The Uniting Church embarked on a journey of truth-telling in relation to Indigenous peoples with a formal apology in 1994. It committed to work together for justice and equality within the church and the wider Australian community. Over the years, we have achieved much and we have also failed often. But we continue to work together for a better future, and so it was that five years ago the Indigenous part of the Church initiated a process to have the truth of their histories told, and our commitments clearly stated, in the Constitution of the Church.
In 2010 the Uniting Church became the first major Christian denomination in Australia to formally acknowledge, in the Preamble to its Constitution, Australia’s traditional owners. The Uniting Church Constitution now acknowledges the pre-existing relationship of Indigenous people with the Creator God, and the Church’s complicity with the colonising forces in dispossessing the First Peoples from their land, culture and spirituality.
It is out of these experiences that we welcomed the announcement of the Federal Government that a referendum would be held on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution. We were delighted to hear that, in principle, the idea had bipartisan support and that a High Level Panel, comprising Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, would be formed to consult with the Australian people and explore the options for amending the Australian Constitution.
It was, therefore, concerning that the Coalition’s Indigenous Affairs spokesman, Nigel Scullion, and Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, have made recent comments about the future of Constitutional reform for Indigenous Australians. Both the timing of the statements and their content appear to be deliberately designed to destabilise this vitally important endeavour.
For the last twelve months, the High Level Panel has engaged with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the public – people genuinely interested in seeing the process of reconciliation furthered for the benefit of all Australians. Mr Scullion and Mr Brandis seem determined to undermine both the achievements and the overall goals of the Panel. Their comments are disrespectful to the thousands of Australians who have faithfully attended the 84 community consultations and those organisations and individuals who together made over 3500 submissions. Many Indigenous people have participated in these consultations – let us hear their voices before stating pre-determined views.
Mr Brandis and Mr Scullion appear to be trying to derailing an issue that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation, solely for the purpose of political point-scoring. Both have been outspoken in their opposition to the inclusion of anti-discrimination provisions and the ability for the Government to make ‘special laws’ for Indigenous Australians in an amended Constitution. These statements serve only to generate fear and misunderstanding amongst the broader public. Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution – which presently allows for governments to make laws for Australia’s First Peoples – has been flagged in the High Court of Australia as a perilously ambiguous aspect of our founding legal document. Amending this section would simply serve to clarify the pre-existing law-making powers of the government, and to strengthen the insights of the anti-discrimination legislation already in place.
It is appropriate that Constitutional recognition should follow the moving apology to the First Australians delivered by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in February 2008. That apology had much in common with the classic form of Christian confession which is, in effect, not so much an act of guilty hand-wringing as an act of telling the truth to God about the glory and shame of our lives; and seeking help to deal with the consequences upon others, intended and accidental, of our attitudes and actions.
Concerns have been expressed that in the current process too much time, money and energy might be spent on ‘mere words’ and that such resources would be better spent on addressing endemic aboriginal disadvantage. That is a salutary warning. Nevertheless, words remain important. As one aboriginal Elder said during the Uniting Church debate, ‘you whitefellas write your law, your story, in books. We want to be acknowledged in your sacred Law book’.
Amending the Constitution is a vital step forward in recognising and honouring the identity and history of the First Peoples. It will benefit both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians alike, by allowing us as a nation to move beyond the shame and distrust that has characterised relationships of the past. Opposition to changes that have not yet been announced are based on ignorance and speculation, and is indicative of opinions that are driven by ideology rather than evidence. Such speculation will only add to division and undermine the reconciliation and justice needed in this country.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Attend school or else...!
Last week I met with the Minister for School Education, The Hon Peter Garrett, to follow up a letter I had written him weeks before. In the letter I expressed the concern of the Uniting Church in Australia at his announcement on 18 October that social security payments will be suspended if parents are assessed to be “not doing their part to get their child to school.”
While sharing concerns for improving educational engagement by Indigenous children, we are aware that such punitive approaches to school attendance have not worked elsewhere. In the report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) “What works to overcome Indigenous disadvantage”, published this year, the authors note (p.3) “a review of evidence from seven rigorously evaluated programs that linked school attendance with welfare payments in the United States found that sanction-only programs have a negligible effect on attendance, but that case management was the most critical factor.”
The Report identified from a review of the literature, respect for culture and different learning style were considered to be important for engaging Indigenous families in school readiness programs.
The Minister's speech acknowledged that what works in favour of school attendance are the following factors:
• a strong relationship between school and community;
• well prepared and well supported teachers;
• following students through with Personalised Learning Plans; and
• what’s been referred to as a “culture of high expectations”.
We are concerned that the additional punitive measure he announced of cutting social security payments may actually retard the impact of the above measures and increase financial hardship for families penalised, with financial hardship being identified in the AIHW and AIFS report as one of the factors that serves as a barrier to school attendance (p. 2).
I attended this meeting with my colleague Peter Jones, General Secretary of the UCA's Northern Synod. Peter was not only a teacher in a previous life, but worked in senior positions in the Northern Territory Education Department and has deep connections on the ground with Indigenous communities in the Territory.
The Minister listened respectfully to our position but wouldn't move on the basic policy direction. We left him with a well researched 13 page paper prepared by UnitingJustice supporting our call for a reconsideration of a policy we consider to be discriminatory and very likely to be ineffective in achieving its aims.
What is more difficult to measure is the long term impact on Indigenous communities of once again being on the end of paternalistic and punitive approaches to achieve desired outcomes.
While sharing concerns for improving educational engagement by Indigenous children, we are aware that such punitive approaches to school attendance have not worked elsewhere. In the report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) “What works to overcome Indigenous disadvantage”, published this year, the authors note (p.3) “a review of evidence from seven rigorously evaluated programs that linked school attendance with welfare payments in the United States found that sanction-only programs have a negligible effect on attendance, but that case management was the most critical factor.”
The Report identified from a review of the literature, respect for culture and different learning style were considered to be important for engaging Indigenous families in school readiness programs.
The Minister's speech acknowledged that what works in favour of school attendance are the following factors:
• a strong relationship between school and community;
• well prepared and well supported teachers;
• following students through with Personalised Learning Plans; and
• what’s been referred to as a “culture of high expectations”.
We are concerned that the additional punitive measure he announced of cutting social security payments may actually retard the impact of the above measures and increase financial hardship for families penalised, with financial hardship being identified in the AIHW and AIFS report as one of the factors that serves as a barrier to school attendance (p. 2).
I attended this meeting with my colleague Peter Jones, General Secretary of the UCA's Northern Synod. Peter was not only a teacher in a previous life, but worked in senior positions in the Northern Territory Education Department and has deep connections on the ground with Indigenous communities in the Territory.
The Minister listened respectfully to our position but wouldn't move on the basic policy direction. We left him with a well researched 13 page paper prepared by UnitingJustice supporting our call for a reconsideration of a policy we consider to be discriminatory and very likely to be ineffective in achieving its aims.
What is more difficult to measure is the long term impact on Indigenous communities of once again being on the end of paternalistic and punitive approaches to achieve desired outcomes.
Monday, December 5, 2011
China Christian Council meets the Uniting Church
Our delegation included two leaders from our Theological Colleges, two leaders from Uniting Church community services, two Uniting Church Chinese Ministers, the Director of UnitingWorld and me. Our program concentrated on meetings with the CCC leadership, visits to three theological seminaries, CCC community services staff and the Amity Foundation.
Amity is an NGO Development Agency of the CCC. It also runs the largest printing press in the world, with a staff of 500 it publishes 10 million bibles per year. On visiting the massive printing works I recalled reading books in the 1970's about people smuggling bibles into China. Now the Bible is going out in large volumes across the world from China! I was presented with an limited edition bible marking the 80 millionth bible printed by Amity - that copy will be on display at UnitingWorld.
We also visited a number of congregations in Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing. One of the churches was called, memorably to my Australian ear, in translation, 'No Worries Church'!
The CCC describes itself as 'post-denominational'. It regards itself as a uniting church and embraces a range of traditions including mainstream Protestant churches as well as Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal and Indigenous Churches! They are determined not to replicate the divisions of the Western Church. When I asked about their doctrinal core they said they basically used the Bible, and the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. It was formed in the 1950's but during the Cultural Revolution (1966-80) churches were forced to close and Christians gathered secretly. One conservative estimate is that there are now 23 million Christians in China and growing rapidly. Open evangelism seems still somewhat restricted but local leaders attribute the church growth to personal witness and to an intentional approach to discipling and educating new Christians. We have much to learn from this church.
What might they gain from a closer relationship with a church like the UCA? They have a desperate need for more pastors to serve in the growing church so theological education is a priority. They are interested in possible links between CCC seminaries and UCA theological colleges, as well as possible service collaboration between the CCC Social Service Department and UnitingCare. There is also the possibility of volunteer placements through UnitingWorld and the Amity Foundation.
We hope that a similar delegation from the CCC will visit the UCA next year to coincide with our trienniel Assembly meeting.
Oh and we did squeeze in a bit of sightseeing but that's another story...
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Long-term health costs of extended mandatory detention of asylum seekers
Yesterday I spoke at the launch of a new report urging Australians to consider the long-term consequences of asylum policies.
This report by the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy, and commissioned by Good Shepherd Australia, estimates the long-term health costs of extended mandatory detention of asylum seekers. For the first time in Australia, it does so by applying innovative costing approaches developed in the Netherlands.
It is now well established that lengthy periods in detention cause significant mental health problems for asylum seekers. The Howard Government recognised this in 2005, when it agreed that 25 of the 27 detainees then remaining on Nauru should be brought to Australia. This was after doctors had diagnosed serious mental health conditions.
More generally, a study of detained asylum seekers in Australia found that more than one third of those detained for more than two years had new mental health problems in 2006-07. This was ten times the rate of mental health problems for those detained for less than three months.
There is good evidence that such trauma causes long-term mental health problems. The new report estimates the lifetime health costs of such trauma. On conservative estimates – that trauma sufferers will have lifetime mental health costs 50% more than the average – the report shows this will cost an additional $25,000 per person.
In recent years, more than 80% of detained asylum seekers have eventually been successful in settling in Australia. This means that such additional health costs have to be met by the Australian health system, and Australian taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
The Australian immigration system already has extensive health checks for migrants seeking to come to this country. One of the key reasons is to protect public expenditure on health and community services. It is ironic that another element in current immigration policy – mandatory detention – has the direct effect of increasing public expenditure on health and community services.
So as well as the clear moral and humanitarian basis for deep concerns about current asylum seeker policies and processes here is a financial perspective about long term costs of current practices. This is in addition to the already established very high cost of detaning asylum seekers compared with community-based processes.
This report by the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy, and commissioned by Good Shepherd Australia, estimates the long-term health costs of extended mandatory detention of asylum seekers. For the first time in Australia, it does so by applying innovative costing approaches developed in the Netherlands.
It is now well established that lengthy periods in detention cause significant mental health problems for asylum seekers. The Howard Government recognised this in 2005, when it agreed that 25 of the 27 detainees then remaining on Nauru should be brought to Australia. This was after doctors had diagnosed serious mental health conditions.
More generally, a study of detained asylum seekers in Australia found that more than one third of those detained for more than two years had new mental health problems in 2006-07. This was ten times the rate of mental health problems for those detained for less than three months.
There is good evidence that such trauma causes long-term mental health problems. The new report estimates the lifetime health costs of such trauma. On conservative estimates – that trauma sufferers will have lifetime mental health costs 50% more than the average – the report shows this will cost an additional $25,000 per person.
In recent years, more than 80% of detained asylum seekers have eventually been successful in settling in Australia. This means that such additional health costs have to be met by the Australian health system, and Australian taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
The Australian immigration system already has extensive health checks for migrants seeking to come to this country. One of the key reasons is to protect public expenditure on health and community services. It is ironic that another element in current immigration policy – mandatory detention – has the direct effect of increasing public expenditure on health and community services.
So as well as the clear moral and humanitarian basis for deep concerns about current asylum seeker policies and processes here is a financial perspective about long term costs of current practices. This is in addition to the already established very high cost of detaning asylum seekers compared with community-based processes.
Tuvalu in crisis
Australia’s neighbour Tuvalu is in a fight for its life.
As reported in the Fairfax newspapers this week Tuvalu faces an immediate crisis in the form of a severe and protracted drought. This tiny Polynesian country, whose name means ‘eight standing together’ (the eight islands and atolls that comprise the nation), has a population of just over 10,000 and just three days of water left. A state of emergency has been declared by the Tuvalu gGovernment and requests for immediate assistance have been sent to Australia and New Zealand.
The Uniting Church in Australia is in partnership with Christian Church of Tuvalu and in close contact with church leaders in Tuvalu. Its leaders report that the southern island of Nukulaelae is most severely affected by extreme shortages of water and locally produced food. The Church Secretary reports has reported that ‘the coconut tree tops have started falling off, breadfruit trees are dead, banana plantations are dried up and the traditional pulaka pits are rotten because of the drought.’
In the capital city, Funafuti, the government has sealed all the water catchments and water is being rationed to at 20 litres per day per household. The Australian Government and the Red Cross are responding with rehydration packs for the hospital, emergency supplies of drinking water and desalination plants to help our neighbours survive this immediate threat.
However this immediate issue cannot be considered without acknowledging the longer term threats to life in Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati.
The Prime Minister of Tuvalu Willy Telavi reported to the United Nations in New York that his nation would not survive without international assistance. ''It's mostly climate change” he told the General Assembly.
The highest point on Tuvalu is only 4.5 metres above sea level so it has long been vulnerable to natural events like king tides. But with rising sea levels associated with climate change, the future prospects for sustainable life on Tuvalu are bleak. The rising sea is contaminating underground fresh water tables and no rain has fallen in months despite this being the rainy season in Tuvalu. The long term weather forecast predicts dry weather for months to come.
A recent Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting called for urgency in addressing to the major issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Pacific Conference of Churches has called on Governments to address the issue of resettlement and to assisting the people of Tuvalu to resettle in other places, including Australia, in the event that Tuvalu needs to be evacuated.
Australia and New Zealand are responding with emergency measures to address to current crisis but must also respond to the longer term crisis.
One desirable response from the Australian Government would be to offer a guarantee of special immigration status to the people of Tuvalu in the likely event that the country becomes unviable for human habitation. ‘Eight standing together’ will soon be not enough and Tuvalu is looking to its neighbours to stand with them in this critical time as they deal with drought today and possible inundation in the future.
As reported in the Fairfax newspapers this week Tuvalu faces an immediate crisis in the form of a severe and protracted drought. This tiny Polynesian country, whose name means ‘eight standing together’ (the eight islands and atolls that comprise the nation), has a population of just over 10,000 and just three days of water left. A state of emergency has been declared by the Tuvalu gGovernment and requests for immediate assistance have been sent to Australia and New Zealand.
The Uniting Church in Australia is in partnership with Christian Church of Tuvalu and in close contact with church leaders in Tuvalu. Its leaders report that the southern island of Nukulaelae is most severely affected by extreme shortages of water and locally produced food. The Church Secretary reports has reported that ‘the coconut tree tops have started falling off, breadfruit trees are dead, banana plantations are dried up and the traditional pulaka pits are rotten because of the drought.’
In the capital city, Funafuti, the government has sealed all the water catchments and water is being rationed to at 20 litres per day per household. The Australian Government and the Red Cross are responding with rehydration packs for the hospital, emergency supplies of drinking water and desalination plants to help our neighbours survive this immediate threat.
However this immediate issue cannot be considered without acknowledging the longer term threats to life in Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati.
The Prime Minister of Tuvalu Willy Telavi reported to the United Nations in New York that his nation would not survive without international assistance. ''It's mostly climate change” he told the General Assembly.
The highest point on Tuvalu is only 4.5 metres above sea level so it has long been vulnerable to natural events like king tides. But with rising sea levels associated with climate change, the future prospects for sustainable life on Tuvalu are bleak. The rising sea is contaminating underground fresh water tables and no rain has fallen in months despite this being the rainy season in Tuvalu. The long term weather forecast predicts dry weather for months to come.
A recent Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting called for urgency in addressing to the major issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Pacific Conference of Churches has called on Governments to address the issue of resettlement and to assisting the people of Tuvalu to resettle in other places, including Australia, in the event that Tuvalu needs to be evacuated.
Australia and New Zealand are responding with emergency measures to address to current crisis but must also respond to the longer term crisis.
One desirable response from the Australian Government would be to offer a guarantee of special immigration status to the people of Tuvalu in the likely event that the country becomes unviable for human habitation. ‘Eight standing together’ will soon be not enough and Tuvalu is looking to its neighbours to stand with them in this critical time as they deal with drought today and possible inundation in the future.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Football, problem gambling and the moral high gound
I love sport of all kinds - tragic, I know. I deplore the position taken by the AFL and NRL in opposing changes in gambling legislation designed to address problem gambling.
I consider sport to be an overwhelming net plus in terms of the health of our community whether participation is through playing, watching, joining a club, umpiring, officiating, selling pies and hot dogs to raise money for the club - whatever - all good! But I deplore the ubiquitous presence of the gambling industry in sport as they try to purchase community credibility while gaining significant income from the vulnerable. How dare they claim the high moral ground in this issue?
I applaud the way sporting organisations are starting to tackle sexism and racial discrimination. Why would they now 'drop the moral ball' and oppose legislation designed not to outlaw gaming, but to make it safer for people who are addicted to it?
It rings hollow when major football leagues cry poor about potential loss of revenue. Haven't the football codes recently had a windfall of extra funds from renewed television rights? Let's hope some of those funds will find their way to resourcing sport at community level rather than add to the already grossly inflated pay packets of football executives. If financial stringency is an issue that's where I'd look first rather than securing income sources from the vulnerable.
Sport can flourish in our communities without being funded through the misery of addicts and their families.
These reforms are not a tax, but an opportunity for problem gamblers to set limits for themselves before getting carried away by their addiction. They only require gamblers to set limits for themselves of how much they can afford to lose.
Through the work of UnitingCare agencies, we are daily dealing with the human consequences of problem gamblers losing the paycheque on high-loss machines.
Australia has the greatest number of high-loss pokies in the world and for our clubs to base their business model on this fact is wrong and needs to stop. We (well a lot of us anyway) love our football clubs here in Australia. It’s time for them to return the love and say no exploiting problem gamblers.
Please urge your local members of Parliament to support gambling reform. If you are a member of an AFL or NRL club give them a call and express your view.
I consider sport to be an overwhelming net plus in terms of the health of our community whether participation is through playing, watching, joining a club, umpiring, officiating, selling pies and hot dogs to raise money for the club - whatever - all good! But I deplore the ubiquitous presence of the gambling industry in sport as they try to purchase community credibility while gaining significant income from the vulnerable. How dare they claim the high moral ground in this issue?
I applaud the way sporting organisations are starting to tackle sexism and racial discrimination. Why would they now 'drop the moral ball' and oppose legislation designed not to outlaw gaming, but to make it safer for people who are addicted to it?
It rings hollow when major football leagues cry poor about potential loss of revenue. Haven't the football codes recently had a windfall of extra funds from renewed television rights? Let's hope some of those funds will find their way to resourcing sport at community level rather than add to the already grossly inflated pay packets of football executives. If financial stringency is an issue that's where I'd look first rather than securing income sources from the vulnerable.
Sport can flourish in our communities without being funded through the misery of addicts and their families.
These reforms are not a tax, but an opportunity for problem gamblers to set limits for themselves before getting carried away by their addiction. They only require gamblers to set limits for themselves of how much they can afford to lose.
Through the work of UnitingCare agencies, we are daily dealing with the human consequences of problem gamblers losing the paycheque on high-loss machines.
Australia has the greatest number of high-loss pokies in the world and for our clubs to base their business model on this fact is wrong and needs to stop. We (well a lot of us anyway) love our football clubs here in Australia. It’s time for them to return the love and say no exploiting problem gamblers.
Please urge your local members of Parliament to support gambling reform. If you are a member of an AFL or NRL club give them a call and express your view.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
West Arnhem reflections
 |
| Between Jabiru and Maningrida |
 |
| David, the Community Minister in Maningrida, at the Commissioning Service |
We had many conversations - culture, theology, family, politics, ministry. At one level the situation in these communities seems bleak. There are very few jobs. School attendance is low. In one place we witness episodes of anger and aggression.
There is mixed response to the Federal Government's Northern Territory Intervention. The construction of new housing is long overdue. Some communities welcome the extra police presence, but in one place where there are now 3 police there was previously none, and no great need for them.
But the overwhelmingly negative aspect of the Intervention is suggested by its name. Once again it is a 'top-down, one-size-fits-all' approach. For communities functioning well it marked yet another instance of disempowering paternalism. We heard the lament that has been the consistent response from NT Elders - governments must abandon the 'template' approach and develop regional approaches grounded in significant consultation with local leaders. Everybody wants better outcomes in health, education, community safety, employment, housing - but the issues and priorities are not the same in every place.
A classic case in point is the decision to move resources away from 'homelands' to selected 'hubs'. It smacks of being driven more by financial and ideological motives than good outcomes. The research and anecdotal evidence is clear that education and health outcomes, for example, are significantly better for children in the homelands than children in townships.
The Northern Territory Government's policy of teaching in English only, rather than bi-lingually, has recently been slightly modified. It needs to be scrapped altogether according to educators. Not only has it resulted in significantly reduced school attendance, the consistent research indicates that bi-lingual education achives much better results, even in English!
We witnessed two very heartening things. It is 'ceremony season' in Arnhem Land and it is clear that traditional custom, law and ceremony are alive and well. Has this been a continuing thing or is there something of a renaissance happening? I don't know. Indigenous people need to live biculturally and I suspect there is a parallel here with bi-lingual education - that young people grounded in their our culture and language will have stronger confidence and identity from which to engage and participate in mainstream culture to the extent they choose.
We also experienced the vitality of Christian community in the North. While facing many challenges, they have a deep spirituality, a hunger for scripture and a love for God that makes my own look insipid. There is interesting conversation between Christianity and traditional spirituality and an emerging indigenous theology that will continue to challenge the received Christian tradition and enrich the whole church.
 |
| Commissioning service at Warruwi, Goulburn Island |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
