Tom Calma - Wild Rivers

The Northern Territory is not the only place where Aboriginal will and wisdom is ignored and bulldozed by government policy.

The Greens, in particular Senator Siewert have been fairly loyal to the policies and agenda of Tom Calma in their response to the Northern Territory intervention.

The challenge, of course, is to take Tom Calma seriously when he speaks of matters directly relating to the Greens and Green movement and the need for us also to change the way in which we perceive such things as environmental protection.

In the recent 2009 Mabo oration, Tom Calma said..........

"Here in Queensland, for example, we have seen the declaration of Wild Rivers in the Cape York region without sufficient consultation with the affected Indigenous communities and traditional owners. The same goes for proposals to declare sections of Cape York on the World Heritage list.

Gone should be the days when Indigenous or non Indigenous politically or ideologically driven pressure groups, governments or individuals can dictate what is best for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples."

This is talking about the Greens - who have supported the wild rivers and world heritage campaigns. In the last Qld. election locking down Wild Rivers laws was central to Green preference negotiations.

Noel Pearson and the Cape York traditional owners are not going to go away on this issue. Pearson has promised a legal challenge an in today's news he is advancing his cause.

Noel Pearson in the National Indigenous Times
http://www.nit.com.au/breakingNews/story.aspx?id=18037

The Greens have a responsibility to develop new policy paradigms that incorporate rather than exclude Aboriginal people from real decision making, every bit as much as the N.T. and federal governments do.

But before the new policy paradigm can be developed the Greens must take an honest look at their status-quo policy paradigms, not just in terms of Aboriginal welfare but in terms of Aboriginal connection to land including the natural environment which is at the heart of all Green politics.

Can the Greens play a pro-active role in building reconciliation between Aboriginal and Green agendas on Cape York? Or will the Greens continue to pretend there is no problem, like the Wilderness Society does, and allow the the weight and momentum of the Green movement to further the disposession of traditional owners from their land?

Glenn, Your links are both

Glenn,

Your links are both from the white side of the debate. This is not balanced.

Or are you saying the wilderness society represent the balanced position and Cape York traditional owners have an un-balanced position?. If so, I suggest that is a racist perception.

Why do you think traditional owners are building a campaign against wild rivers and world heritage listing? Are they just trouble making?

The Wilderness society have dishonestly misrepresented Noel Pearson and the many other traditional owners currently speaking out when they say (in the above link) "Mr Pearson and others have claimed that a World Heritage listing would exclude traditional fishing and hunting activities. This is simply not true."

Pearson has tried to challenge the museum notion of Aboriginal people, that they are stuck in an 18th century time warp standing on one leg with a spear in their hand. This "traditional hunting and fishing" is a white stereotype, not the aspirations of Cape Yprk people. Pearson is clearly talking about land rights and economic development of impoverished communities being obstructed by wild rivers, not the right to be a stereotype.

Respect

The following is a draft discussion paper developed by myself & my daughter who is currently engaged in a distance education program relevant to the subject. We recently spent several days on the road between Perth and Alice Springs and the topic became a favourite bone.

This seems like a good forum to invite comment on the papers content and we are hopeful that eventually it will inspire some kind of healthy responce from those who have the power to make changes like the one suggested;

CPCF DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER: 17/07/09

"Self respect is a valuable resource.
You have an obligation to share it if you have it.
People want it, people need it.
If you have it, you are a rock, like a sign post to fresh water in a dry place."
CSM Williams.

"Some of us are still just stupid thirsty horses". Pte M.Harvey

“I wanted to ask permission & to give thanks, I just didn’t know how or who to approach.” A New Australian

How is it that an Australian citizen who has relocated to another constituency or across state boundaries is obliged by modern beaurocratic ritual to notify the relevant authorities. I.e. the motor registry for an updated driver’s licence or the electoral commission for the right to vote. Yet the most important and arguably the most relevant obligatory Australian ritual is ignored by regulatory authorities.

When you move across Australia, by whatever means you are moving across traditional boundaries, many older than written texts, older than monotheism. There are some very good anthropological arguments to explain why the tradition of ritual request and permisorary entry across boundaries into lands under the care of human guardians is still and always will be relevant. Amongst these arguments the concept of "respect" is an unavoidable constant.

Australia is a relatively young Nation with an often conflicted identity, where cultural enclaves and aggressive exclusion is officially discouraged yet naturally flourish, as in all modern open democracies. It follows that we as Australians should actively encourage and cultivate any common ground for sustainable collective development.

Self respect manifests itself in the sharing of respect for others. A person that does not have the will to, the knowledge of how or the ability and integrity to show respect cannot develop it within.

As a Nation we lack self respect if we cannot show it to others. If we cannot show it even to our oldest denizens, to ourselves we cannot claim to have self respect.

Symbolic expression is an evolved language of behavioural intent; simple gestures are everything in symbolic ritual. Symbolic ritual has a more personal communicative power and a sustained effect beyond that of any beaurocratic registration process.

Yet when beaurocratic process and symbolic ritual/ ceremony are combined, an inviolate respect for the institution registering the intent is created. i.e., citizenship, marriage.

It would be of enormous value to all Australians if as a part of our rights to co exist in harmony included the obligation to ask permission of the local traditional caretakers for entry and sustenance from the places we find ourselves in.
In its simplest form this could be developed and cultivated by creating a registry of all citizens linked to traditional indigenous boundaries.
This registry in fact already exists. It is called the ’voting register’. At this time Australia also has a good solid basis from which accurate data can be extrapolated to delineate traditional language boundaries.
With an accelerated consultation process the information held by AIATSIS can be verified and solidified into a registry linking the existing election boundaries / physical address data to the traditional language group area.
When an individual first registers to vote or attends a polling station to vote they can be guided through a Compulsory Permission Ceremony Formality showing respect to the traditional language group in the area where they live /are registered to vote.
Polling station officers will have an authority to accept this ceremonial request and a signed treaty given to them by the relevant indigenous councils elected traditional member or existing elder for that area.

Once the ceremony is complete the individual is then permitted to cast their vote.

This ceremony need only occur once for every individual whilst residing within the boundaries set by the traditional language group area. Any change of address will require a consultation with the poling officer and another permission formality if indicated by the registrar’s information.

In this way every voting person living within our National boundaries where traditional people once spoke their own language will be required to share a respect for a National identity which encompasses the place, the land as well as the idea of a Nation. Every voting individual will share a respect for a common ideal which incorporates constitutionally evolved inclusiveness.

This simple ceremonial formality will not endanger the application of the Westminster title system nor influence or effect the Wick agreements. The information already exists and is easily accessible for those making claims for heritage or development / exploration & exploitation purposes.

If implemented this idea will help solidify our National identity, reaching across all cultural boundaries with a common ideal of showing respect for the oldest Australians.

The idea will be of benefit to those wishing to simplify consultative processes, removing any ambiguity with regard to physical boundaries and traditional representatives who must be consulted.

It would also serve to create bedrock upon which the imported Westminster system can rest with an increased relevance and integrity.

Further, each and every voting person in this Nation will know at least one word of the traditional local dialect, its name.

Each and every voting person will have the knowledge that they have given thanks for access to the security, warmth and generosity offered by this country and a personal undertaking to respect the people, culture and traditional values of its first and oldest peoples.

This would surely help us identify easier with the place we have chosen to live in and perhaps treat it with a little more respect.