay the price of such angst. But if they wish to bite the hand that feeds them then let them at least know how much feed they have had.

David M. Russell is a professional communicator with a passion for good governance. His personal blog can be found at davidmrussell.wordpress.com.

Comments

[Mike]

1.

There has been too many so called royal commissions and also the handouts - i agree that the minority is the problem but the australian government is weak and will not impose rules and regulations on them as are imposed on us - so no more commissions no more handouts - start treating them as we are

[john neeting]

2.

I worked for the federal Gov in ACT in IT for 10 years,
Records will show, we have given Aboriginal Affairs 58 BILLION dollars since 1652 - nothings changed.

[David M Russell]

3.

I am in some ways inclined to agree with you, Mike. Royal Commissions can often be a costly pain the backside without producing any real results. I did originally favour just Question Time probing and/or Senate Estimates but the sheer breadth of taxpayer largesse to aborigines made me finally opt for an RC. And I cannot but agree with your final point of all citizens ought to be equal before the law and the parliament.

[David M Russell]

4.

Spread over the timeframe you suggested, John, maybe that's not so much!! But assuming you intended 1952, it is more pertinent. However, I strongly suspect that is only a tidbit of the entire amount federal - and state - governments have allocvated to all aboriginal causes over the past four decades. Whatever the sum may be we can only start to evaluate the outcomes properly once we know the outlays.

[ibbit]

5.

I think you are right in that whilst white middle class types who decide aborignal policy remain complacent about their good works, nothing much will change.

Maybe that also pertains to the majority of onlookers (via various media) who deplored what was done and said on Australia Day but are prepared to let the Government get away with this sort of inbalance between whites and aborigines. Time we spoke out, took to the streets to make our displeasure known.

Whites would not be allowed a fraction of the leeway given to the tent embassy who are essentially flouting laws and regulations with impunity.

It was the injustice of trying to drag Tony Abbott, who has done much - probably more than any other politician - to try to understand aboriginal issues with on-the-ground help that riled me. I believe in fairness and honesty and there was no fairness in any of that disgraceful exhibition from any quarter directly involved.

You are correct to say there should be some sort of reconciliation of the books as it were, but that will never happen in this country which allows itself to be exploited by the theories of those who should know better - academics and others of the chatering class.

[Andy Semple]

6.

Easy to fix. Unless you have 50% or more aboriginal blood, then you're NOT an aboriginal or Islander. There 80% saved.

As for the tent embassy. They're squatters and the law should equally apply to them just as it applies to everyone else. If they were OWS tards they would have been moved on.

BoltA was right also. There is plenty of people claiming "their aboriginality" to get preferential treatment. That's got to stop also. If not then I'm just as aboriginal as they are. I was born here too so I'm an indigenous to this land as they are.

[kraka]

7.

Lets not forget the whole premise regarding the aboriginals is that they were here first. this is a weak argument. King Charles (the 1st?) lost his head because he refused to denounce the divine right of Kings. Being first at anything does not give one the right to it in perputuity-times and circumstances change. In saying that we can only acknowledge that wrongs were committed and that there were Aborigines here and do what we can to live in harmony in the modern world. After all-do the Aboriginal leaders of today seriously believe if the English didn't arrive that they would still be living here as if nothing had happened???If not the English it would have been someone else and who is to say they would have been better off for it. It's time to forget the throw money at the problem solution of the politcal class and foster a sense of responsibility for ones own life and actions among the indigenous of Australia. The myth of the noble savage propogated by the likes of Robert Manne is doing more harm than good and is clearly not based on fact.

[Glenn Astbury]

8.

There will never be any dignity in receiving welfare and handouts. Aboriginals, broadly speaking, need to find a solution to their dependancy on the welfare system. Only through the dignity of work and achievement will they end up first of all respecting themselves and in turn earning the respect of others. This is a massive task and at present they are clearly light years away from achieving it. The first step towards helping aboriginals should be to remove all aboriginal welfare and only provide welfare based on normal requirements as they apply to the rest of the community. They need to be forced to find a solution to their own dilemma.

[David M Russell]

9.

Well said, Kraka!

[David M Russell]

10.

While I agree that dependency on welfare is not - and can never really be = an answer to the problems many aborigines face, I'm not convinced that halting all aid is a fair or sensible wway to approach the situation. Just as babies need to be weaned off the bottle, we must accept that we have helped create the problem by offering so much largesse without adequate responses, and so we must help share the effort of finding a workable solution.

[bluebell]

11.

Maybe we should start looking at handpicking individuals from every single Aboriginal community that shows academic promise, and educating them right up to university level in social and economic development skills - that way we can give them the tools to develop their own programs to suit their people. Taxpayers money should only go to those who have a proven track record of fiscal responsibility and solid gains in improvement within their communities. I guess what we should be doing is holding them responsible for outcomes just like any other institution. We have to be honest with ourselves, we still treat them in a paternalistic way - only it's now sugarcoated in PC, fountains of money and a reluctance to criticize them as intellectual equals. Socialist nitwit David Marr would have to be the worst journo that falls into this trap.

[Glenn]

12.

I didn't suggest halting all aid, only aid that is defined as being specifically for aboriginals. There are plenty of welfare options available to those in need who don't identify as being of aboriginal or torres strait islander descent (ie, the general public) and these options should be available to everyone on an equal basis regardless of race / colour / creed etc.

[David M Russell]

13.

Yes, Glenn, I agree with that stance.

[Another Proud Aussie]

14.

All aid and entitlements for a specific race should be stopped.
We will see then how many stop identifying as Aboriginal.
All welfare should ONLY be based on need.
The law should apply to all and not allow anyone to be above the law.
We are not guilty of what did or did not occur two hundred years ago.
Our Constitution is the voice of the people for all our people AS IS and should NOT be changed to include ANY race division of entitlement.
Anything that the LIEbor Party supports with their panel of experts is to be rejected, particularly when the self serving imbecile Oakeshott was on this panel.

[ibbit]

15.

Andy, I agree absolutely with your first para and have argued many times that there should be a definition of what constitutes aboriginality, always with nobody listening.

I backed off from saying this in my response above and I also backed off on saying it is the town aborigine who has profited from taxpayer largesse at the expense of his remote brother.

The edifying comment by Larissa Behrendt against Bess Price in April last year testifies pretty clearly to this.

The linked article makes for interesting reading.

rehttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/albrecht_on_the_choosing_of_aboriginal_identity_and_its_implcations/

[Account Deleted]

16.

Maybe there should be a sunset clause on all these welfare programs. If they haven't solved the problem in a generation then discard them. If you read Prouhon's book Property is Theft you would see arguments that the aboriginal land rights activists would not like. Who has any inalienable right to land? The first one there says more or less 'I bags this', but that is only legitimate if all the others recognise that method as legitimate. The land belonged to the dinosaurs first, who did they leave it to in a Will?It is really a case of whose economic system can support more people in a sustainable way. Theirs was stagnant, but maybe it was better for the planet? Only time will tell. It is also a matter of global overpopulation. Marx and Malthus, although appearing contradictory, were both right, just at opposite ends of a scale relating to social conditions.

[Ian]

17.

David, you used the saying "Weaned off the Bottle". I feel that is half the trouble. I live in a country town where there is a park with Alcahol Free Zone signs in it and the aboriginals sit under the signs drinking all day and hit you for money or smokes when you walk past.
Get them off the grog and would solve a lot of problems.

[David M Russell]

18.

Well, gee, even though I'm dreadfully cynical I only envisaged a baby's milk bottle but I cringe now that i see your connotation, Ian. Utterly apposite, I have to agree, but not actually what I intended.