Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

[Gethelred]

Alright.

We've had the Referendum into the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the public rejected it.

From the notes to the Referendum Committee:

The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Would you be okay with any or all of the above? What do you think would be a reasonable means of reparations, or do you think reparations are not required at all?

Try and keep it civil from here. The last few pages have been as base as anywhere else on this forum.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Fully behind you on this. We should be actively trying to preserve the cultures of indigenous people and the cultural artefacts that we still have. I'm quite sure the big mining companies could spare some of their bottom line to ensure those sites are preserved somehow.
I'm not so sure about the legalities of who owns the land though. I really don't know enough about that to my own embarrassment. Should know better.
I will have to look this up further, because I'm not aware of any policies associated with the stolen generation that would still be in place today. Is it a case of children being removed for welfare purposes and there just not being enough able and willing indeginous relatives to take them on? Feel free to post links to info if you have them handy.
I agree that there should be a treaty signed, 100%. However, regarding monetary compensation, this is the one that many will have some pushback on, myself included.

Any form of blanket tax that will then redistribute money to individuals because of their ethnic heritage is not something I will generally support. So IMO that should be off the table immediately. However, if we're talking about a specific way to generate funds that are used for services or systems that help indigenous communities, then I'm all ears.

I know that costs from taxes against businesses etc are all essentially passed on to the consumer at the end of the day, but it doesn't jibe with my ethical beliefs to directly take from one person and give to another for reparations. I don't believe in punishing people for the sins of the fathers, so to speak, and that going down that path would actually inflame the situation further.

The cynic in me also wonders just how much the non-indigenous desire for reparations to be paid is a product of those people trying to assuage their sense of guilt more than anything. Money can't fix generations of being put behind the eight-ball. In fact I'd argue that for many of the target group, that money could end up doing anything from very little to actually causing harm. It's sad to say that, but I'm being realistic.

The Stolen Generations have never ended, they have just morphed into the removal of Aboriginal children by Child Protection. Aboriginal children are being removed at alarming rates (many for ridiculous reasons) and being placed with non Aboriginal families. Victoria actually has the highest rate of Indigenous children removed from their families and placed in out-of-home care in the country. Most of these live in Melbourne’s inner city. Around 141 per 1000 children in care in Victoria are Aboriginal. It is another failed system that is contributing to the erosion of Aboriginal culture.

 

[evolved2]

The Stolen Generations have never ended, they have just morphed into the removal of Aboriginal children by Child Protection. Aboriginal children are being removed at alarming rates (many for ridiculous reasons) and being placed with non Aboriginal families. Victoria actually has the highest rate of Indigenous children removed from their families and placed in out-of-home care in the country. Most of these live in Melbourne’s inner city. Around 141 per 1000 children in care in Victoria are Aboriginal. It is another failed system that is contributing to the erosion of Aboriginal culture.

Could you explain some of those ridiculous reasons Aboriginal children are being removed from family/home.

 

[ShanDog]

The Stolen Generations have never ended, they have just morphed into the removal of Aboriginal children by Child Protection. Aboriginal children are being removed at alarming rates (many for ridiculous reasons) and being placed with non Aboriginal families. Victoria actually has the highest rate of Indigenous children removed from their families and placed in out-of-home care in the country. Most of these live in Melbourne’s inner city. Around 141 per 1000 children in care in Victoria are Aboriginal. It is another failed system that is contributing to the erosion of Aboriginal culture.

I'm not saying that's all wrong, but it's going to require some strong evidence. A former partner of mine worked in child protection and they rarely removed children from parents, often to the detriment of the children. The policy in SA was to keep them with their family unless absolutely necessary for the safety of the child to remove them. There was some horrible consequences of that inaction.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Question, for everyone on here.

Would you view removing (or stealing) a child, against the parents / guardians and child's wishes for the genuine unquestionable betterment of the child as wrong?

To add context, a child of any background.

 

[Chief]

genuine unquestionable betterment of the child

Depends what you mean.

Are you asking if the government should provide for every child that doesn't get enough exercise or eat enough veggies?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Depends what you mean.

Are you asking if the government should provide for every child that doesn't get enough exercise or eat enough veggies?

It's pretty clear.

If it's unquestionable (as I put in the post) by anyone that it's a better outcome for the child to not be in the guardianship of their parents or guardians.

 

[Chief]

It's pretty clear.

If it's unquestionable (as I put in the post) by anyone that it's a better outcome for the child to not be in the guardianship of their parents or guardians.

OK: what's the threshold?

Say the kid plays too many video games.

Better outcome: Put them with parents who limit screen time and can afford to pay footy club fees and buy good footy boots and have time to ferry them to training and games.

That's obviously not the level you're talking about, but it's not clear to me what is your floor for acceptable outcome before the child is removed.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That's obviously not the level you're talking about, but it's not clear to me what is your floor for acceptable outcome before the child is removed.

It's obvious you're being facetious here and you know I'm not talking about too much phone time as bad parenting.

So to satisfy your urge for me to draw a line, which you probably already have a fair idea anyway (which is clearly obvious, as I put in my reply to you unquestionable to anyone!)

Where a child is being regularly with harmful intention exposed to or a victim of

• Domestic violence
• Anything sexual
• Illicit drug activity
• Harmful legal activities like smoking or excessive drinking
• Exposure to harmful adult content
• Grooming to incite anarchic thoughts / tendencies
• Anything similar to the above

There you go chief, now you can't allude I'm being vague.

So I'm going to ask you, if a child is removed from this sort of environment, against the child's and / or parents / guardians wishes, do you think this is wrong?

 

[Chief]

It's obvious you're being facetious here and you know I'm not talking about too much phone time as bad parenting.

As I explicitly said in the text you quoted.

So to satisfy your urge for me to draw a line, which you probably already have a fair idea anyway (which is clearly obvious, as I put in my reply to you unquestionable to anyone!)

People have different ideas for what is and isn't bad for kids. That was my point.

 

[Chief]

Where a child is exposed to or a victim of

Exposed to drinking?

Again, you're asking for a yes/no and including things I could see as not harmful enough to warrant the harm of removal.

My kids have seen me drinking many times. Do you mean giving them alcohol?

Do you mean giving them cigs or exposing them to second hand smoke?

Do you mean the kid seeing their parent smoke a joint?

Do you mean excessive hitting as a "corrective" measure?

I don't expect specific answers, I'm illustrating how I don't think the question has a yes or no response.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I'm not saying that's all wrong, but it's going to require some strong evidence. A former partner of mine worked in child protection and they rarely removed children from parents, often to the detriment of the children. The policy in SA was to keep them with their family unless absolutely necessary for the safety of the child to remove them. There was some horrible consequences of that inaction.

Bringing them Home - Chapter 21

Indigenous children throughout Australia remain very significantly over-represented `in care' and in contact with welfare authorities. Their over-representation increases as the intervention becomes more coercive, with the greatest over-representation being in out-of-home care. Indigenous...

humanrights.gov.au

2.12 Child protection

2.12 Child protection

www.indigenoushpf.gov.au

Victoria’s child protection system is creating ‘new stolen generation’, Aboriginal leader says | Indigenous Australians | The Guardian

Condemnation comes as the state’s truth-telling inquiry, the Yoorrook Justice Commission, prepares to hold hearings on the subject

amp.theguardian.com

Urgent changes needed to halt new ‘stolen generation’

amp.theage.com.au

Permanent care orders and ‘racist’ carers cut some Aboriginal children’s cultural links, inquiry told | Indigenous Australians | The Guardian

Muriel Bamblett tells Victoria’s Yoorrook commission there is little oversight of cultural plans for Indigenous children in permanent care

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Gough]

It's obvious you're being facetious here and you know I'm not talking about too much phone time as bad parenting.

So to satisfy your urge for me to draw a line, which you probably already have a fair idea anyway (which is clearly obvious, as I put in my reply to you unquestionable to anyone!)

Where a child is exposed to or a victim of

• Domestic violence
• Anything sexual
• Illicit drug activity
• Harmful legal activities like smoking or excessive drinking
• Exposure to harmful adult content
• Grooming to incite anarchic thoughts / tendencies
• Anything similar to the above

There you go chief, now you can't allude I'm being vague.

So I'm going to ask you, if a child is removed from this sort of environment, against the child's and / or parents / guardians wishes, do you think this is wrong?

Almost every kid in the country meets at least a couple of those metrics.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Exposed to drinking?

Did you miss the part where I stated excessive? And of course, not need to be mentioned, excessive on a regular basis

My kids have seen me drinking many times. Do you mean giving them alcohol?

Are you getting blotto most times you drink in front of them? It's obvious as to what I'm getting at, but as usual you're either being deliberately obtuse or are actually lacking comprehension skills

Do you mean giving them cigs or exposing them to second hand smoke?

This shouldn't even be a question, children should not be exposed to smoking period.

Do you mean the kid seeing their parent smoke a joint?

Of course, you might not think much of a joint being smoked in front of kids, but it gives the message that 'it's ok to smoke a joint or do something illegal' - it's not.

Do you mean excessive hitting as a "corrective" measure?

I never mentioned hitting, a slap on the bum as a disciplinary measure is not the same as some mouth breather beating the s**t out of their kid because they think it's a disciplinary measure, or just as bad, dad beating the s**t out of mum in front of them.

It's obvious you're being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to accept that children being removed against their and their parents wishes might be the best thing for them. Or you don't want to accept that real life scenarios like these exist.

If you think it's ok for kids to be in these environments then that says all we need to know.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's obvious you're being facetious here and you know I'm not talking about too much phone time as bad parenting.

So to satisfy your urge for me to draw a line, which you probably already have a fair idea anyway (which is clearly obvious, as I put in my reply to you unquestionable to anyone!)

Where a child is exposed to or a victim of

• Domestic violence
• Anything sexual
• Illicit drug activity
• Harmful legal activities like smoking or excessive drinking
• Exposure to harmful adult content
• Grooming to incite anarchic thoughts / tendencies
• Anything similar to the above

There you go chief, now you can't allude I'm being vague.

So I'm going to ask you, if a child is removed from this sort of environment, against the child's and / or parents / guardians wishes, do you think this is wrong?

So any child thats been within 100m of the Collingwood cheer squad?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Almost every kid in the country meets at least a couple of those metrics.

Deliberately and regularly? I doubt it.

Of course, kids will be exposed to some things that they shouldn't on the odd occasion, but not usually by intent and often.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So any child thats been within 100m of the Collingwood cheer squad?

Lol, coming from a Richmond supporter.

 

[Chief]

Where a child is exposed to or a victim of

• Domestic violence
• Anything sexual
• Illicit drug activity
• Harmful legal activities like smoking or excessive drinking

Did you miss the part where I stated excessive? And of course, not need to be mentioned, excessive on a regular basis

Honestly: I am not being obtuse here.

It's still not a yes or no answer.

Exposed to ANYTHING sexual?

Like if you're watching Game of Thrones after your kids bed time, and your kid wakes up and wanders into the room during one of the more graphic scenes?

I don't mean to make this an endless back and forth tyring to get you into specificity traps, but I can't see how it's going to be a yes or no answer without knowing the specifics of each case.

Dad smokes a bit of weed in the afternoon to cope with pain of a deteriorating body after years as a tradie?

The kid sees mum zone out on white wine every other night?

You'd have a lot of kids from all socioeconomic groups who are otherwise well cared for emotionally and materially being moved to other care.

Now, to edit this after the fact, it is obvious that kids sometimes need to be removed from a harmful environment. But that also means the state becomes liable for harm of the child while in their care.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Honestly: I am not being obtuse here.

It's still not a yes or no answer.

Exposed to ANYTHING sexual?

Like if you're watching Game of Thrones after your kids bed time, and your kid wakes up and wanders into the room during one of the more graphic scenes?

I don't mean to make this an endless back and forth tyring to get you into specificity traps, but I can't see how it's going to be a yes or no answer without knowing the specifics of each case.

Dad smokes a bit of weed in the afternoon to cope with pain of a deteriorating body after years as a tradie?

The kid sees mum zone out on white wine every other night?

You'd have a lot of kids from all socioeconomic groups who are otherwise well cared for emotionally and materially being moved to other care.

Now, to edit this after the fact, it is obvious that kids sometimes need to be removed from a harmful environment. But that also means the state becomes liable for harm of the child while in their care.

I can't be any clearer, you know I'm talking about parents / guardians who shouldn't be parents or guardians.

I'm not talking about occasional slip up parents with no ill intent, but you already knew that.

If you can't grasp, then it's either you can't comprehend or are being deliberately obtuse.

To keep the thread on the discussion of the stolen generation, this is why I'm asking this question, because no one seems to talk about the possibility of a child being removed from their parents might the best outcome.

The impression I get, and obviously others is, it's ok to blanket label any child being removed for what might possibly be the better outcome as 'stolen', no ifs buts or maybes.

I'm merely pointing out that harmful environments exist for children and they're removed from those environments with good intentions - don't hear much talk about this though do we.

It's all, 'Aboriginal kids get stolen from their parents, coz conspiracy' - that's all we hear. In before 'but it does happen', of course it does, as does kids being removed for the right intention - no one talks about that though

 

[Chief]

I'm merely pointing out that harmful environments exist for children and they're removed from those environments with good intentions

I do not think anybody has disputed this, though.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I can't be any clearer, you know I'm talking about parents / guardians who shouldn't be parents or guardians.

I'm not talking about occasional slip up parents with no ill intent, but you already knew that.

If you can't grasp, then it's either you can't comprehend or are being deliberately obtuse.

To keep the thread on the discussion of the stolen generation, this is why I'm asking this question, because no one seems to talk about the possibility of a child being removed from their parents might the best outcome.

The impression I get, and obviously others is, it's ok to blanket label any child being removed for what might possibly be the better outcome as 'stolen', no ifs buts or maybes.

I'm merely pointing out that harmful environments exist for children and they're removed from those environments with good intentions - don't hear much talk about this though do we.

It's all, 'Aboriginal kids get stolen from their parents, coz conspiracy' - that's all we hear. In before 'but it does happen', of course it does, as does kids being removed for the right intention - no one talks about that though

This is absolute rubbish. No one is saying that there are times when the removal of children is not warranted. Of course there are times when it is warranted. There are also many times when Aboriginal children should not have been removed.
I just asked the lovely wife how many Aboriginal Foster kids we have had and the exact figure is 284 (I thought it was around 200). Of those 284, 3 will never return to their family. They will stay with us forever. A care by secretary order has been put in place to protect them. Their return would not be safe. Of the other 281 children, I estimate around 80 should have been removed from families for safety reasons. That leaves around 200 who should not have been removed. Had Aboriginal support and case workers worked with these families it would have ensured they stayed together.

 

[evolved2]

Question, for everyone on here.

Would you view removing (or stealing) a child, against the parents / guardians and child's wishes for the genuine unquestionable betterment of the child as wrong?

To add context, a child of any background.

Definitely not wrong, though it's not a black and white issue.

The goal should be temporary removal of the child and support for parents until theyre ready to parent the child again unless that option isn't viable.

We could argue about finer details of what constitutes 'unquestionable benefit' all day long, but I see no point.

I have no idea how the current system is run either.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No one is saying that there are times when the removal of children is not warranted.

I never said that, I said it's never talked about. I clearly alluded this.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I do not think anybody has disputed this, though.

I never said it was disputed, I clearly alluded no one talks about it. Until I brought it up.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I never said that, I said it's never talked about. I clearly alluded this.

Well I clearly just talked about it so you can put that one to rest

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well I clearly just talked about it so you can put that one to rest

Would you have if I didn't bring it up?

This is my point, and this is not just targeting you.

As I've said earlier itt, on this topic, clearly the talking point is kids stolen from their home by govt. sometimes for conspired reasons.

Rarely if ever is the discussion about the removing of children, even if against their wish is the better outcome.

Yet I bring it up and everyone immediately jumps on 'no one argues that sometimes it's necessary' like I'm disputing that, instead of reading my posts.

So, why does it need to be put to rest then?