This page started as a good news story about the Australian Employment Covenant. And the AEC is still a good news story. Andrew Forrest is to be admired for his attempt to employ indigenous people. But the success of such initiatives is never clear cut......
The first article comes from The Australian and paints a very positive picture.
Engaged in the real economy
From: The Australian
April 13, 2012 12:00AM
AFTER decades of economic separatism, welfare dependency and despair, increasing numbers of Aborigines in remote Australia are playing an important role in the nation's most productive industry - mining.
We congratulate Western Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest for helping place more than 55,000 Aborigines in jobs since 2008 when he launched the Australian Employment Covenant. Since then he has employed hundreds of Aborigines in his Fortescue Metals Group, where they total about 10 per cent of the workforce. Mr Forrest's lateral thinking and practical leadership have succeeded where many other programs, however well meaning, failed to draw Aborigines from the margins into the mainstream economy.
As indigenous lawyer Noel Pearson said at the outset of the covenant, for every 10 jobs a hundred flowers would bloom in the lives of indigenous children: "We're going to look back on this ... as that moment in the history of the country when government and society made a commitment to people that if you take up the cudgels of responsibility we will guarantee you a job, we will set forth before you a prospect of climbing up in the world - a home, a future for your children, a fair stake in this, your own land."
That vision is beginning to become a reality, as indigenous workers and their families swap Centrelink payments for the generous salaries available in mining and save for their own homes and futures. The transformation, individual by individual, family by family, promises long-term success because it is devoid of all vestiges of welfare and handouts. As Aborigines step up to take responsibility for themselves as they discover job satisfaction and pursue financial security, governments must continue facilitating the trend by improving health, education and housing services.
Unlike previous employment initiatives that have been motivated by paternalism, the trend to employ remote Aborigines in mining is being driven by a more hard-headed motive - the push by mining companies to secure a comparative advantage in a sector where workers are scarce. Kevin McLean, general manager of FMG's Cloudbreak iron ore mine in the Pilbara summed up the reality when he said companies were "screaming out for labour" so "if you can tap into people who already have housing, you are a step ahead." It's a win-win process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The True Numbers
For every indigenous jobs initiative it must be possible to measure the results. Surely we can establish how many indigenous applicants there are, how many people are employed and how long they are retained for. And then it should be a matter of looking at which employers are most successful.
Twiggy Forrest of the AEC claims to have placed 10501 indigenous job-seekers and of these 71% were still employed after 6 months. He compares that to the government Job Services program that has a 45% retention rate after only 3 months.
The government then claim that 7043 people have been employed and only 30% of these were retained.
How hard can it be to establish the true figures ?
Forrest claims the government isnt providing the training that they promised. He's already upset the government by protesting against the mining tax. Let's hope politics aren't getting in the way of evaluating or supporting the AEC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More jobs at the Ayers Rock Resort
Another good news story. The next question is - what is the retention rate ? Let's hope these are long term.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Mainstream or Customised?
If there’s one never-ending debate in indigenous affairs it must be the choice between ‘mainstream’ or ‘customised’ delivery of services to indigenous people. Put simply, mainstreaming says that 1 set of rules is applied to everyone. The same benefits, the same laws, the same responsibilities.
The proponents of this approach argue that disadvantaged communities or groups ultimately suffer by having a distinct set of rules applied to them. The latest offering is from John Watson from The Age
An example of a customised solution might be the CDEP scheme that employs indigenous people in remote communities to clean up the streets. Given the lack of employment opportunities the theory is that it’s better to require welfare recipients to perform some service in return for a wage, rather than simply handing out the dole with no return obligation.
Mainstream theory would suggest that the ‘clean-up’ jobs are really only ‘pretend’ jobs that would not exist in mainstream society. Possibly in mainstream they would be performed by offenders operating under community orders. The theory is that by creating such ‘pretend’ jobs you are entrenching inequality as the worker is performing a role that does not develop skills in the mainstream marketplace. So abolish the role and apply the same standards that apply to ‘everyone else’. Mainstream policies really imply you need to ‘shape up or ship out’ – to whitefellah standards and culture.
But these issues are never so simple. Current Centrelink rules may require a job-seeker to attend 10 job interviews within a fortnight in order to qualify for the dole. How would that restriction work in a remote community where there may be 50 jobs for 700 people?
Mainstreaming also implies that the same facilities and services are to be available to all. Is the government going to build hospitals, schools, child care centres, police and fire stations in every remote community?
Most feedback from indigenous communities favours local solutions. Customised solutions that are a result of listening to the local elders and implemented in response to local needs are usually more successful. They empower the community to be involved and to take responsibility. The Mt Theo program, http://www.mttheo.org/home/mt-theo/the-mt-theo-story/ that ended petrol sniffing at Yuendumu is a good example.
Watson makes the point that the overall cost of existing programs is significant. Is it possible that we owe indigenous Australia the cost and effort involved in developing localised solutions across the country? Rio Tinto are doing it when they factor in sorry business into indigenous employment arrangements. No mainstreaming there. But they are displaying a lot of respect for indigenous culture.
Epilogue : Read about Twiggy Forrerst from the Australian Employment Covenant. Are these 'real' jobs ? It may be that the 60,000 are only 'pledges' but you cant argue with 10,501 off welfare benefits. This is amazing and holds lessons for all employers and government if it's true.
Epilogue : Read about Twiggy Forrerst from the Australian Employment Covenant. Are these 'real' jobs ? It may be that the 60,000 are only 'pledges' but you cant argue with 10,501 off welfare benefits. This is amazing and holds lessons for all employers and government if it's true.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Payback
March 2012 and Liam Jurrah , the Melbourne AFL footballer from Yuendumu, is all over the front pages of newspapers and websites after he is arrested for a machete attack that left a victim seriously injured. Jurrah has denied being involved in the fight.
An ongoing feud between 2 'mobs' started in 2010 when a young man was killed after a football game. Indigenous culture says 'payback' should be practiced in order to settle the score. The theory is that the feud has been ongoing due to the inability of the indigenous community to practice their own law. They cant settle the issue, creating frustration and then anger.
So what is payback and how does it work ?
The common elements are the involvement of kin and the role of the Elders to ensure that there is a degree of restraint by opposing parties. The matter would generally be resolved once the offender had been speared in the thigh or blood had been drawn.
Clearly it's not legal under whitefellah law. Can we (Australia, the government, the police...) let an indigenous person spear another in the leg, causing injury that requires hospitalisation? What about if the injury becomes infected and somehow leads to death ? And once there's alcohol involved is there any chance that a measured and appropriate punishment would be meted out ?
On the other hand - is it possible this ongoing and widespread feud (impacting the entire Yuendumu community of 1500 people for over 2 years) could have been settled, allowing everyone to move on ? Would the spearing of the offender have satisfied the community, and in particular, the victim's family ? Would there be acceptance that the 'law' had been observed ?
I would have previously said that we have to have one law in Australia. And being a whitefellah I would have said that's whitefellah law. But I think there's been too much of that over the last 200 years. It's usually been whitefellah way as the only option. Could it be that allowing indigenous elders to oversee 'payback' might help settle disputes, while also help restoring some dignity and pride to indigenous communities ? Could it help re-establish the authority of Elders ? (especially male elders whose authority has been decimated by welfare ). And couldn't we have an ambulance on hand ?
I've heard it argued that indigenous people are happy to enjoy TVs, electric appliances and brick homes. The theory is that if they accept that then they have to take everything we throw at them. All of 'our' rules and our way of life. Surely we can do much better than that. We can respect their culture and make real attempts to allow it to be practiced. Indigenous Australians never asked to have their language, their culture and their land removed.
I'm not 100% sure about payback. It sounds dangerous and difficult to integrate with whitefellah law.
READ THIS........ more thoughts.......
An ongoing feud between 2 'mobs' started in 2010 when a young man was killed after a football game. Indigenous culture says 'payback' should be practiced in order to settle the score. The theory is that the feud has been ongoing due to the inability of the indigenous community to practice their own law. They cant settle the issue, creating frustration and then anger.
So what is payback and how does it work ?
The common elements are the involvement of kin and the role of the Elders to ensure that there is a degree of restraint by opposing parties. The matter would generally be resolved once the offender had been speared in the thigh or blood had been drawn.
Clearly it's not legal under whitefellah law. Can we (Australia, the government, the police...) let an indigenous person spear another in the leg, causing injury that requires hospitalisation? What about if the injury becomes infected and somehow leads to death ? And once there's alcohol involved is there any chance that a measured and appropriate punishment would be meted out ?
On the other hand - is it possible this ongoing and widespread feud (impacting the entire Yuendumu community of 1500 people for over 2 years) could have been settled, allowing everyone to move on ? Would the spearing of the offender have satisfied the community, and in particular, the victim's family ? Would there be acceptance that the 'law' had been observed ?
I would have previously said that we have to have one law in Australia. And being a whitefellah I would have said that's whitefellah law. But I think there's been too much of that over the last 200 years. It's usually been whitefellah way as the only option. Could it be that allowing indigenous elders to oversee 'payback' might help settle disputes, while also help restoring some dignity and pride to indigenous communities ? Could it help re-establish the authority of Elders ? (especially male elders whose authority has been decimated by welfare ). And couldn't we have an ambulance on hand ?
I've heard it argued that indigenous people are happy to enjoy TVs, electric appliances and brick homes. The theory is that if they accept that then they have to take everything we throw at them. All of 'our' rules and our way of life. Surely we can do much better than that. We can respect their culture and make real attempts to allow it to be practiced. Indigenous Australians never asked to have their language, their culture and their land removed.
I'm not 100% sure about payback. It sounds dangerous and difficult to integrate with whitefellah law.
READ THIS........ more thoughts.......
Education - Using rewards in an indigenous context
Rewarding students for excellence in class, or even for doing their best, is a well established approach to motivation. Well I dont think it works too well for remote-community indigenous kids.
Scenario - students are told that first 3 to finish their assigned task ( I wont say worksheet ) will receive a small reward. Lets assume its a stationery item or worst case its a lolly.
At the end of the lesson the rewards are distributed and the lucky 3 are quite happy. But the others are not. They know that you still have rewards in your bag that you have not given out. And they are quite annoyed that you refuse to hand them a reward regardless of the progress they have made on their task.
My theory is that 'demand sharing' is coming into play. Demand sharing is a practice in indigenous communities that says you have to share what you have with anyone who asks you to share. Well, not quite anyone, but at a minimum it's anyone who is relate to you. And within a remote community that usually means most people. So when you hand out rewards to a selected few, and still have other rewards being held back ,there is a sense of injustice. You've got some more of those, why cant I have one ?
An idea that could motivate students to greater efforts becomes a barrier that breaks down the teacher-student relationship.
Scenario - students are told that first 3 to finish their assigned task ( I wont say worksheet ) will receive a small reward. Lets assume its a stationery item or worst case its a lolly.
At the end of the lesson the rewards are distributed and the lucky 3 are quite happy. But the others are not. They know that you still have rewards in your bag that you have not given out. And they are quite annoyed that you refuse to hand them a reward regardless of the progress they have made on their task.
My theory is that 'demand sharing' is coming into play. Demand sharing is a practice in indigenous communities that says you have to share what you have with anyone who asks you to share. Well, not quite anyone, but at a minimum it's anyone who is relate to you. And within a remote community that usually means most people. So when you hand out rewards to a selected few, and still have other rewards being held back ,there is a sense of injustice. You've got some more of those, why cant I have one ?
An idea that could motivate students to greater efforts becomes a barrier that breaks down the teacher-student relationship.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Blackness & Aboriginality
If there’s a common ‘interest’ in white Australia when it comes to indigenous matters it’s with ‘blackness’. Integration with whitefellahs means Australia’s indigenous peoples now exhibit a range of skin colours – from the dark black of outback groups to those with pale white skin, and everything in between. We can no longer just use skin colour to identify an indigenous person. Maybe that was possible 200 years ago. It’s a little more complicated than that today.
But consider this - If I had a black mother who raised me, a white father who I didn’t know, and I had fair skin, how would I identify myself ? Isn’t it likely that I would adopt indigenous culture from my mother and thereby identify as an indigenous person? I would think anyone in this situation has the right to identify as indigenous. Indigenous identification goes well beyond skin colour.
Does it really matter how we identify indigenous people? It seems to me that it matters a lot to most whitefellahs. Show a picture of a group of indigenous people that includes those with darker skin and those with lighter skin. You will almost certainly receive a comment challenging the aboriginality of those with lighter skin. There are those who will then proceed onto describing someone as ½ or ¼ or 1/8th indigenous. In the past we had terms like half-caste, quadroon or octoroon in an attempt to describe the extent of someone’s aboriginality. Terms that labelled people as not belonging anywhere in particular.
This raises a few questions. Firstly, why do people feel the need to challenge someone’s identification as indigenous? Unfortunately this usually comes down to money, and the perception that identifying as indigenous accompanies financial rewards or benefits. A claim to be indigenous is seen as an attempt to access Abstudy or a job ad stating ‘indigenous applicants are encouraged to apply’.
I don’t think anyone would support non-indigenous people accessing benefits intended to assist indigenous people. We all want to see an indigenous prize or scholarship go to an indigenous person. It’s probably in the interest of all Australians that only genuine indigenous people can identify as such. So how do we make sure identification as indigenous is genuine?
In 1983 the High Court of Australia[89] defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander as "a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives". So there are 3 tests used - descent, self-identification and community recognition. You need to pass all 3 to be defined as indigenous.
- Evidence of indigenous heritage – can you provide evidence of indigenous parents or grand-parents ?
- Self-identification– this sounds pretty easy. “ I am indigenous !”
- Evidence of indigenous community recognition – is there a recognised indigenous community that recognises you as indigenous ?
This would seem to be the bottom line in this debate. Australia has a set of rules to determine if someone has the right to identify as indigenous. They are flexible enough to ensure that people with a strong indigenous connection can be recognised as indigenous, but rigid enough to ensure non-genuine applicants do not qualify.
As with most indigenous issues it’s all a matter of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. If you are Italian or Greek would you appreciate continual challenges to your right to be recognised as such? Would you appreciate being told you are not Italian-enough because you have integrated with ‘British’ Australia? I don’t think you’d like it. Not the first time and especially not the 50th time.
My advice is to let the rules take care of those who are not genuine. And simply accept those who do identify as indigenous as being indigenous. Recognise their right to connect to their culture and their history. And ignore your inner-voice that tells you that this person can’t be indigenous because they aren’t dark enough.
Epilogue.....
Marcia Langton writes... http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gripes-of-wrath-20111001-1l2z5.html
SBS Put this issue to a group of indigenous and non-indigenous people - of varying complexions...
SBS Insight had a special on this topic. It raises a lot of questions. Does it answer any ?
Proving Aboriginality
And another viewpoint - an indigenous man who objects to having to prove his aboriginality...
Applying the Aboriginality Test - April 2013
Dallas Scott is an aboriginal man from Victoria. The application of the aboriginality test outlined above doesnt always produce the correct result.Thursday, August 25, 2011
Book - Why Warriors Lie Down and Die
By Richard Trudgen
There are not many books that are referred to as definitive guides to indigenous Australians. But if you read articles and books on indigenous issues you will find repeated reference to this book. And for good reason.
When it comes to books written by whitefellahs on indigenous issues there are 2 types - those by whitefellahs who have lived and breathed indigenous culture for years and years, and those by whitefellahs who have an opinion.
The first category is consistently filled with realism as the authors have lived in the communities they speak about. They are desperate to tell the truth - the good and the bad - as they see it as they are looking for solutions. They are also filled with love for indigenous people as they know them as individuals. These authors are not looking for politically correct responses or votes or money. They just want to improve the lives of their friends. Richard Trudgen lived with the Yolnu people for 11 years. He speaks with authority and experience.
I would suggest every Australian shoyuld read this book.......
There are not many books that are referred to as definitive guides to indigenous Australians. But if you read articles and books on indigenous issues you will find repeated reference to this book. And for good reason.
When it comes to books written by whitefellahs on indigenous issues there are 2 types - those by whitefellahs who have lived and breathed indigenous culture for years and years, and those by whitefellahs who have an opinion.
The first category is consistently filled with realism as the authors have lived in the communities they speak about. They are desperate to tell the truth - the good and the bad - as they see it as they are looking for solutions. They are also filled with love for indigenous people as they know them as individuals. These authors are not looking for politically correct responses or votes or money. They just want to improve the lives of their friends. Richard Trudgen lived with the Yolnu people for 11 years. He speaks with authority and experience.
I would suggest every Australian shoyuld read this book.......
Racism Aint So Funny
I’ve worked in offices for about 20 years. Most of the people I meet are fairly well educated or at least up to date on what is going on in the world. The sort of people you expect to be politically correct. I say that in a positive way, meaning they would avoid talk that may offend others – whether it be about religion, race or politics.
It comes a surprise then when I sometimes hear racist remarks about indigenous people. And especially as a surprise when the offenders are often those I regard as very nice people. These comments are usually a snide remark about petrol sniffing, alcohol abuse, glue sniffing or stealing. The comments are intended to gain a laugh. They are supposed to be funny. They are not said with hatred or vicious contempt. It’s probable that the offender’s only interaction with indigenous people is via bad news stories in the media, or maybe via a friend of a friend. But none of that excuses it. And none of that reduces the impact such statements have.
Sometimes I think the hurt or the pain associated with these sorts of comments isn’t recognised. It’s why many indigenous people haven’t identified as indigenous over the years – their perception of what whitefellahs think about their race tells them that it’s better to keep quiet. Better to not even admit who they are. What does that say about the impression we have left with our indigenous neighbours?
It’s not hard to put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine you are a white Australian living in Zimbabwe. And imagine that every time Australians are mentioned someone cracks a joke about them being lazy or alcoholics. And everyone responds by laughing. And the only stories of white Australians on TV were of those who lived in extreme poverty and had high rates of alcohol abuse? What would that do to your self-esteem? To your respect for your family and community? To your respect for your traditions and culture?
And there’s another danger – every one of these remarks fuels racism in those who hear them. If your friend has some sneaking suspicion about people of some race or colour and you tell a ‘joke’ about that race, your friend's racist views have just been validated. It’s OK for them to hold these views because you think the same. It must be true. A ‘soft’ racist has just moved a little towards being a ‘hard’ racist.
Racism is about labelling an entire race. And you will likely pre-judge the next indigenous person you see. You will think that they are likely to steal something from the supermarket or drink to excess, no matter what you know about them. In fact the less you know about them, the more likely you will pre-judge, and the less likely you will get to know them as a person.
The onus now is on people who recognise the destructive nature of racism to speak out when these comments are made. Not judgementally or self-righteously but with determination that such comments won’t be left unchallenged. By all means let’s retain our sense of humour and laugh when we have the chance.
But let’s speak up when we have to in a way that educates and establishes empathy for others of all races.
An excellent article on theroar.com.au about the reaction to Liam Jurrah's court appearances and recent arrest. Yes, it would appear that Jurrah is currently out of control given that he escaped one charge for unlawfully causing harm, only to be charged with assaulting 3 females in Alice Springs. Don't miss the reaction of the author's mate - "It is the way they live" - implicit racism that you and I have to challenge whenever it appears.
And it's great to see that reported on a sports website where average Aussies will be challenged to think about their own reactions to the story.
Liam Jurrah Behaving Badly - April 2013
An excellent article on theroar.com.au about the reaction to Liam Jurrah's court appearances and recent arrest. Yes, it would appear that Jurrah is currently out of control given that he escaped one charge for unlawfully causing harm, only to be charged with assaulting 3 females in Alice Springs. Don't miss the reaction of the author's mate - "It is the way they live" - implicit racism that you and I have to challenge whenever it appears.
And it's great to see that reported on a sports website where average Aussies will be challenged to think about their own reactions to the story.
Eddie's Big Blunder - May 2013
The AFL has been a leader in tackling racism head-on , ever since Nicky Winmar took a stand against racist abuse and told the crowd that he was proud to be black. Now they are back in the spotlight due to 2 incidents. Firstly a 13-year-old girl called Adam Goodes an 'ape' when he came over near the boundary line. Goodes heard the abuse and identified her. That caused a massive reaction with most supporting both Goodes response and Collingwood President Eddie Maguir for his swift apology.
Then there's the alternative response from people like Andrew Bolt who focussed on the treatment of the 13 year old girl (for some reason this warranted more comment than the racism and the impact on our indigenous communities) and then there were those who felt Goodes should 'harden-up'. Some people cannot distinguish between a racial comment that carries 200 years of discrimination and dispossession, and a witty remark intended to bring someone down a peg or two. There's a big difference. The former is an insult that aims at the very heart of the victim, at who they are, at their family and their ancestors.
Goodes just said enough is enough !! And it is only through incidents like this , especially at the footy, that the general public will sit up , take notice and maybe even think about their attitudes. So well done Adam.
Then we had the Eddie Maguire incident. Only a few days after taking an anti-racism stand, Maguire made his own racial slur. Referring to Adam Goodes in the context of the discussion about the new King Kong stage play.
How does that happen ? I have a theory. Eddie knows the difference between right and wrong. As a former Broadmeadows boy he knows about disadvantage and seems to have a reputation as a campaigner against racism. And on Friday night he took a stand to recognise the hurt inflicted by racism.
But then on Wednesday he is in the radio studio with his footy mates. The subject of King Kong comes up and his natural reaction is to look to make a joke out of it. Something to make the 'boy's laugh, something that says even though he gets very serious sometimes, he can also still be 'one of the boys'. Friends from media and football declare Eddie he is not a racist, but he drops a very racist remark that contrasts to his position only 3 days ago.
That's why this story is under my 'Racism aint so funny' topic. It's 'average' blokes like Eddie who should know better. Who must know by now the hurt that is spread by racism. Who need to get over the desire to take a cheap shot at a minority group in order to get a laugh.
If you're not sure about the damage a 'casual' racist joke makes then have a read of Harry OBrien's response to Eddie's remarks. As a white Australian of English descent I feel uncomfortable that an indigenous player is called an 'ape'. But thats only a fraction of the pain an indigenous person feels when they hear that they are still subject to that sort of abuse in 2013.
Then there's the alternative response from people like Andrew Bolt who focussed on the treatment of the 13 year old girl (for some reason this warranted more comment than the racism and the impact on our indigenous communities) and then there were those who felt Goodes should 'harden-up'. Some people cannot distinguish between a racial comment that carries 200 years of discrimination and dispossession, and a witty remark intended to bring someone down a peg or two. There's a big difference. The former is an insult that aims at the very heart of the victim, at who they are, at their family and their ancestors.
Goodes just said enough is enough !! And it is only through incidents like this , especially at the footy, that the general public will sit up , take notice and maybe even think about their attitudes. So well done Adam.
Then we had the Eddie Maguire incident. Only a few days after taking an anti-racism stand, Maguire made his own racial slur. Referring to Adam Goodes in the context of the discussion about the new King Kong stage play.
How does that happen ? I have a theory. Eddie knows the difference between right and wrong. As a former Broadmeadows boy he knows about disadvantage and seems to have a reputation as a campaigner against racism. And on Friday night he took a stand to recognise the hurt inflicted by racism.
But then on Wednesday he is in the radio studio with his footy mates. The subject of King Kong comes up and his natural reaction is to look to make a joke out of it. Something to make the 'boy's laugh, something that says even though he gets very serious sometimes, he can also still be 'one of the boys'. Friends from media and football declare Eddie he is not a racist, but he drops a very racist remark that contrasts to his position only 3 days ago.
That's why this story is under my 'Racism aint so funny' topic. It's 'average' blokes like Eddie who should know better. Who must know by now the hurt that is spread by racism. Who need to get over the desire to take a cheap shot at a minority group in order to get a laugh.
If you're not sure about the damage a 'casual' racist joke makes then have a read of Harry OBrien's response to Eddie's remarks. As a white Australian of English descent I feel uncomfortable that an indigenous player is called an 'ape'. But thats only a fraction of the pain an indigenous person feels when they hear that they are still subject to that sort of abuse in 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)