Thursday 24th October 1996
Search news archive by day | Search archive by text (NB - News Index) |
Definitive Guide to Aussie webs | Global Web Builders Gold |
The Kid's Locker Room | WWW - due for release shortly... |
Speaking at the same meeting about her past comments related to Aboriginal matters Hanson said, "I don't have to apologise to anyone because I am having a say in which direction I want this country to go."
Ms Hanson is now facing action brought by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission which could result in an order to pay compensation for her comments on race and immigration unless she publicly apologises.
Her refusal to apologise to the Aboriginese has sparked plans for protests which are due to start in Brisbane next month.
Speaking on a hot issue reported on earlier this week involving Charlie Perkins, David Ross, the Indigenous Land Corporation chairman said, "Representative bodies need to be given the powers and functions in order to undertake these responsibilities for these very issues on behalf of native title claimants, rather than it being left in the hands of any gold digger that comes along."
Mr Perkins retorted that "white" Australia had to get used to him and the amount his company Sancave was charging.. "They have to get used to the fact than an Aboriginal can charge for his services just like a white man."
I know that the wider Australian community would be even more outraged if a "white man" was exploiting native title claims the way Perkins is.
Firstly, I do think that Pauline Hanson has been incorrectly type-cast
by the media as a racist. If I recall from 'that parliamentary speech',
her main concern was that migrant communities should make a dedicated
contribution to the community. This is a very strong point, and I am in
full agreement with her on this issue.
Nevertheless, where she does come across as being racist is in her calls
to end multiculturalism, and thus have migrant communities assimilate
because they have their own language and religion.
Assimilate to what? Pauline Hanson's concern here seems to be based on
a fear of change. With globalisation comes a certain concern about
national character and national identity. But in trying to define what
it means to be an Australian citizen in the nineties, let's not throw
out the baby with the bathwater. Both mainstream and minority cultures
in Australia are continually evolving, modernising, converging, and
benefitting from the interaction between differences. One of our
country's greatest strengths is the ability to tolerate (or perhaps be
indifferent towards) diversity. Australia is a young nation, and it
would be unfortunate to try and typify our culture as being one
homogenous (ie. Europeanised) mob. Diversity should be celebrated.
Her fears about an Asian invasion (kicking the old 'Yellow Peril' can)
come straight out of the xenophobic 'Bulletin' of the thirties. Her
disbelief, expressed in the '60 Minutes' program, that Asians make up
less than ten percent of the population puts her on very unstable
terrain. To reject the accuracy of a governmental department's research
is a legitimate position to take in an argument, but ONLY if she is able
to provide some alternate findings. Instead, she just seemed to shrug
her shoulders and belittle the findings - this is just ignorance, and
makes her unfounded claims that the Asian population will near 50% by
the year 2040 seem like the ravings of the lunar right.
It is also simplistic to attack current immigration policy on the basis
that our unemployment level is too high. Every employee in the private
sector that I have had the pleasure to deal with has been a naturalised
citizen. My experience seems to reflect that of the Australian economy
in general - immigration has contributed greatly to the country's
economic and cultural growth for the past forty years. Stopping
immigration won't give others jobs. People that lack in motivation,
come from ineqitable or unstable backgrounds, are unskilled and
under-educated, will still remain unemployed AND unemployable in a
global economy that rewards innovation, value-adding, trade and
flexibility.
Dealing directly with the issue of Kernot vs Hanson. I think Cheryl
Kernot was quite right to criticise Hanson on her visit to Palm Island.
To point out that there was a lot of rubbish in the streets seems to
simplify the island's problems to a level that belittles us all. Here
is a community composed of different Aboriginal tribes that was brought
together not by choice, but by force. Here is a community that is
expected to start up some sort of tourist trade, but where will they get
the funds from? Australia only emerged from the mire of a starving
convict settlement because it had access to investment and an immediate
consumer market in the form of faire olde England.
In the context of a shrinking welfare state, and an ineffective ATSIC,
Palm Island does not seem to have access to the kind of funds that would
be needed to ammend the situation. Furthermore, on what basis could
such investment be justified? The existing resorts that offer island
holidays in North Queensland don't seem to have recovered yet from last
recession, hence QANTAS's attempts to sell off its interests in a couple
of island resorts, and the manager of the South Molle Island resort
going bust despite the free publicity and public angst generated by 'A
Current Affair'.
On criticisms about the performance of ATSIC, I don't think there is any
doubt that they have done a poor job. But as one of the ATSIC
representatives noted in the '60 minutes' program, they are expected to
amend in less than ten years a problem that has been festering for over
two hundred years. There are bad eggs in the system, but this in not
unique to one organisation or one bureaucracy.
And while I think that you are quite right to highlight the mis-deeds of
Mr 15% and other Aboriginal groups that are making seemingly outrageous
claims over mining contracts, I think that an opportunity was lost in
not reporting more on the mis-deeds of Kerry Packer over his buying and
selling of Westpac shares (ooh that got me steamed up). While this
story was only said to be a 'rumour', the native title claims of some
Aboriginal communities are treated as facts.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I don't know who else I speak
for, and I don't care if I do or don't speak for some sort of majority.
To claim that one is speaking for most Australians is an excuse to avoid
debate, and seems to miss the point about being part of a democracy.
Rather, I think that it is important to advance one's views patiently
and logically. We cannot force others to change their views, but we can
attempt to demonstrate to them the logic and veracity of our claims.
This is what I have tried to do here, and I also think that this is what
Pauline Hanson has attempted to do. But now she is part of the media
circus. Her media advisor and speech writer, John Pasq. (the 'de-wogged'
one) has done a poor job, but then he did hang around with Graeme
Campbell, so we shouldn't expect too much.
Pauline Hanson's views seem to typify those of working class communities
throughout Australia. It is not surprising that she won in a Labor
strong-hold. Her views were those of Labor up until probably twenty
years ago. And this seems to be the real issue. Perhaps we should
consider the possibility that she is made to look like a rasict,
red-necked renegade and an extremist by the media because she represents
the views of the working class, and such views are at odds with the
interests of a media that wants to cater to a middle class consumer
market. In an Australia where there is such a great divide between the
haves and the have-nots,
Anyway, thanks for providing the opportunity to have a rave, and
keep up the great work. The 'News of the Day' is beginning to take on
some real character. Let diversity of views, but a general tolerance,
rule the day.
Do you agree that the mainstream media determine the agenda in this country:
The survey that we raised yesterday resulted in the following responses:
Australian (only) feedback as at 4am AEST:
| Cheryl Kernot should get real | Agree: 35 | Disagree: 60 |
| Pauline Hanson speaks for most Australians | Agree: 41 | Disagree: 75 |
However, the issues that Hanson raises are not, I believe, aimed at the grass roots communities such as those on Palm Island but are levelled at the ATSIC bureaucracy which inappropriately spends the tax payer funds given them.... these funds correctly applied could have and could still turn Palm Island, for example, into one of Australia's most popular tourist destinations....
The study by the Australian National University's Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies, found "racial appearance" was mistakenly used to measure the impact of immigration and was a "trigger for prejudice".
"Australia has a long history of racial exclusion based on colour and appearance and many Australians still think in terms which were fashionable for most of this century - hence the notion that Asians are somehow less assimilable or acceptable than Europeans as immigrants."
Return to Australian National News of the Day