56. Remote Aborigines

I am Greg and following last week’s grumble about our limited understanding of Aboriginal history, I want to reflect more on issues of colonialism and welfare.

My last grumble criticised the racist idea that the Australian population had been growing since 1788 as it was clear that in the aftermath of the arrival of Europeans the Aboriginal population – and therefore the Australian population – plummeted in the early years of the nineteenth century.

But it is important not to see colonisation as just an event in 1788 or the nineteenth century. While colonial diseases may have had a devastating immediate impact, colonisation generally refers to a process of the imposition of an imperial state on a subject population.

In 1788 there were hundreds of Aboriginal nations and the arrival of a British military garrison in Sydney was, in the short term at least, an invasion of only one country. Each Aboriginal nation was colonised at a different subsequent point, but it was not a one-off process.

Yes, land was taken and colonial law enforced, but Aboriginal people remained on much of their land and continued to live under Aboriginal law as well – that was what the Mabo judgment recognised when it found the existence of continuing native title.

For some groups a more absolute dispossession happened through the nineteenth century as towns and cities were built on their land, although even then it was rarely complete. For other nations, dispossession happened in the 1950s with their removal for a bombing range in the north of South Australia, or in the 1960s and 1970s for new mines, or the 1980s and 1990s for new resorts, roads and even bridges, or in the 2000s with the army invading the Northern Territory.

For Aboriginal groups with continuing connection to country, colonialism was not about a historic event in 1788, it is a micro process which happens every time a new land use or policy means that Aboriginal law and land is displaced by a colonial land use backed by the force of the state.

That is why the PM’s comments about a lifestyle choice to live in remote areas and the policy agenda which underpins it were so offensive. Shifting Aboriginal people off their country is another act of colonial dispossession.

That said, providing services to those in remote communities with few resources is a genuinely difficult issue. But the history matters.

Viewed from a prism of a colonisation that happened in the distant past, payments and services to these communities are seen as welfare – a drain on the public purse with an ongoing assimilationist assumption that the people there really should be more productively employed (elsewhere).

But if we see colonisation as ongoing, and we want to think instead about rights to self-determination, then perhaps we could talk about supporting Aboriginal people to stay on country – not in poverty or on welfare, but by right.

And then it is a question not of a decision in Canberra, Perth, or Adelaide, but of negotiation between equals about economic arrangements and what we might be prepared to pay not for welfare but for heritage protection, or perhaps even simply for “rent”.

It is not a panacea, but it is not colonialism either.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 24 March 2015

54. Everything

Hi. I am Greg and it has been 4 weeks since my last Grumble.

Please excuse the Catholic confessional introduction especially as it’s the Protestants now apologising because some of its Knox Grammarians took the motto of “doing the manly thing” the wrong way and were ignored or allowed to go on abusing children – probably for the same reasons that the music industry did not take Gary Glitter at his word when he asked if his pre-pubescent audience wanted to touch him there. We look forward to a nuanced government response which presumably will see the expansion of the state government Screening Unit to cover musicians and Presbyterians.

Meanwhile, there has been outrage from the anti-some-capital punishment campaigners over two Australians facing execution for drug smuggling in Indonesia. Now apart from the collusion of Australia’s police force in this debacle, I simply wonder why these two lives should mean so much more than the thousands each year whose judicial murder by our major trading partners and friends goes unremarked?

And on the subject of nationalism and dodgy analysis, we had the government’s Intergenerational Report trying to make us into the unlucky country which apparently will no longer be able to afford the health and welfare services of a decent society. And on that subject we’ve also had the McClure report into the future of welfare which either seemed to have forgotten about independent young people or contained a fairly radical proposal to cut off income support payments for any young person under 22 who is not residing in the family home (presumably surrounded by a white picket fence).

I’m still not sure about what is planned, but talking of government reports, there was also the state government review of South Australian taxes which led to a one-day media frenzy about one proposal while the rest of the thoughtful Discussion Paper got forgotten.

But of course it is a good time to forget things with Mad March’s Festival for the arty, Fringe for the hopefuls, cars that go brmmmm for the masses, and Womad for the self-righteous internationalists who can pretend to be African, Cuban, or Romanian for a day (or at least an hour).

And there, under introduced trees and over-abundant flying foxes we had a not very funny comedian ignoring structural power and vested interest and patronisingly telling us that we just need to talk to people differently about climate change.

But that was ok because if you live where I live, you might not have got to the famed parklands anyway because the government decided to repair the rail lines over the long weekend – because let’s face it our public transport system is only really for getting people to and from city offices on workdays? I mean, it is not like anyone would ride to Womad or anywhere else and want to catch a train home.

Much better to drive, particularly as the head of our Motor Accident Commission wants to make it safer for us by removing all trees within sight of any road because apparently these arboreal terrorists are leaping out in front of cars and adding to the road toll.

What was that about climate change?

I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 10 March 2015

47. Terrorism Tourism

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about “terrorism tourism”.

The government has announced changed to income support payment criteria because, according to our Prime Minister:

The last thing we want is terrorism tourism on the taxpayer and there will be no terrorism tourism on the taxpayer as a result of these measures

Now I am not sure about the grammar here, or whether self-funded terrorism is really preferable, or whether we should be aiming to keep terrorists here? But hey, “terrorism tourism” is a great slogan because it ties welfare payments to an attack on Australian security.

But really, any time someone talks about terrorism it should ring propaganda alarm bells because it is a slippery term which usually boils down to a strong disagreement with the politics or values of the supposed terrorists. It’s the old adage that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Think Nelson Mandela.

But seriously, there is a real issue of Australian citizens going overseas to be trained, to fight and to kill – and potentially bringing those skills and ideologies back here.

I am not defending those actions, or the causes that give rise to them, but before we go putting more bricks on Fortress Australia and giving away more rights and freedoms in order to protect our rights and freedom, I just want to suggest that this is not new:

• in the 1930s when world communism was the scourge of the establishment, some 70 Australians went to Spain to fight alongside the anarchists and communists; 
• in the 1970s, the young radical pilgrimages were to Vietnam and China;
• in the 1980s it was to support the National Democratic Front in the Philippines, and 
• in the 1990s young Australians went to the Balkan bloodbath.

There were the same concerns and the same headlines then, but I suspect that some of the current outcry is that these alleged terrorists are Muslims – that is, they are not “us” and there is some sense that “we” never should have let them in. Even if they were born here, they don’t really belong here.

But instead of a meaningful conversation about multiculturalism, the complexity of middle eastern politics, or about gender and the attraction of war, and the huge questions of religion and the morality, we have trite slogans like terrorism tourism and the demand that everyone play for something called “Team Australia”.

Team Australia, spare me.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.




This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 19 August 2014

39. Federal Budget

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about the federal budget - of course. But where to begin?

Perhaps with “class warfare”. Yes, I know the language is extreme, but when former Treasurer Wayne Swan proposed taxing mining super-profits and some other fairly minor tax changes, he was accused of class warfare. So what are we to make of a budget with corporate tax breaks and a massive attack on welfare? If taxing the rich is class warfare, what is attacking the poor? The language of class warfare may appear silly, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I could also grumble about particular things in the budget:

• the cuts to hospital and schools funding,
• the introduction of fees for visits to the doctor,
• the scrapping of funding for preventative health programs,
• the increasing costs of PBS medicines,
• the changing of pension indexation so that those older Australians or those with a disability will fall behind the rest of the population,
• the increasing of the age to qualify for Newstart, leaving independent adults stranded on the pitiful Youth Allowance
• the introduction of a 6 month starvation period before young people can qualify for income support,
• the cuts to legal aid, the National Rental Affordability Scheme,
• the cutting of funding to a range of advocacy organisations…

And more - so much to grumble about.

But what can I say that has not already been said in countless commentaries and in marches across the country on the weekend – including by SACOSS’ Ross Womersley.

Well, unusually, I want to point to some good news in the budget. The forward estimates show that government revenue is predicted to return to historic average levels in 3 to 4 years. That’s important because declining revenues in recent years have undermined the ability of government to provide vital services.

But if these revenue figures are correct, then where is the emergency that required so much budget pain?

Significantly though, this revenue return is largely a product of forecast economic growth rather than any serious revenue strategy. The only long term revenue building measure in this budget (apart from the token tax on high income earners) is an increase in fuel taxes.

But ABS figures show that those who are unemployed or on study payments spend proportionately more on petrol than other households do.

So again, it is the poor who will bear the biggest burden of this budget – more ducks quacking?

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 20 May 2014