|
House divided against itself cannot stand
Reconciliation_&_aboriginal_problems_opinions
(Tthe unchanging nature of indigenous politics)
by.Janet Albrechtsen:The Australian April 08, 2004)
Reviewed by David Hughes-Jones
The day after Mark Latham ( as Opposition Leader)announced that a his Labor government (if elected) would abolish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission,came a letter writer to The Australian which denounced the plan as racist. The self-described "privileged white" author of the letter it appears found it inconceivable that indigenous Australians be stripped of self-governance.
Albrechtsen describes this as typically how “Indigenous Politics” operates. First hurl the epithets, then push forward, no matter the devastating outcomes, with the orthodoxy of separate “rights” for indigenous people. While some people regard this this nonsense, many people still think in these terms.. They evidently have not seen and experienced the dire consequences of the many failed social experiment in separatism.
With a reckless abandon for facts, proponents of separatism will howl with rage and indignation for the Howard Government when it formally announces its intention to abolish ATSIC.Unlike Labor, the Government will not replace ATSIC with another version of it.
Janet quotes John Howard "I think the real alternative is to treat everybody equally and . . . look out for disadvantage where disadvantage exists,"
The Federal Government's argument is simple: self-governance is delivered via an education, a job, a safe roof over one's head – things to which all Australians are entitled.
Albrechtsen recalls that not so long ago a white man advocating equal rights for all, regardless of race, was applauded. Today he would be derided and depicted by critics as “racist”, “redneck” or simply ignorant. For too long the measure of who is making the best contribution to the policy debate is the number of epithets they attract. On that score, New Zealand Opposition Leader Don Brash is well ahead of Latham and Howard, and his recent statement on the subject of seperatism deserve a closer look.
Brash delivered a speech at the Orewa Rotary Club warning New Zealanders about their country's "dangerous drift towards racial separatism". Fearing a racially divided nation would emerge if nothing was done to stem and, in some cases, reverse the flow of race-based preferences, the National leader promised to abolish special Maori seats in parliament, replace race with need as the determinant of welfare and education resources. and remove divisive race-based clauses from legislation.
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and the Waitangi Tribunal said Brash allowed a "major grievance industry to blossom". Calling for an end to the separatist madness, he asked that the Maori "take some responsibility themselves for what is happening in their own communities. Citizenship brings obligations as well as rights." further he said the government's role dealing with disadvantage was not a “race” or “treaty” issue but a social welfare issue.
Brash was soon receiving descriptions as "ignorant", a "redneck politician withracist views" and real mud was thrown in his face by a 24-year-old recipient of race-based preferences on Waitangi Day. . Prime Minister Helen Clark condemned his speech as divisive. It was the "politics of desperation", she said. Next came the smear campaign. Brash was said to have copied Pauline Hanson's political strategies, said Labour politician Clayton Cosgrove because
they both promote the idea that people should be dealt with according to need, not race.
The big surprise to Brash's speech, however, was overwhelming support from non-Maori, Maori and even Labour voters for the notion that Maori and other New Zealanders be treated the same. They also agreed that Brash was right to raise NZ's drift towards racial division.
Albrechtsen sees Brash’s statements as providing a healthy release valve for the pent-up frustration of an electorate drenched by years of dour political correctness. Like in Australia, the guilt-stricken pakeha in NZ thought special rights for the Maori would improve Maori outcomes and maintain harmonious relations between Kiwis of European descent and the Maori. This has been demonstrated as a fallacy : Recent land claims over NZ beaches brought latent problems to the surface. The average Kiwi is surely a generous, tolerant type, but the beach is sacrosanct and assertions that the beaches belong only to Maori statelets rather than all New Zealanders, was an unreasonable claim and unacceptable to most Kiwis.
The sequel to Brash's Orewa "one people" speech was that he gained a powerful public voice when he promised to return the beaches to full public ownership. Prime Minister Clark alerted to the change in public opinion was forced to promise her own review of race-based policies.
The NZ story suggests that claims of special status, special privileges and special rights for one group in society ultimately backfire for the group and society as a whole.
A story worth remembering as Australia grapples with its own aboriginal imhabitants and their particular problems.
top
|
