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

Australian Press Council names Herald Sun for sloppy and misleading journalism


The Australian Press Council named News Corp’s Herald Sun for sloppy and misleading journalism and the editor inserted this in the newspaper on 28 April 2017:
Press Council Adjudication
Herald Sun
April 28, 2017 12:00am
The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online in the Herald Sun on 13 January 2017, headed “Thousands of public servants got a free week off at Christmas, and critics want to know why”. The headline was repeated in a caption accompanying a stock photograph of clinking wine glasses, with “free paid-up week off” substituting “free week”.
The article began: “EXCLUSIVE: TENS of thousands of public servants were gifted a bonus week’s paid holiday between Christmas and New Year’s Day”. The second paragraph stated that “News Corp Australia can reveal workers at the Australian Taxation Office [ATO], Department of Social Services, Safe Work Australia and Treasury were among the government divisions simply given three days’ leave on full pay from Wednesday December 28 to Friday December 30, following the Christmas and Boxing Day public holidays”.
The article then featured another photograph, of an office building, captioned: “Free week off at the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra City”. The concluding paragraph of the article included a comment from a spokesperson for the Community and Public Sector Union, that “the extra days of leave were a ‘trade-off for something else’ such as a lower overall pay rise”.
The Council asked the publication to comment on whether it took reasonable steps to ensure that its description of the leave to workers at the identified public service divisions was accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principles 3).
The publication said its information was obtained from government sources, including from the Department of Employment, and that it also specifically asked all of the government departments whether they were in effect giving “free” days off. It said it received several responses explaining there were trade-offs in the conditions that allowed this, but that others such as the ATO, Treasury and the Department of Employment made no express mention of trade-offs for the leave. In particular, the publication said the ATO’s statement to its reporter contained no suggestion that the days off were part of its enterprise bargaining agreement.
As the comment provided by the ATO offered no justification for the additional days, it was not included in the article.
The publication said there is a public interest in the discussion of public servants being granted such leave, which is unavailable to other workers, given private sector trends towards obliging many workers to use annual leave over the Christmas period.
The publication added that it received no request to remedy the article from any of the government divisions, but would have considered any request.
Conclusion
The Council considers that in the overall context of the article, the statement that “News Corp Australia can reveal workers at the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Social Services, Safe Work Australia and Treasury were among the governments divisions simply given three days’ leave”, is presented as a verified fact. The Council considers that the article did not contain any evidence substantiating or supporting this statement.
First, the Council accepts the publication obtained its information from government sources, including the Department of Employment. Second, the Council accepts the publication asked the ATO and Treasury whether they were in effect giving “free” days off, and that in their response, they made no explicit mention of trade-offs for the leave. Third, the Council also accepts the publication asked the Department of Social Services and Safe Work Australia whether they were in effect given “free” days off. On the information available to the Council, it is unable to conclude whether the publication received any response from these divisions or if any such response confirmed there were no trade-offs for the leave. In the circumstances, the Council considers that the publication needed to make further enquiries to verify this information.
The Council does not consider that the lack of an express denial or the absence of any response amounted to sufficient verification to present the statement as a verified fact. The Council considers that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance, given the unqualified nature of the statement. In any event, the statements that the three days’ leave constituted a full “free week”, a “free paid- up week” or a “bonus week” were inaccurate and unfair. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance, in breach of General Principles 1 and 3. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any complaint from the identified divisions, the Council does not consider the publication breached General Principle 2 or 4, in respect of corrections or rights of reply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.

Publications must take reasonable steps to:
1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

This is the second time in seven weeks that the Herald Sun received a rap over the knuckles for the same type of behaviour:

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Industry Super Australia about an article in The Australian on 3 December 2015, headed “Industry Super must be taken to task”. The article said industry super funds’ “supply chains are tightly held by union-related entities — in relation to funds management, investment, financial advice and custodial services”, and that “[t]he market is never tested because doing business with union mates is so much easier, it would seem”.

The Council considered that although the article was headed “COMMENT” in print and “OPINION” online, the statement in the article that industry super funds’ “supply chains are tightly held by union-related entities — in relation to funds management, investment, financial advice and custodial services, was expressed as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of the author’s opinion. The Council considered it meant that union-related entities dominated each of the named supply areas. The Council was satisfied on the material available that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure this statement was accurate and not misleading.

The Council considered the statement that “[t]he market is never tested because doing business with union mates is so much easier” was also presented as a statement of fact, notwithstanding the addition of the words “it would seem”. The Council considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure this statement was accurate and not misleading, having regard to its definite terms. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 1 in this respect.

As the publication offered a balancing opinion piece in response, given the nature and context of the material, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action. Accordingly, it did not consider that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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”.