The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Aboriginal Cultural Violence or Violence of Aboriginal Culture.

Violence against Aboriginal women and children is unacceptable and must not
be tolerated under any circumstances. It is a well establish fact to those
of us working in Aboriginal Affairs that such violence has been allowed to
continue without little government or legal intervention. For that matter
most Indigenous communities who have little resources have felt powerless
to even manage the situation let alone resolve or prevent this devastating
brutality. Therefore it is not surprising that the well meaning search for
solutions to the problem have not been clearly articulated or developed.
New social and political debate about violence in Aboriginal communities
has descended into the murky waters of two polemic categories that are
simplistic and questionable.
In the search for solutions commentators either address Aboriginal Cultural
Violence, while others put forward solutions that could cause Violence to
Aboriginal Culture. A place to start understanding solutions might be to
try to distinguish the assumptions between both sides of the argument to
expose flawed generalisations.

Aboriginal Cultural Violence
There is much diversity within the debates of Aboriginal Cultural Violence
therefore the need to be selective. One of my Aboriginal undergraduate
students last year engaged me in a conversation that mirrored a discussion
I recently had with two Aboriginal community members. The dialogue went
something like this - Aboriginal communities before the arrival of the
white man did not engage in paedophilia. The sexual abuse of children and
alcohol induced violence against Indigenous women are contemporary issues
caused by colonisation. On engaging their romantic argument a little
further their conclusion led them to argue that paedophilia and violence is
largely a white problem. Besides acting as quasi apologists for Indigenous
abusers, the solutions offered to me included the need for Aboriginal
communities to return to 'traditional' cultural ways as if these are
somehow free of all ills. No human culture on earth is free of corruption
or violence. Yet I have also sat in numerous academic and political
conferences where non-Aboriginal do-gooder lefties have espoused the same
absurdity. Although a minority view, these are nonetheless disturbing.

Other discussions about Aboriginal cultural violence are occurring in
political and academic domains. National Indigenous benchmarking
organisations are in ideological conflict with the Howard government and
Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough. For example the Australian
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) lay the blame for an
escalation in Aboriginal cultural violence at the feet of government
inaction. This includes Indigenous peoples feeling excluded from mainstream
services and failure to resource communities adequately to adopt remedial
measures to address violence. Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma argued
in this week's Flinders University's Elliott Johnston Tribute Lecture, that
'there remains a crying need for government accountability to match the
commitments they make'. He stated passionately:
'When you have been downtrodden for all of your life and governments have
been promising to do something to address this for all of your life, and
they haven't - why would you hold out any hope for change?'

In contrast Mr Brough has centred some of his solutions to Aboriginal
cultural violence by a proposal to scrap cultural law. This understanding
assumes that some Indigenous cultural traditions promote breeding habitats
for paedophilia and violence. This solution assumes that Elders who engage
in paedophilia are also the ones who adjudicate customary law. It also
assumes offenders escape unpunished or receive lesser sentences. Therefore
(or so the argument goes) Indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms of
customary law are not appropriate to administer justice.

The contrast and differences in opinion regarding the causes and solutions
of Aboriginal cultural violence are also matched by solutions made by other
social commentators that invariably do violence to Aboriginal culture.

Violence to Aboriginal Culture.
Problem solving violence in Indigenous communities has led some
commentators to espouse and promote thinly veiled assimilation that can
entrench further harm to Aboriginal culture. Right wing commentators such
as Keith Windshuttle seek to influence Mr Brough (The Australian, Tuesday
May 23rd) that 'chronic unemployment and welfarism nurtures Aboriginal male
violence in isolated communities'. His solution is to move beyond old
thinking for building separate 'homeland economies'. He argues the need to
'close and relocate isolated Indigenous communities to larger population
areas' to insert them into better prospects of employment and therefore the
economy. Windshuttle is convinced that removal and relocation are necessary
conditions of Aboriginal Affairs. This seems some what ironic that a
scholar of history has a short memory of the fact, that the relocation of
Indigenous communities to missions and the removal of children to
institutions is the genesis of Aboriginal disadvantage, and that this is at
the centre of the conflict between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous
governments. Indigenous peoples in every generation since colonisation have
fought hard for land rights to reside or retrieve their land. It is
unmistakably obvious that Indigenous peoples will not be relocated from
their lands willingly. If mutual solutions to violence are to be achieved
between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous governments, Windshuttles'
goals of relocation, removal and assimilation seem ambitious and
unsatisfactory.

The attack on customary law by Mr Brough can also be considered as further
entrenching violence to Aboriginal culture. The fact that Mr Brough has yet
to produce any evidence where traditional law sanctions male violence
against women is a useful measuring instrument to assess logic. Moreover if
customary law can be shown to moderate the severity of the punishment
metered out to offenders as Mr Brough claims it does, then he has a duty
to disclose hard evidence. But the fact of the matter is no legal system is
free of poor jurisprudence. Indeed the Australian legal system has a
colourful history in moderating the severity of penalty for violent crimes.
It would be incredible to suggest that we dispense with Westminster law on
the basis of a small number of indiscretions within some criminal court
judgements.

A similar parallel can be made when paedophilia by religious leaders was
uncovered in religious organisations. Justice for the victims through the
prosecution of a minority of religious paedophiles was a key solution.
However not one public commentator argued for the total abolition of
religious cultures, institutions and philosophies.

Observations
Problem solving social conflict is complex. It is made even more difficult
with blunt instruments of recent polemic debates on Aboriginal Cultural
Violence. However even a modest analysis of the above arguments leads one
to make several broad observations.

The first being that the Federal Indigenous Minister Mr Brough has limited
his understanding of Aboriginal Cultural Violence to the context of remote
communities.
The majority of Indigenous populations reside in rural or urban areas.
Centring remote cultural law as one of the prime determinates of abuse is
problematic indeed. Paedophilia and rape of Indigenous women and children
are also apparent in rural and urban city communities where customary law
as a factor is reduced. Therefore the extinguishment of customary law and
its associated principles of cultural kinship and marriage would prove an
inconclusive measure to eliminate violence from all Indigenous communities.

The second observation informed by HREOC criticisms is that governments
have not lived up to their civic obligations and responsibilities around
citizenship matters regarding law and order in remote Aboriginal
communities. They have little or no access to mental health and counselling
facilities, physicians and hospitals. Usual conflict handling mechanisms
used to prevent violence in non-Indigenous communities including
arbitration, mediation and negotiation are all but rare.

Aboriginal remote communities because of the lack of these resources have
been largely left to fend for themselves in resolving violence and abuse in
their communities. Yet hope has always been core to the resiliency of
Indigenous peoples that leaves me breathless. For example, where possible,
remote communities seek the courts as a system of conflict management to
control and contain the violence. But the court system has been proven to
be untrustworthy to uphold a durable solution to Indigenous aspirations to
be free of violence. The offender usually resides in the remote community
until the lengthy court hearing process is completed.

Using the courts as a conflict management approach to reducing violence
tends to focus more on mitigating or controlling the destructive
consequences than on finding solutions to underlying issues causing it.
Remote community conflict resolution mechanisms are limited to the judicial
system and customary law. Take customary law away and Aboriginal remote
communities are put at even further risk.

Removing welfare from Indigenous communities as advocated by Noel Pearson
and others is also problematic when violence is present. We know enough
about the abuse of women and children to state that Justice is a necessary
condition in the Aboriginal struggle to be free of violence. However,
withdrawing welfare prematurely only compounds violence in Aboriginal
communities. Removing a financial source from families who are already poor
places significant monetary hurdles in the way of achieving legal justice.
Human repair from violence also comes at a huge medical cost. The lack of
money also diminishes the ability of remote victims to move to safe areas
away from the source of conflict. It is hard to imagine that removing
welfare from Indigenous communities, that other Australians consider a
right, would diminish violence. Particularly, when poverty is the prime
enemy to Indigenous health and wellbeing.

What is needed in this debate is evidence based problem solving, not
polemic posturing. Mr Brough would do well to bring together Indigenous
scholars, community leaders and state and territory governments in one room
to talk serious action. In order to bring peace to violence a new culture
of peace in the form of concrete assistance must descend on all Indigenous
communities whether remote or urban. This does not mean introducing
supportive mechanisms that does violence to Aboriginal cultures. There is
no more fundamental task for honourable people to secure peace free from
violence. Peace building requires Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples
redefining their new relationship that moves beyond old discourses of
assimilation to new transformative ones.


-------------------------------------------------------------

Closing Aboriginal Remote Schools makes No educational sense

May 31st, 2006

With no professional education qualifications, Gary Johns Menzies Research
Centre funded research paper suggests to governments and to us in the
Education fraternity, that the sole focus of education in Aboriginal remote
schools is for economic integration. At best he argues schools should
abandon teaching Aboriginal culture as elements of their "culture" are not
conducive to western education and are used as an excuse to avoid
participation in school and the economy. At worst he believes schools in
unviable communities should be closed and students sent to boarding schools
in the city. The reason for lack of success according to Johns mainly
resides outside schools and in the home.

Is this credible? The Menzies paper indicates that Mr. Johns is
overwhelmingly unfamiliar with the basic understandings of the situation.
It is a well established fact to those of us working in Indigenous
Education that school and non-school factors collectively inhibit
successful educational outcomes in remote communities. Oddly both factors
also contribute to successful education outcomes where a solid foundation
of learning is developed. Yet Mr. Johns seeks to convince us in the
education profession, that remote school staffing, structures, and funding
play a lesser role in poor educational outcomes. This ignores the findings
of several national government inquiries including Deaths in Custody,
Stolen Generations and the more recent Senate inquiry in the effectiveness
of education for Indigenous Australians known as the Katu Kalpa report.
These reports outlined some key problems: The lack of adequate
accommodation to house teachers in remote communities; the high turn over
of teachers who on average only stay two years, the lack of ongoing
training and support to accommodate staff turnover, inadequate teacher
training by universities to prepare teachers with bi-lingual and
bi-cultural skills; lack of funds for translation and interpretation
services, inadequate resources for remote school libraries to stimulate
literacy and reading. These reports also reinforce the inclusion of
Indigenous cultures in schooling. I know of no Australian Educator or
curriculum writer who would argue that the individual languages and
cultures students bring to classrooms should remain at the school gate.

We learn from his bibliography that Johns has read none of these national
benchmarking reports that provide a vital context to anyone who seeks to
understand education in remote communities. Nor has he read the essential
text into remote Indigenous education by Kevin Keffee (1992) titled 'From
the Centre to the City'. What are we to make of these extraordinary
omissions? This failure to carry out basic research leads us in the
profession of education to question how Johns arrives at his conclusions
that all remote schools are without success and therefore need closing.
While literacy levels are well below non-Indigenous populations right
across the country, remote schools are not without success. The
commonwealth government's report "What Works" studied just under 100
successful Indigenous education case studies from around the country to
identify what works and what will work again. This report was the largest
Indigenous Education exercise ever undertaken in Australia but Johns' in
his 26 page document only references this report twice in two paragraphs.
In 'what Works" Mr. Johns fails to mention the successful "Literacy through
libraries" project conducted in 18 remotes sites that saw an increased use
of libraries and resources towards improved literacy levels. His report is
also silent on the successful "Kimberly Literacy project" at nine remote
sites to improve Standard Australian English of young children who speak
Indigenous languages including Kriol.

Mr. Johns findings are inconclusive. To take remote Indigenous education to
task and condemn all remote communities, schools, parents and teachers as
failures, when it would appear that he did little more than skim through
the issues looking only for malfunction to support his flawed hypothesis.
This is not to suggest that remote Indigenous education is not broken.
Indeed it is. But Johns simplistic solutions only problem solves a small
portion of an enormous puzzle. Invariably the critique of Johns
conclusions here will be met with criticisms by ideologues who view
educators like me as arguing for the status quo. Quite the contrary. Make
no mistake successful educational outcomes in remote communities is an
urgent task that we as educational scholars are currently seeking answers
to. However what is unsound is educating Aboriginal children out of an
Aboriginal Education. What is needed is robust science to problem solve the
complexities in remote education.

Lester-Irabinna Rigney is a Senior Lecturer within the Yunggorendi First
Nations Centre, Flinders University. He teaches Indigenous Education in the
Flinders School of Education.



This was in an email list that I am part of...the writer asked that it be passed on, so I assume it is ok to reproduce it.




Also....I thought this interesting:




TEACHING INDIGENOUS CULTURE - PART ll
By Chris Sarra

Chris Sarra, Director of the Institute for Indigenous Leadership in
Education and Development, responds to Gary Johns's argument
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19296877-7583,00.html>
that schooling should be compulsory for Aboriginal children, and that
Aboriginal culture shouldn't be taught in schools

Johns plays his part in feeding the media frenzy which seems intent on
demonising Aboriginal people. Such commentary is anchored by racist beliefs
that imply Aboriginal culture should be relegated completely to the history
books while the rest of us are assimilated. The more they deny this... the
more they underline the truth of it.

He sounds authoritative when he says schooling should be compulsory for
Aboriginal children. The fact is, schooling is compulsory for Aboriginal
children. As a principal of an Aboriginal community school for almost seven
years I don't recall meeting any Aboriginal parents who didn't want their
children to attend school and get something good out of it. Most parents
did their best to send kids to school, but unfortunately at the time the
school was not particularly interesting or challenging for them ... so why
would they stay? We cleaned out half of the teaching staff and assembled a
new teaching team that was prepared to reflect on their own practice and
ask, "What is it that I need to change so the children I am responsible for
can get hooked on learning and coming to school every day?'

Attendance improved to 93%, which is pretty good for any school. It is
really hard work, but there are lots of exceptional teachers out there who
can really cut it with Indigenous children. I do recall some police and
magistrates who were too gutless to exercise their responsibilities to
support the school in relation to matters of chronic truancy of those few
who remained disengaged from schooling. This is part of the dysfunctional
mindset existing among service providers who suggest that somehow it is OK
to deliver second, or third rate, or no productive outcomes in Indigenous
communities.

As for teaching Aboriginal culture in schools... clearly there is enough
evidence to underline the extent of misunderstanding and ignorance about
who we really are as Aboriginal people. We are not to be feared, but rather
warmly embraced. It is in Australia's best interests if we can do this.

For Indigenous children, schools can play a part in developing their
understanding of who they are, so that our young children do not think they
have to embrace the negative stereotype that mainstream Australia offers
us. This way Indigenous children do not aspire downwards to reinforce their
identity, or think that it is somehow an Aboriginal thing to grow up and
drink alcohol and flog your woman.

Being Aboriginal is such a great thing... and it would be great if all
Australians recognised and understood this.

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/06/01-1526-8028.html
[SOURCE: CRIKEY - THURSDAY JUNE 1 2006]

________________________________________

>Last Update: Friday, June 2, 2006. 6:13am (AEST)
>Indigenous schools report 'poorly researched'
>
>A group dedicated to native title is scathing of a new report that says
>schools
>should not be used to justify keeping poor remote communities afloat.
>
>The Federal Education Minister has responded to the Menzies Research
>Centre paper by questioning whether it is right to prop up communities that
>are not economically sustainable.
>
>But Gary Highland from Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation
>(ANTAR) says the report was based on poor research.
>
>"It's simply not true to say that Aboriginal culture is preliterate in this
>day and
>age," he said.
>
>"The author also claims that Aboriginal culture has no work ethic, and
>that's
>insulting to Indigenous people and it's simply not true."
>
>The report was written by Dr Gary Johns and it recommends that schools do
>not teach teach Aboriginal culture.
>
>Mr Highland says it would be a travesty if the Federal Government adopted
>the recommendations.
>
>"Clearly the author has the right to have his opinion on this issue, it's
>not an
>opinion that ANTAR shares," he said.
>
>"Of more concern however is the fact that the Government seems to be
>accepting the conclusions of this report without actually going out and
>talking
>to some of the key experts in the field who got a demonstrated track record
>of success when it comes to Aboriginal education."
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1653441.htm

At last! Beazles sees the light!:

Leader finally hits on a winner
Brad Norington
June 12, 2006/the AUSTRALIAN

IT has finally dawned on Kim Beazley that he's on a winner with voters if he campaigns hard on industrial relations at the next election.
By announcing yesterday that he would scrap Australian Workplace Agreements - John Howard's form of individual employment contracts - Beazley is standing for something unequivocal.

No one can say he's being wishy-washy this time, although it took some time to get there.

For months the Opposition Leader has flirted with a policy that would have left Howard's AWAs in place if Labor was elected.

The rationale was understandable: after Labor's sour relationship with business when Mark Latham was leader, there was a need to mend fences.

So since last June Beazley has flirted with keeping AWAs - contrary to the official ALP policy - by saying they could stay provided they did not undermine minimum working conditions set for awards and collective agreements.

As Beazley soon discovered, there is no half-way house. Business was never going to swallow a policy that even Beazley hoped would mean a less-attractive regime of individual employment contracts if employers could not undercut wage standards.

Moreover, he was getting mauled from within as unions and sections of Labor's caucus demanded he stick with official policy. ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19442538-601,00.html

... but business interests don't like it!
What a surprise! :wink:

And it's going to "hurt the economy"!

It might even hurt <gasp!> families!

Don't you get sooooooo sick of this b.s. jargon? :

Last Update: Monday, June 12, 2006. 10:44am (AEST)

[B]Business lobbies criticise Beazley's IR pledge[/B]

Major business umbrella groups say a promise by Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley to abolish individual workplace agreements would hurt the Australian economy.

At the New South Wales ALP conference yesterday, Mr Beazley announced that Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) would be cut under a Labor government.

The union movement has welcomed the promise, saying it is now clear where Federal Labor stands on industrial reform.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive officer Peter Hendy says Labor's policy will see many workers lose money.

"If you abolish them, you will be cutting the salaries and wages of those people," he said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1660607.htm

I nearly choked when Howard said people would be worse off without individual workplace agreements.

How do you know when John Howard is lying?

He opens his mouth and words come out.

Did you see this story last night on the 7.30 report?

The catering company that operates the pie tray people in Melbourne footy stadiums advertised around local schools for 14 year olds to carry the trays. But employs them as sub contractors - so they are contractually responsible for their own insurance, and to abide by the public health legislation (no training given).

And then it turns out that to employ a 14 year old you need state govt approval - which said company does not have.

I'm relaxed and comfortable - how about you?

Can I ask what you think of the Rigney piece, Hinge?



eg..I, for one, am so glad to see someone talking sense re aboriginal culture before invasion...ie not presenting ity as some damned pre-fall paradise!

Hi Deb, haven't had a chance to read the Rigney piece, but I will...

In the meantime I ask myself why the story I posted here appears in the Epicure section of The Age?

How shocking! He just wasn't supposed to do it!
Interesting, isn't it, how confident Howard & co were that Beazles would accept it all without as much as a whimper? I wonder what made them quite that confident? I'm rather surprised myself, that he worked up the gumption. Watching the hysteria on the government side is quite interesting. They are really upset! And watching the media reaction is quite an eye opener: apparently the new IR legislation is absolutely essential to our future economic stability! They weren't saying that before! Interesting, very interesting ..... :

Yep, I saw that 7:30 Report story, hinge. Unbelievable. We really are heading back to the 19th Century, the master servant relationship, when "respectable" businesses feel the coast is clear to exploit 14 year olds like that. How about a few youngsters down the nation's mines, too? They'd be useful to fit into those awkward, small spaces adult men can't squeeze into. Much cheaper, too!

I got a fiver that says howard goes to germany if Aust wins through to the next round.

... & as for Howard & co's hysteria about Kim Beazley's "weakness" in "caving in" to the demands of unions over the IR legislation .... Let's see how our man of steel responds to these unfolding developments:


His own backbench is revolting over this disgraceful appeasement of the Indonesians. Who exactly is deciding our policy on asylum seekers to Oz? Australia or Indonesia? :

Last Update: Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 10:33am (AEST)
Calls mount for Govt to drop migration bill

Federal Coalition Senator George Brandis has urged the Government to take a damning report into proposed migration changes seriously.

A group of rebel Federal Government backbenchers will meet the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, this morning to discuss the Government's planned migration legislation.

A Senate committee has recommended the legislation should not proceed... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1662531.htm

Where's the outrage in response to this, from Howard & the Libs? All those Australians killed in the Bali bombings & all I heard in the news today in response to Bashir being released from jail was Alexander Downer. He said something like we'd be "happier" if Bashir served his whole (already shortened) term! :

Bulletin Posted: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:44pm AEST
Bashir released from jail

Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir has walked out of Jakarta's Cipinang prison after serving time for links to the 2002 Bali bombings. .. <cont>

And how about this? An Australian citizen, now into his 5th year at Guantanamo Bay & apparently being tortured there. Our PM's response? Zilch. He hasn't broken any Australian law so it's out of our hands, apparently. Besides, Bush wouldn't like it if our government actually protested & questioned the legitimacy of Hicks' detainment, would he? If Blair can extract the British detainees from Guantanamo Bay, why can't Howard do it for Hicks?

Last Update: Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 6:08am (AEST)
Hicks subjected to most extreme CIA torture, expert says

An expert in CIA interrogation techniques says the Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has been subjected to the most extreme torture in the agency's history.

American academic, Professor Alfred McCoy, has been studying CIA interrogation techniques for 50 years... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1662258.htm

In quieter political times I'd agree with that, dadpad, but he appears to have quite a bit of trouble on his hands on the domestic front! Not a good time to take yet another o/s trip, even for such an exquisite photo opportunity! :wink:

..& the scare campaign gets into gear! They must be seriously worried. This is going to get very nasty!:

Beazley to risk pay cuts
Brad Norington
June 14, 2006/the AUSTRALIAN

BUSINESS believes Kim Beazley's plan to abolish the Howard Government's individual employment contracts would lead to wage cuts for thousands of workers forced back into collective pay deals.
The warning came yesterday as John Howard attacked the Opposition Leader for trying to destroy the "aspirational prosperity" of Australians by removing incentives available under new workplace laws.

The Prime Minister said people employed on Australian Workplace Agreements, which Mr Beazley wanted to scrap, earned on average 13 per cent more than those on collective wage deals.

But he said Mr Beazley wanted to return the nation's workforce to the "backwoods of industrial relations", with less flexibility and lower earnings.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry declared productivity, flexibility, choice and "a smarter way of working" would be lost if Labor won its battle to scrap AWAs and push workers into collective agreements.

ACCI chief executive Peter Hendy went further, saying wage cuts were inevitable if AWAs were abolished.

He said employers would have to lower wages if collective agreements forced them to pay most workers the same rates under Labor's policy.

"The logic of that is that if you return to a collective agreement you'll suffer a wage cut," he said. "How does Labor explain that to people?"

Mr Hendy said a key benefit of AWAs was that they allowed negotiations for productivity improvements. As well as higher pay rates, many AWAs contained family-friendly provisions such as individual start and finish times, he said.

Mark Wooden, from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, said an advantage of AWAs was that they allowed employers to pay their most valuable people high wages, while others received less... (& so on & so on ... cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19465802-601,00.html

Your governement banned gay marriages yesterday.....

Yes, they stymied the ACT government, G. They hate gays, just like anyone else I consider half decent. Take heart: you are in good company! We are all in the poo!

What will happen to all those Aussie hunks who were lining up the arrival lounge atthe sydney airport waiting for me ???

WAAAAAAAAAAAA

Seriously though - who cares.

You can still be welcomed with open arms, G. You just can't marry any of 'em! :wink:

Last Update: Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 5:00pm (AEST)

Vanstone stands by migration bill

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has rejected a Senate committee's recommendation that the Government not proceed with its planned migration changes.

The Government-dominated Senate inquiry looked at the plan to process all unauthorised boat arrivals at offshore detention centres.

It has recommended that the proposed legislation be scrapped or substantially changed.

The legislation was drafted after a decision to grant a number of Papuans temporary protection visas angered Indonesia.

Coalition members have met with Senator Vanstone to air their concerns about the laws but they have failed to secure any concessions.

Senator Vanstone has told the Senate she is considering the suggested changes to the legislation.

"The Government does not agree with the assertion that the bill should not go forward," she said.

"But that doesn't mean the Government is not looking at proposals put forward both by the Senate committee and some of our own backbenchers in relation to this matter." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1662824.htm

Last Update: Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 8:17pm (AEST)

Migration changes consider Indonesia's concerns: Vanstone

Senator Amanda Vanstone says the Federal Government has "taken into account the concerns of Indonesia" in putting forward changes to migration laws.

The changes will see all asylum seekers arriving by boat processed offshore in places like Nauru and Papua New Guinea's Manus Island.

The laws were proposed after 42 Papuans were granted temporary protection visas, sparking a diplomatic row with Indonesia.

Senator Vanstone has told the 7:30 Report the changes will help maintain good relations with Indonesia.

"We are taking into account what the Indonesians want because they are very helpful to us on border protection," she said.

A Senate inquiry has recommended the Government not proceed with the bill. .. <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1663210.htm

Answering to Jakarta
by Scott Burchill,senior lecturer in international relations at Deakin University
The AGE/15/06/06


Illustration: John Spooner

THE Howard Government's decision to subcontract the processing of asylum seekers to Australia's poorest neighbours is more than simply a dereliction of its sovereign responsibilities.

The resumption of offshore processing confirms that Canberra intends to solve its diplomatic problems by altering the nation's immigration and refugee policies. This strategy is unwise, unpopular and guaranteed to fail.

Its primary flaw is that it only addresses the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. By granting temporary protection visas to 42 Papuan asylum seekers in March, the Immigration Department determined that if they were to be forcibly returned home they would face a "well-founded fear of persecution".

Terminate the human rights abuses and the problem goes away. This is the message Prime Minister John Howard should have delivered to visiting Indonesian MPs this week. Instead, Jakarta continues to insist that the problem is of Australia's making, asking for the visas to be revoked while demanding Australia "prove" its commitment to Indonesia's territorial integrity with "action".

Presumably these are the same individuals who object to Canberra's insistence that Indonesia comply with international law after the release of Abu Bakar Bashir, on the grounds that it is interference in Indonesia's domestic affairs. The United Nations obliges Indonesia to freeze the radical cleric's assets and prevent him from travelling overseas and obtaining weapons.

The Howard Government's desire to pass even tougher laws on asylum seekers suggests it is fully aware of Jakarta's crimes in Papua, that it expects them to continue, and that as a consequence more Papuans are likely to risk their lives by trying to escape the territory.... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/answering-to-jakarta/2006/06/14/1149964604553.html