Showing posts with label Australian society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian society. Show all posts

Thursday 22 June 2017

Airbrushing the ugly underbelly of special religious education classes in state public schools


Government reports that review policies which interface education, religion and political ideology can be slippery creatures......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 September 2016:

The findings and recommendations of a controversial $300,000 review of special religious education and ethics classes in schools has been kept under wraps by the NSW government for up to nine months.
The review was a recommendation of a 2012 upper house inquiry into ethics classes in NSW schools, which found they should be retained as an option for students who do not want to take part in special religious education.
The inquiry recommended the Department of Education publish the number of students taking part in ethics (SEE) and special religious education (SRE) classes, or neither, and that both types of class be reviewed in 2014-15.
The review, by ARTD Consultants, cost $295,988. Submissions closed on July 31 last year and the review was due for delivery to the NSW government shortly after the contract period ended on December 31…..
A spokesman for Mr Piccoli confirmed the cost of the review.
But he would not say when the report was handed to the government, whether a draft was first provided to the minister, when it would be released or when the government would respond…
A new enrolment form was later introduced that removed a clear choice between ethics and scripture by omitting a box that could be ticked by parents who wanted to enrol their children in ethics classes.
It came after documents obtained under freedom of information laws revealed religious groups blamed the introduction of ethics classes for falling participation in special religious education classes for the 2015 school year.
The NSW government's review of scripture in public schools deleted a section of a 2015 draft report showing children were exposed to lessons on the conservative Christian concept of "headship" – where women "submit" to their husbands – and negative messages on homosexuality.
When the Department of Education released a final report in April, after a 17-month delay, sections of the draft report that validated scripture opponents' concerns about the growing and unacknowledged influence of evangelical Christian groups in state schools were deleted or paraphrased.
The deleted sections included a primary school principal's difficulty obtaining evidence of working with children clearances from a special religious education (SRE) or scripture provider, and examples of children exposed to messages on gender and homosexuality that breached department guidelines…..
The draft ARTD Consultants report found an unidentified major Christian publisher's lesson material taught "the concept of 'headship' and that women should submit to their husbands, abstinence only sex education, negative LGBTI messages and that sexual intimacy is only acceptable to God between a married man and woman".
The Department of Education deleted the sentence and replaced it with the words: "The text also contained messages about sex education, which is not appropriate or the role of SRE"…..
The department deleted a section of the draft stating the conservative Sydney Anglican Diocese-backed Generate Ministries "has become a very influential player" in the delivery of secondary school SRE. The organisation was founded by Sydney Anglican Youthworks, Presbyterian Youth NSW, NSW Baptist Churches and Scripture Union NSW.
The department also deleted that "parents (and schools) appear to be largely unaware of the links their high school SRE teacher might have with Generate Ministries", and that the "influence" of third party groups "such as Generate Ministries on the delivery of SRE is currently unacknowledged".
It replaced the section with a sentence noting that the roles of boards, committees and "third party groups doing their human resource functions may not always be known or clear to parents", and without identifying Generate Ministries. 
Generate Ministries is governed by its founding partners, has at least 110 SRE "boards" and received $4 million in government funds in 2016 to provide chaplains in more than 200 NSW schools. Its website values include seeking to "be dependent on God" and "model courageous, entrepreneurial, servant-hearted leadership". 
The final ARTD Consultants report released in April noted some NSW school principals reported feeling "undue pressure" from a scripture provider, but the Department of Education deleted the draft report's naming of it as an Anglican provider…..
The final report retained a section of the draft showing a large Christian publisher's workbook in 2015 contained material that was "age-inappropriate and insensitive to children's welfare", with "negative passages" including that "cancer is a consequence of our sin and a gift from God" and that "we should die for our faith if necessary".
The ARTD report found the level of complaints about SRE was low but they were most often about lesson content. Parents were less satisfied than principals and scripture providers that complaints were handled appropriately.

BACKGROUND

NSW Dept. of Education, website as of 19 June 2017:

Review of Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics in NSW government schools
The 2015 Review of Special Religious Education (SRE) and Special Education in Ethics (SEE) in NSW Government Schools was conducted by ARTD Consultants.
The report makes 56 recommendations. 22 of the recommendations will be considered in consultation with the NSW Consultative Committee for SRE and NSW Consultative Committee for SEE. The department has responded to the remaining 34 recommendations. These are provided as separate documents.
Full report (PDF 2.96MB) [airbrushed report, dated 23 March 2016]*

* My annotation

Monday 19 June 2017

Australian Law Reform Commission recommends a National Plan to combat elder abuse


"4.40 Stakeholders reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included reports of abuse by paid care workers and other residents of care homes, as well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients. For example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and emotional abuse:
When working as a PCA [personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including: PCA telling resident to ‘die you f—ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped, forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention; residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by PCAs."
[Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 131), p.110]

In 2016 people 65 years of age and over comprised 15.3 per cent of the Australian population. This represents over 3.5 million older people, a figure the Australian Bureau of Statistics expects to grow to  9.6 million people by 2064.

The Turnbull Government needs to consider the recently published Australian Law Reform Commission report and act on its recommendations.

Australian Law Reform Commission, media release, 15 June 2017:
Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is delighted to be launching its Report, Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 131), on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 2017.

The ALRC was asked to consider Commonwealth laws and legal frameworks and how they might better protect older persons from misuse or abuse, and safeguard their autonomy.

The Report includes 43 recommendations for law reform. The overall effect will be to safeguard older people from abuse and support their choices and wishes through:

* improved responses to elder abuse in residential aged care;
* enhanced employment screening of care workers;
* greater scrutiny regarding the use of restrictive practices in aged care;
* building trust and confidence in enduring documents as important advanced planning tools;
* protecting older people when ‘assets for care’ arrangements go wrong;
* banks and financial institutions protecting vulnerable customers from abuse;
better succession planning across the self-managed superannuation sector;
* adult safeguarding regimes protecting and supporting at-risk adults.

These outcomes should be further pursued through a National Plan to combat elder abuse and new empirical research into the prevalence of elder abuse.
ALRC President Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, Commissioner-in-charge of the inquiry, said, “In developing the recommendations in this Report, we have worked to balance the autonomy of older people with providing appropriate protections, respecting the choices that older persons make, but also safeguarding them from abuse.”

The Report represents the culmination of research and consultation over a 15-month period, during which the ALRC consulted with 117 stakeholders around the country, released two consultation documents, and received more than 450 submissions.

Professor Croucher said:  “The ALRC is indebted to the broad range of individuals and organisations who have contributed to evidence base that informs its recommendations. In particular I thank the many individuals who generously shared with the ALRC personal stories of heartache and frustration, and of families torn apart by elder abuse. It is significant that the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, has chosen to mark the launch of the Report today —with advocates and service providers —at the 2017 World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Forum.”


Thursday 8 June 2017

So you want to drug test welfare recipients, Mr. Porter?




A handy little DSS fact sheet informs us that drug testing at three trial sites will run for two years and that; The tests will detect use of drugs including ecstasy, marijuana and methamphetamines, including ice. However, the minister and his department remain silent as to the cost of this program.
                                                                                                                                                
We-ell…… I just don’t find any of these statements a convincing argument for drug testing a select number of Centrelink recipients on unemployment benefits commencing 1 January 2018, in the hope that just 8.48 per cent of them will initially test positive.

After all the workforce generally seems likely to have the same addictive issues and no-one is talking of drug testing them before distributing wages.

For example:

In 2013, just over 40% of Australians either smoked daily, drank alcohol in ways that put them at risk of harm or used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months; 3.1% engaged in all 3 of these behaviours. [National Drug Strategy Household Survey Detailed Report 2013]

Over 48,000 Australians were on a course of pharmacotherapy treatment for their opioid dependence on a snapshot day in June 2015.

Wastewater analysis conducted in the latter half of 2016 shows that alcohol and tobacco consumption was the highest of all substances tested in all states and territories.

Declines were seen in recent use of some illegal drugs in 2016 including meth/amphetamines (from 2.1% to 1.4%), hallucinogens (1.3% to 1.0%), and synthetic cannabinoids (1.2% to 0.3%).
About 1 in 20 Australians had misused pharmaceuticals in 2016 (4.8%).

While the number of politicians over the years who have allegedly been drunk in charge of a parliamentary vote is notable – everyone from prime ministers and cabinet ministers right down to lowly backbenches if a recent Google search is a reliable indicator.

Sunday 28 May 2017

Australian case law has a Minties Moment


The applicant appeared in person, having declined the opportunity to be represented by a solicitor funded by a grant of legal aid. Her stated reason for having done so is that as “a Druid (Celtic Pagan Priest) … being represented by a solicitor in Court is not an option.” According to Strabo, druids were once held in such high regard that they could quell any private or public dispute, including a stand-off between opposing armies: Geographica at 4.4.4. Their jurisdiction was divine and limitless. By contrast, and fortunately for the applicant, the jurisdiction of Australian inferior courts is statutory and limited. [Morgan v District Court of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 105, 23 May 2017]

Friday 26 May 2017

ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART, 26 May 20017


ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
26 May 2017


Wednesday 24 May 2017

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people"


“Our traditional lands are an interconnected and living whole; a vital cultural landscape. It is central to us as a People, and to the maintenance of our identity, laws and consequent rights. If the Carmichael mine were to proceed it would tear the heart out of the land. The scale of this mine means it would have devastating impacts on our native title, ancestral lands and waters, our totemic plants and animals, and our environmental and cultural heritage. It would pollute and drain billions of litres of groundwater, and obliterate important springs systems. It would potentially wipe out threatened and endangered species. It would literally leave a huge black hole, monumental in proportions, where there were once our homelands. These effects are irreversible. Our land will be “disappeared”.”  [Wangan & Jagalingou People, Our Fight]

BuzzFeed News, 18 May 2017:


Human rights lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Macquarie University, George Newhouse, said Brandis' intervention was using native title law against Indigenous Australians rather than assisting them.

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people under the Native Title Act 1993," he told BuzzFeed News.

"[The government's] power is being used to obstruct Indigenous land claimants. This discriminatory law only affects Indigenous Australians. The rights of Indigenous people continue to be stripped away for the benefit of big coal miners."

Greens Deputy Leader and Senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, slammed the intervention, saying the government had sided with Adani over traditional owners.

"Brandis’ attempt to push a bill through the Senate that was designed to ram through the Adani coal mine against the wishes of the local Wangan & Jagalingou people failed, so now he is interfering in their court case," she told BuzzFeed News.

"This isn’t about good reform to Native Title it’s about making things as easy as possible for Adani at the expense of the land rights of First Australians".

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Labor supports the government's proposed amendments to the Native Title act, but declined to comment on Brandis' intervention.


Senator Brandis’ intervention follows his second failure to rush through changes to the Native Title Act. The Attorney General has asked the Court to not make a ruling, but wait for the political process around the Native Title Bill to conclude. The Bill has not passed the Senate because of a lack of consultation with Traditional Owners around the country, and concern about key provisions.

Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, said, “The Attorney General has made an extraordinary and political intervention in matters before the court. Intervening in our case shows Brandis is working in billionaire Adani’s interests, not ensuring the proper administration of justice. Again, Brandis is making Native Title all about Adani’s mine instead of good law reform.

“Brandis should apply himself to good law reform, and let the court do its work. Instead he’s trying to influence the decisions of a judge in favour of a mining company.
“The Wangan and Jagalingou Council are seeking Federal Court orders to strike out the purported Indigenous Land Use Agreement [ILUA] filed by Adani Mining with the National Native Title Tribunal. The ILUA would authorise ‘extinguishment’ of our native title and allow the mine to proceed against our strong objections and our right to say ‘No’.

“The Federal Government has been attempting to push through amendments to the Native Title Act to overturn the ruling in McGlade and protect Adani’s interests. Along with other Traditional Owners, we  continue to demand proper consultations and the necessary time to achieve consent for Native Title amendments”, he said.

While on the other side of the country another opportunistic miner is using Native Title law for his own benefit


SYDNEY, May 18 (Reuters) - Mining magnate Andrew Forrest has used laws designed to protect indigenous land rights to stop prospectors searching for minerals on his West Australian cattle farms, angering both traditional Aboriginal landowners and mining community members.

While tensions between the competing interests of indigenous landholders, pastoral leaseholders and miners on government-controlled land are common, Forrest's approach represents one of the first known examples of a non-Aboriginal successfully using rights afforded to indigenous people to their own advantage.

Native title is a legal doctrine in Australia that recognises indigenous rights to certain parcels of land.

Forrest's use of it is not illegal, but it adds to the fractious relationship he has with some indigenous groups. Different groups have raised concerns over Forrest's cattle interests and have battled over land rights with the company he founded and chairs - Fortescue Metals Group, the world's fourth biggest iron ore miner……

But Matthew Slack, the head of the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corp which oversees native title for the indigenous landowners, said it was "pretty rich" for Forrest to use rights designed to protect indigenous interests.

Thalanyji were also concerned about cattle numbers and water use at Forrest's 2,400 square km (927 sq mile) Minderoo pastoral lease in Western Australia's Pilbara district, he said.

"We are disgusted with Forrest and have been for some time. Slack said. "Our dreamtime creatures can't survive because the river is so low."

Sunday 14 May 2017

Meet the NSW members of parliament who voted to keep abortion a crime in their state


“We came up against the mistruths and the misinformation put out by the Catholic Church, the Australian Christian Lobby and other anti-abortion groups. But these deeply conservative institutions can’t hold back the movement that has started. Religion, whether it is mine or anyone else’s, should not deny someone their rights and choices.
Young people overwhelmingly supported this reform because they can see the hypocrisy. No amount of scare campaigns can hold back the tide. This was about putting abortion access on the political agenda. We succeeded in that and we will continue the campaign.
I particularly think of rural and regional women today, who are the most impacted by abortion being in the Crimes Act, which keeps it scarce, expensive and privatised. I think the members of the Legislative Council who voted against the bill and against the reproductive rights of their constituents have a lot of explaining to do.
Ultimately, the provisions in my bill are operating in various parts of Australia effectively. MPs that voted against this bill need to explain why they think women in NSW deserve fewer rights and fewer protections than women in Victoria, Tasmania or the ACT.” [Dr. Mehreen Faruqi MLC, media release, 11 May 2017]

Facebook, Greens MLC Dr. Mehreen Faruqi, 11 May 2017:


Your body, their choice.

I'm sorry to announce that the NSW Legislative Council has voted 14-25 against taking abortion out of the Crimes Act and providing safe access. Not a single Liberal or National MP voted in support (and only one made a speech). 

I first gave notice of the bill two years ago and the bill has been carefully crafted with doctors and lawyers. This has been an inclusive, consultative and collaborative process. 

But the genie is out of the bottle now, more people than ever are awakened to this injustice and I am confident that under a less conservative parliament, less dominated by conservative men, abortion will be taken out of the Crimes Act and women and all people seeking abortions will be able to access reproductive health clinics without harassment in future.

I'm proud of the campaign that we have run over the last few years and it will continue. Talking to the community, women, doctors and nurses across NSW from Byron to Bega, from Albury to Newcastle and across Sydney, one thing is for sure, there is an overwhelming appetite in the community for a woman's choice and for abortion to be taken out of the Crimes Act.

It is a truism that politicians are completely out of step with community expectations but they have reaffirmed it once again. The community campaign will continue. This is not the end, we are just getting started.

Members of the NSW Upper House who voted against the bill:

Lou Amato (Liberal), David Clarke (Liberal), Catherine Cusack (Liberal), Scott Farlow (Liberal Party), Scot MacDonald (Liberal), Natasha Maclaren-Jones (Liberal), Shayne Mallard (Liberal), Taylor Martin (Liberal), Don Harwin (Liberal), Greg Pearce (Liberal), Peter Phelps (Liberal), 

Niall Blair (Nationals), Rick Colless (Nationals), Duncan Gay (Nationals), Trevor Khan (Nationals), Sarah Mitchell (Nationals), Bronnie Taylor (Nationals), Ben Franklin (Nationals),

Shaoquett Moselmane (Labor), Greg Donnelly (Labor), and Ernest Wong (Labor),

Robert Borsak (Shooters, Fishers and Farmers), Robert Brown (Shooters, Fishers and Farmers),

Paul Green (Christian Democratic Party),  Reverend Fred Nile (Christian Democratic Party).

Members of the NSW Upper House who voted for the bill:

John Graham (Labor), Daniel Mookhey (Labor), Peter Primrose (Labor), Adam Searle (Labor), Walt Secord (Labor) Penny Sharpe (Labor), Mick Veitch (Labor) Lynda Voltz (Labor),

Jeremy Buckingham (Greens), Mehreen Faruqi (Greens), Justin Field (Greens), Dawn Walker (Greens), David Shoebridge (Greens),

Mark Pearson (Animal Justice Party).

Something to remember when NSW goes to the polls on 28 March 2019.

Thursday 11 May 2017

If Turnbull, Morrison and Cormann were expecting high praise for Budget 2017 from ordinary folk they are bound to be disappointed


With perhaps the exception of those big banks, the business community does not appear too unhappy with the Turnbull Government’s latest budget provisions, however letters sections in newspapers yesterday tell a different story when it comes to the average voter……

Surplus? Tell 'em they're dreaming

Based on nine years of irrefutable data, one can confidently make the following predictions after seeing Scott Morrison's budget.
There will be no surplus in 2020/21 or thereafter, and debt will just keep growing. Treasury has yet again overestimated government revenue, underestimated expenditure, continuing a remarkably long run of consistently getting it wrong.
The tragedy is that they, and their political masters, don't seem to learn anything, persisting with flawed models, theories and policies, that promise much but deliver the opposite.
Wayne Swan set the standard with his promise that deficits would end in 2012/13. Scott Morrison has just raised the bar.

Mark Engelbrecht Floreat, WA 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 May 2017, p.18:

PM's talk of fairness fails global shame test
The Prime Minister speaks of "fairness, opportunity and security" but the Australian government is continuing its selective vision of entitlement. It is not just that cutting aid adds to the push factors for refugees, it is the maintenance of a philosophy that the haves will grasp ever more tightly to protect their lifestyle at the expense of those who have nothing. The failure of successive Australian governments to meet their millennium goal commitments is yet another in the list of shameful failures by our nation to act as a responsible global citizen.
Philip Cooney Wentworth Falls
Liberals will always be cheaper: Looks like this might be the only believable claim from ScoMo and Turnbull, cheap, not cheerful and false economy. Are all options really on the table? Must health, education, pensions, welfare, housing affordability really be sacrificed, to prioritise keeping the pedlars of spies, submarines and jet fighters in the style to which they're accustomed? Their plans, values and fundamental morality sure is cheap.
Bernie McComb Phillip Island (Vic)

The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2017, p.20:

Pay off all debt and be frugal
The federal Budget has been presented and everyone is asking, "What's in it for me?" The invisible elephant in the room is asking, "Where is the money coming from?" We are already on the road to owing half a trillion dollars, paying more than a billion dollars a month in interest alone. We are going to lumber our children with the sins of today and turn this great country into a third world nation, just so our current crop of politicians can appease as many voters as they need to stay in power. While there are a great many of wonderful ideas that need funding, can we afford them now? It is time we reined in expenditure, cut back on bloated bureaucracy and consultants, and tell politicians they need to live more frugally. The Titanic, too, was doing quite well until it shook hands with the iceberg.
Jim Stamell, Sylvania
Be fair towards the less privileged in society
Scott Morrison wants to bash the unemployed (again) while striving to achieve "fairness" in the Budget ("No licence to skive", 9/5).
Instead of finding more cruel and unusual ways to punish the unemployed, why doesn't he show true fairness and increase the Newstart Allowance from its current $35 a day -- a rate that hasn't changed since 1990 -- to a rate where a human being in Sydney can actually use it to survive rather than be way under the poverty line? All stick and no carrot is absolutely not fair.
Alex, Woy Woy

The Twitterverse is also less than enthusiastic……

Monday 8 May 2017

A chilling set of statistics the Turnbull Government tries hard to pretend it can't see


Sadly what these figures tell us is that the unequal status of women and their daughters in Australian society persists and there is still not enough political will (especially amongst members of the Liberal and National parties) to seriously address the issues.

Proof of this can be found in first the Abbott Government and now the Turnbull Government failing to adequately fund existing programs and new initiatives.

The Daily Telegraph, 29 April 2017:


RISING divorce rates, skyrocketing rents and the gender pay gap have combined to create a new homeless epidemic in which women in their 50s and 60s are the victims.
Social workers warn Australia is facing a generational “tsunami” of this older demographic in coming years as a lack of super, casual jobs and high-priced housing take their toll.

Charities are reporting increases of up to 44 per cent in the number of older women seeking homelessness services in the past five years and government stats are showing half a million women will fall into housing stress over the next two decades.

Those same organisations say the increasing number of older women arriving at Sydney’s homeless shelters have led “traditional” lives, been housewives or worked part time, but with the death of a partner or divorce, are shocked and bewildered to find themselves virtually on the streets.

Apart from later life divorces and sky-high rents, the predicted explosion in the population aged over 65, domestic violence, a lack of super and increased casual jobs have also been blamed for driving the phenomenon.

And along with the growth in lone-person households comes loneliness.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies research shows 26 per cent of people living alone report feeling lonely often, compared with 16 per cent of people living with others.

“They may have once owned a house, but lost it through relationship breakdown, domestic violence, business failure or sheer bad luck.”

Western Sydney Women co-founder and women’s business advocate Annabelle Daniel says there has been a “massive increase” in homelessness among older women.

“We’re talking about a generation who have been mums and housewives and may have had a divorce and now they have nothing. Or they have left a domestic violence situation, and now have nowhere to go.”……

The society’s NSW president Denis Walsh said: “We are hearing more and more stories from women over 50 who, after many years of loyal service, are made redundant and can no longer afford to pay high private rentals.”

Ageing and women’s advocate and former MP Susan Ryan says many of these women would not be eligible for public housing in NSW, yet faced “catastrophic” circumstances.

Years ago, more women retired with a house, Ms Ryan says, but that’s become less common, forcing them into expensive rental markets, where the average rental for a one-bedroom apartment outside the Sydney CBD is now $447 a week.

“The shocking aspect of this new face of poverty is that most of the women involved have not experienced long-term serious illness and have worked most of their lives, often in good, middle level jobs,” she said……

Destroy the Joint, Counting Dead Women, 29 April 2017

All but one of these deaths were allegedly by the hands of men either belonging to the same family group as the women or thought to be known by the women.

Although this is six less deaths than recorded by Destroy the Joint in mid-April 2016, there are still too many women being brutally killed and too many being badly injured.

ABC News, 12 August 2015:
Brain Injury Australia executive officer Nick Rushworth said it was "a matter of current public attention that one woman is killed every week by her partner or ex-partner".
He said he now wanted to draw attention to those women who had to live with chronic brain injury.
"Three women are hospitalised each and every week in this country with a traumatic brain injury — the result of an assault by her partner or ex-partner," he said.


Just over 20,000 people (20,111) were hospitalised in Australia in 2013–14 as a result of an assault, of which 31% (6,293) were women and girls. The overall rate of assault injury among women and girls was 56 cases per 100,000 population, compared with 121 for men. Rates of assault among women and girls were higher in age groups from about 15–19 to 50–54 years and the age group with the highest rate of assault was 30–34 years (113 cases per 100,000 population).

More than three-quarters (76%, or 4,788) of records of cases of assault against women and girls contained information about the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. Where specific information about the perpetrator was available, ‘spouse or domestic partner’ was the most commonly reported perpetrator of assault among women and girls (59%, or 2,843 cases). ‘Parents’ (195 cases) and ‘other family members’ (726 cases) accounted for nearly half of the remaining cases where the type of perpetrator was specified.

Over half (59%, or 3,685) of all women and girls hospitalised due to assault were victims of an Assault by bodily force. A further quarter of all hospitalised assault cases against women and girls involved a blunt (17%, or 1,048 cases) or sharp object (9%, or 551 cases).

Open wounds (22%, or 1,400 cases), fractures (22%, or 1,375) and superficial injuries (19%, or 1,194) accounted for almost two-thirds of the types of assault injuries sustained by women and girls. For assaults by bodily force and involving sharp and blunt objects, the majority of injuries were to the head and neck area (63%, or 3,328).

Rental housing affordability in regional Australia, 2017


Anglicare Australia’s latest Rental Affordability Snapshot, April 2017, does not offer good news for individuals, couples and families in regional areas who cannot afford to purchase their own home:


Single income households

Single people in regional areas are still hard hit by housing unaffordability. Regional areas generally have fewer services and higher unemployment rates, raising the dilemma of “if you can afford to live there, there are no jobs and if there are jobs, you can’t afford to live there!”

Of the 13,739 regional properties analysed on the collection weekend, there were fewer than five properties that would be suitable for a single person on Youth Allowance (#9 or #10) (n=2 & 3). For those on Newstart, the appropriate properties ranged from 0.1% for singles on Newstart (#8) (n=18), increasing to 1.7% (n=235) for a single parent on Newstart (#5). Singles on the Disability Support Pension (#7) could access 3.49% (n=542) of properties surveyed. An age pensioner (#6) could access 5.0% (n=687) of properties surveyed, however, many of these properties were share houses so there are questions about how successful an application by an age pensioner for this property type would be.
Singles living on the Parenting Payment with one child (#4) could access 7.2% of rentals (n=986), while those on the same payment with two children (#2) could access 5.5% (n=751).
Singles living on the minimum wage might apply for 1,207 properties (8.8%) if on their own (#13) or 2,534 properties (18.4%) if they have two children (#12).
Double income households
A couple living in regional area with two children on the minimum wage (#11) might access 46.7% of all rentals (n=6,422). However, the same family living on Newstart (#1) might only access 8.2% (n=1,133).
An Age Pension couple (#3) could afford 16.7% (n=2,295) of the 13,739 properties.
Couple households living with two children on minimum wage and parenting payment (#14) might access 28.1% of the rentals (n=3,854).

Sunday 7 May 2017

Australia Past & Present: always was, always will be........ *This post may contain the names and links to voices of peope who have passed away*


River Peoples

Left to right: Evelyn Barker, Sharni Hooper, Kevin Hooper, Julie Johnston, Gloria Johnston, Phyllis Cubby, Fred Hooper(Chairman), Phillip Sullivan and Alison Salt.
(Absent from the picture are Sam Jefferies and Desmond Jones)

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, transcript of Paul Gregoire interview with Murrawarri Republic Chair Fred Hooper, 22 April 2017:

This weekend in Brisbane, the Referendum Council is holding the last of the Dialogues: a series of meetings with First Nations peoples to discuss the issue of recognising the nation’s Indigenous people within the Australian constitution.
The findings from the meetings will be reported at the First Nations Convention at Uluru in late May.
However, for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitutional recognition is a token gesture. And what needs to be established is a framework of treaties between the government and each of the continent’s Indigenous nations.
But over recent years, there are some First Peoples nations that have gone a step further and declared independence.

Never ceded
On March 30 2013, the Murrawarri Republic made a formal declaration of independence. The Murrawarri people pointed out that they’ve been living on their land – situated on the border of NSW and Queensland – for tens of thousands of years, and sovereignty had never been ceded.
The People’s Council of the Murrawarri Republic sent their declaration to the Queen of England requesting documents proving Crown title within 21 days. But no response was received and this was interpreted as proof that indeed the republic was an independent state.
According to the council, “there were three legally recognised doctrines that governed the taking over or acquiring of new land under 18th century British and international law.” These were a declaration of war, the negotiation of a treaty or the principle of terra nullius: the concept that the land had no owners.
The British didn’t declare war on the Murrawarri Nation, and the Murrawarri people never sign a treaty. Great Britain actually claimed the land was terra nullius, however, the local Murrawarri people were actually living there at the time.
And as the council further outlines, the High Court of Australia abolished the legal fiction of terra nullius in its 1992 Mabo versus Queensland (No 2) ruling. The court recognised native title – or that Indigenous people had a prior claim to the land – in Australia for the first time.

Sovereign Nations
The Murrawarri Republic encompasses an area of around 82,000 square kilometres and has a population of about 3,500 people. It was the first Indigenous nation on the continent to declare its independence, but others have followed.
The Euahlayi Nation declared their independence in August 2013. The Wiradjuri Central West Republic did so in January 2014. And the Yidindji Tribal Nation renounced legal ties with Australia that same year. All the nations have independent governments, and some have established police forces.
Fred Hooper is the chair of the People’s Council of the Murrawarri Republic. During his time, the Murrawarri elder served six years in the Australian Navy as a submariner and spent nine years working in the public service.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke with Fred Hooper about the process the republic went through to declare its independence, their guiding principles, and what he thinks about constitutional recognition.

The Murrawarri Republic declared independence from Australia in March 2013. Can you outline the process you undertook in order to do this, and the reasoning behind it?
Firstly, we didn’t declare our independence from Australia. We declared that we were always independent from Australia. We declared our continued independence and statehood. Because we’ve never ceded our sovereignty or allodial title to the Crown of Great Britain.
The process that we went through. First of all, it came out of the fortieth anniversary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, where sovereignty was the main focus of the anniversary.
We then consulted other members of the Murrawarri people. We researched forms of independence and forms of republics as well.
From a meeting of Aboriginal people in Wollongong, we then went away and researched it. And found that a republic was the best for us, because we were never a kingdom. We didn’t have Kings and Queens. And we didn’t claim our seat to the throne through God.
We decided to go with a republic.
So the process was that we researched declarations of independence. How other countries declared their independence. And we decided to go with something similar to Israel’s declaration of independence through the United Nations in the creation of the state of Israel.
We wrote the declaration. And then it was a matter of getting people to sign it. We hit the road and went to sporting events and got Murrawarri people to actually sign the declaration.
From there we wrote to Queen Elizabeth II notifying her – because she is the head of state of the country – of our intentions and our declaration.

The High Court in the 1992 Mabo case recognised native title in Australia for the first time. In response to that judgement the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993.
Can I ask why the people of the Murrawarri nation didn’t instead decide to make a native title claim under the provisions of this Act?
Well we found that the Act didn’t work. We found that the Act was established for white Australia and all the benefits went to white Australia. All the benefits, except for one right, the right to negotiate.
Then that right to negotiate within the Native Title Act, if you don’t negotiate with mining companies within six months, and you don’t come to an agreement, then the Federal Court or the judicial system of Australia can overturn the native title.
They can force you into arbitration or they can rule in terms of development. So it’s unjust and unfair legislation.
But also, we found that in Mabo there were a number of things that the High Court said. One was that the Crown did not gain absolute beneficial ownership to the land. The Crown did not gain allodial title to the land.
They did not gain the original title off the Murrawarri to our traditional land. So therefore, we felt that our ownership of that land has continued, and that’s supported by Mabo in that statement by the judges.
Mabo did two things. It overturned the fiction of terra nullius. And it created a new principle of occupation that was outside the international law and outside of international norms, because it created a principle of peaceful settlement. Nowhere else in the world is there a principle of peaceful settlement.
We believe that we have a much stronger case. The research that was done in terms of Murrawarri people found that we’re actually not citizens of Australia, because citizenship comes through the Citizenship and Naturalisation Act of 1948.
That Act actually screens First Nations people in this country from becoming citizens of Australia. So we felt that we were alien from this nation, and that our nation was here prior to 1788.
And there was one other very interesting thing that we looked at as well. There was this old farmer in Western Australia, who declared himself independent from Australia. He pays no taxes. He declared himself a principality.
So we thought, well, if somebody from Europe can come out here and declare their independence from Australia and consider themselves a micro-nation and get acceptance, then the First Peoples should have some claim to the land as well.
We felt that Mabo gave us that opportunity, because the High Court actually said that the Crown did not gain absolute beneficial ownership to the land.

The Murrawarri Republic has its own constitution drafted in April 2014, and its own government: the People’s Council of the Murrawarri Republic.
Can you tell us about the guiding principles of the republic?
We have the constitution. It’s a draft constitution. The declaration set up the principle of the People’s Council, which looks at different types of legislation, emblems, seals, symbols and negotiations.
Our principles are that we don’t exclude anybody from our nation. The constitution does not exclude non-Murrawarri people from living within our nation. And it does not exclude them from being a part of our nation, benefiting from it, living on our nation, or owning land.
We’re looking at the governance of that land, and how the Murrawarri can govern that land for all of its citizens, not only just the Murrawarri people that live there, and the Murrawarri people that don’t live on country as well.
Some of the guiding principles are based on sharing our country. The other thing we don’t want to do is kick people off our country. It’s about benefits for all our citizens, both ancestral and non-ancestral citizens.

It’s been four years since the Murrawarri Republic declared independence. How would you say life has changed over that period for the local people?
Life continues. This is a political process. It’s a fight that we’re taking on politically.
We’ve had no benefits from government. But one of the other things that happened is that some of the development that’s happening, they actually talk to us as well. They just don’t leave us alone. They talk to us.
Also our People’s Council is looking at how we can look at projects that can benefit the whole of the nation. We’re looking at renewable energies in some of our communities. We’re looking at how we can get those renewable energies into those areas. So those type of benefits.
We’re a little bit further down the track. We’re more recognised now as a nation.
I also sit on an organisation that recognises 22 Sovereign First Nations on what they call the Murray-Darling Basin.
And we’ve managed to get the traditional owners and our nations recognised in Commonwealth legislation, through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It’s recognised through statute law that sits under the Water Act.
From that we’re looking at doing other things with other Aboriginal nations, like the Euahlayi Nation.
And one of the big things that came out of a meeting in Canberra last year was that overall there’s 48 Sovereign First Nations in the Murray-Darling Basin. Those 48 nations are now looking at how and what are the processes of us negotiating treaties with each other.
Under international law, a nation can be recognised as treating with other nations if it has trade. So through those treaty negotiations, and those negotiations with those other nations, we’re looking at how we can look at trading amongst ourselves.
How we can look at overseas trade with other First Nations, say in America, Canada and Maori in New Zealand.
These some of the things that are coming out of what we did in 2013.

The Murrawarri Republic was the first Indigenous nation on this continent to declare independence, and there are a few others now.
Do you think there will be more Indigenous nations following suit in the future?
normal Yes. I think it’s people’s understanding, because they’ve been so colonised over the last 200-odd years.
It’s their understanding. And it’s showing those nations that we think we have a case here legally through international law.
We always say Australia is still a colony of Great Britain. And Australia’s constitution even says that, or be it a self-governing colony. There’s still a string there to Great Britain.
What we’re looking at is recognition from Great Britain that we have never ceded our sovereignty. That we have never ceded our lands.
Hopefully now, a lot more nations will come on board. People are ringing and asking about how we did it.
And we have a package that we send out to people that are looking at declaring as well. So we are assisting other nations around the country. And every now and then, another will pop up and declare their independence.

Can I ask how that process is going? And could you explain the benefits of being placed on the list?
We have written to the Decolonisation Committee. To date, we haven’t got a response and we’re planning to write to them again to request to be put on the decolonisation list.
By being placed on the list, there’s an international obligation for Great Britain as the colonising country of the continent of Australia to decolonise under United Nations Resolution 1541.
If you are placed on that list, you are in the process of decolonisation. And there are other small countries that are on the decolonisation list. There’s one in the Pacific that only has 50 citizens.
We’re looking at firstly, trying to get onto the list. And secondly, negotiating with Great Britain, through the Queen’s ministers in Australia, in regards, to decolonising and also, self-governing of our territory.
This will benefit the people that are living in our territory, instead a lot of the benefits of the funds and the revenue that are generated within our country, leaving our country.

At the time the British arrived on this continent there were over 500 different nations already existing here. There’s never been any formal treaties set up between the Commonwealth of Australia and the various First Peoples nations.
Instead of looking towards formal treaties, the federal government is pushing for recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian constitution.
What are your thoughts on constitutional recognition?

I attended the Dubbo Dialogue on constitutional recognition. And I was elected to go to Uluru in May for the Dialogue.
Our position is we need to talk sovereignty and treaty.
One of the other reasons we declared our independence was that John Howard made a statement when he was prime minister and they were talking treaty with Aboriginal people. He came out and said in public that we cannot treaty with our own citizens.
Being recognised in the constitution, we feel, will wipe out our identity. There will no longer be separate Indigenous nations within the continent of Australia. We will all be labelled Australian Aborigines. We won’t have identity back to country.
A lot of the services that are helping people that are recognised in the constitution will dry up.
But also, through the treaty process there is a real opportunity for us to negotiate tangible outcomes, in terms of revenue and looking at governing our own nations as well. Making decisions about that and providing health services. Which is a bottom up approach, and not a top down approach which is happening now.
For us, we can’t have real constitutional recognition without a treaty document to back it up. And a treaty document is a legal document registered with the United Nations.
The constitution forgot us when it was written and I don’t think being recognised in the constitution is going to change anything for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around the country.

And lastly, Fred, it’s Anzac Day next week. On that day in 2015, you were stopped from marching alongside the Submarine Association in the Anzac parade in Canberra, because you were holding a Murrawarri Republic flag.
You were also stopped from laying a wreath because you’d been leading the Frontier Wars march, which honours those Indigenous people who lost their lives fighting the British as they took over the continent.
This First Peoples procession has followed the Anzac Day march for the past six years.
Could you tell us whether the Frontier Wars march will be taking place in Canberra this Anzac Day? And what it means to the Indigenous people of this continent that the government still won’t officially acknowledge that these wars took place?
Yes it will be happening this year. I’m hoping to get down to it.
For us, it’s the recognition that this country was not peacefully settled. They are saying this country was peacefully settled, but it wasn’t.
We fought the British. We fought the colonisers. And there were great warriors fighting all the way that aren’t being recognised in this country. They recognise conflicts overseas, but what about conflicts on our own soil?
For a lot of Aboriginal people that’s the issue. We know that these things happened. We know that people were massacred. We know that the British declared martial law.
If you look at America and you look at the Battle of Little Bighorn, a lot of that has been recognised by the Americans.
One of the things the War Memorial said was that they don’t recognise wars before Federation. But there’s one war they recognise and that they celebrate pre-Federation which is the Boer War. And there were Aboriginal people that were taken to that war as well.
So I think that’s not a very good excuse for not recognising that there were wars and conflicts in our own country.

Fred thanks very much for speaking with us today. And best of luck going into the future with further establishing the Murrawarri Republic as independent nation.
No worries. Thank you.


Essie Coffey was a Muruwari woman born in southern Queensland. She was co-founder of the Western Aboriginal Legal Service and served on a number of government bodies and Aboriginal community organisations.

Born at Essiena Goodgabah in southern Queensland, Essie Coffey and her family were fortunate to avoid forced relocation to a reserve. Instead they lived on the move, following seasonal rural work.

Coffey went on to be co-founder of the Western Aboriginal Legal Service and the Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Museum in Brewarrina, serving on several government bodies and Aboriginal community organisations including the Aboriginal Lands Trust and the Aboriginal Advisory Council. She was an inaugural member of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

Coffey was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) on 10 June 1985, for service to the Aboriginal Community. She was nominated for an MBE but refused it, explaining "I knocked the MBE back because I'm not a member of the British Empire".

With Martha Ansara, Coffey made the award-winning film [“My Survival As An Aboriginal”] (1978), which she gave to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift at the opening of Australia's new Parliament House in 1988. The sequel, [“My Life As I Live It”] , was released in 1993. Coffey also appeared in the film 'Backroads'.

Essie Coffey and her husband, Doc, had 18 children, 10 of whom were adopted.

Parks Australia, 14 July 2012:

The Murrawarri people of central New South Wales have celebrated the return of their country and the declaration of the Weilmoringle Indigenous Protected Area. The Murrawarri have been working with the Indigenous Land Corporation for many years to purchase Weilmoringle, a 3,500 hectare property on the New South Wales and Queensland border.


Brewarrina Aboriginal Mission…..

Statement of significance:

The Brewarrina Aboriginal Mission was the oldest institutional-type community in the state that was still managed in 1965. Brewarrina Mission was the first institution formally established by the Aborigines Protection Board as part of its policy to segregate Aboriginal people. Over the years, the Brewarrina Mission was used to house other Aboriginal people from Tibooburra, Angledool, Goodooga and Culgoa to form the reserve which operated between 1886 - 1966 and was one of the longest running reserve stations in NSW. During the reserve period many Aboriginal people died and were buried in the reserve cemetery. The cemetery is no longer used by the community its integrity is held high within the values of the Aboriginal people. The entire site of Brewarrina Mission including its cemetery is a significant place to the many Aboriginal tribes including Ngemba and Murrawarri tribe as a 'place of belonging'. The place retains its high integrity in its cultural, spiritual, social and historical values to many Aboriginal people across NSW.

Paroo: Oral History of Lorna McNiven - an Indigenous woman who was born in Eulo in south-western Queensland. Her family, known as river people, are the Budjari and Murrawarri peoples.
Lorna and Liz McNiven's evidence to the Australian Parliament Joint Committee On Native Title AndThe Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, 2 October 1996. 

Excerpt from McKellar on behalf of the Budjiti People v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 601 – Native Title consent determination, 23 June 2015:

A number of Budjiti People recall activities with their parents and grandparents on the waterways and lakes found within Budjiti country. Dinny McKellar was taken to Lake Wyara and Lake Numalla by his grandparents to collect swan eggs. The flowering of the gidgee trees was a signal that the swans were laying. Lorna McNiven remembered how she went on a rowboat with her parents to fish in Caiwarro Waterhole.

Fish from the lakes and the Paroo River has featured in the diet of generations of
Budjiti People. Analysis of material at archaeological sites in the application area found evidence that people included in their diets both fish and shellfish. The practice of utilising the waterways and lakes continues to the present today. As stated by Lorna McNiven,“Budjiti People are always fishing on the Paroo”. Nina Prasad goes fishing two or three days a week when the fish are biting. Dinny McKellar goes fishing and sometimes takes his cousin Dulla McKellar with him. Favoured fishing locations would be revisited several times a year.

Seasonal events such as the flooding of the Paroo River are remembered by many
witnesses as times of celebrations. People would walk upstream to meet the flood waters after rains as they signalled when fish stocks along the Paroo would be replenished and there would be food for everyone. Today people return to the river after heavy rains. Sam Eulo returns with his whole family, including his mother Ruby Eulo, to Caiwarro after a fresh flow of water passes down the Paroo.

These activities require care and respect as the landscape contains potential dangers. A story recounted to Philip Eulo was how Grandma Toogler had to swim back from an island on Lake Numulla after collecting swan eggs. The creature Muddan-gaddah had caused the lake to rise. Whilst fishing Nina Prasad and Rhonda Cavanough heard the slapping of the Muddan-gaddah in the river. They packed up and returned home as they were wary of the creature.

Smoking ceremonies involving burning leaves of the dogwood bush or sandalwood bush are used as protection by the Budjiti People. Millie Shillingsworth for example, smokes herself when near the Paroo River to ward off the Muddan-guddah. Smoking is a means of calling on the good spirits to offer protection to the performer of the ritual. Dinny McKellar conducted a smoking ceremony so that he would be safe when he swam amongst the reeds to collect swan eggs. The spirits would also bring good fortune. Dinny was taught to smoke his fishing line so that the ancestors would know who he was and assist with a catch.

Budjiti People perform other rituals when out on country. Judy Shillingsworth throws dirt into the water and calls out “Gouyoo Gouyoo” before throwing in her line. She learnt this from her mother Ruby as well as her grandmother. The same ritual is performed by Nina Prasad to attract the fish. Nina Prasad spits on her bait just as her mother once did.

Lorna McNiven remembers when Budjiti People used to meet with neighbouring
groups. They used to have ceremonies at the lakes, it had to be when there was an abundance of food. There would be meetings or ceremonies or anything after there had been “a big wet” and the lakes would be full of fish and birds. Millie Shillingsworth also recalls being told about a big ceremonial ground up at Caiwarro. In her outline of evidence she says that she remembers her “Granny saying that all the tribes have different ceremonial sites and the different tribes would meet and exchange things. Aunty Kate told me about ceremonies on Caiwarro, the men would all get out there and have a big feed and dance and do a corroboree and exchange things. Granny used to say it was men’s business, it was a meeting place”.