These were “the two great symbolic issues” of Australian 1990s politics (McKenna 2004). To this present day, they're nonetheless cited collectively in conversation, however,”described with hope as icons of a stalled progressive agenda or, as is oftener the case, depicted pejoratively as the failed dream of a marginalised left-liberal 'elite'.”(McKenna 2004). McKenna’s proposition is that even as republicanism and reconciliation have failed whilst advanced separately, argues that an Australian republic that makes the primary concrete steps in the direction of reconciliation is a republic that will matter to the Australian people. Mckenna presents an argument for visualising the republic anew. McKenna sets out three essential concepts for his “reconciled republic”. The first is to expand the idea of …show more content…
This third principle is a form of adhesive for the entirety. Aboriginal protest served as the motivation for vast ambiguity about the 'Australian achievement', the reason for the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) became on the “traditional axis of Anglo-Australian” competition. McKenna offers a beneficial narrative of the failure up till now of the republic and reconciliation movements. “Turnbull looked down at Prince Charles and felt ashamed” (McKenna 2004, 104). McKenna displays national identity will no longer only be made clearer through eliminating the British monarch. It may most effectively be genuinely transformed whilst make the last separation from the motherland and restore Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of this country. McKenna challenge and set aside what he calls Malcolm Turnbull's concept of the republic - that the head of state is the only fundamental
Both Keating’s and Rudd’s speeches are firmly based on the ideas of recognition and reconciliation for the wrongs that European settlers, and their decedents, have inflicted on Indigenous Australians. To explore this idea I believe that it is necessary to take a closer look at both the plight of Eddie Mabo and the stories of the Stolen Generation.
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
The power structure between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people always plays some role to impede a kind of equal dialogue between them. Non-aboriginal people on average are more affluent than aboriginals. Also, the social infrastructures in some off-reserve major metropolitan cities are much more mature than on-reserve areas. The inequality between aboriginals and non-aboriginals makes non-aboriginal policy makers be inclined to bring their own sense of superiority to the analysis of aboriginal issues, which could likely lead to policies with biases and prejudices. Perhaps an effective conversation between aboriginal and government can lead to a better outcome because aboriginals’ own voice would be heard. In this essay, I will demonstrate why, when compared with Flanagan’s assimilationist proposal, Cairns’ concept of “citizen plus” is more persuasive as an effective approach to aboriginal policy. Firstly, I would outline the debate between Thomas Flanagan and Alan Cairns on aboriginal policy. A brief compare and contrast between their opinions will be made. Secondly, with some other academic sources in my mind, I would state the reasons why I stand aside with Cairns more than with Flanagan. Some advisable
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s public apology to the indigenous people of Australia is a key event in Australia’s history. It apologised for the past mistreatment of Aboriginals. It apologised for the Stolen Generations and their families. It apologised for ‘the laws and policies of successive governments that inflicted grief, suffering and loss on these, our fellow Australians.’ However, the scars still remain. Aside from the apology that was given, nothing else was done to help the Aboriginals, not even any compensation was given to the victims. A vocal apology was all they got. The rights and freedoms of the Aboriginal people didn’t change because of Kevin Rudd’s apology. No laws were changed, no new policies were made. Nothing.
On the morning of February 13 2008, Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd made an apology to Australia’s indigenous peoples in the House of Representatives, Parliament House. The apology is more commonly known has the ‘Sorry’ speech as it was an attempt to officially move forward as a nation from the injustice that was the Stolen Generation. The Stolen Generations, occurring from approximately 1905 to 1969, was an endeavour by White Australians to create cultural assimilation and to ultimately force the ideal ‘White Australia.’ In this effort, around 100, 000 aboriginal children, often under 5 years of age and of mixed race, were removed from their families and raised in a white family. Kevin Rudd’s speech was the first time the Australian Government released an official apology to people affected by the policies of the previous governments. The speech, while apologising, is also stating the parliament’s aim to equalise opportunities for all Australians, regardless of their origin.
If Australia becomes a republic, we will finally be united as a nation. We’ll finally have our own Australian head of state, not a monarch who was lucky to be born into it. The queen is a power that
Summary of Text: ‘The Redfern Address’ is a speech that was given to a crowd made up of mainly indigenous Australians at the official opening of the United Nations International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in Redfern Park, New South Wales. This text deals with many of the challenges that have been faced by Indigenous Australians over time, while prompting the audience to ask themselves, ‘How would I feel?’ Throughout the text, Keating challenges the views of history over time, outlines some of the outrageous crimes committed against the Indigenous community, and praises the indigenous people on their contribution to our nation, despite the way they have been treated.
Like Sadat, Keating recognises through a bold statement ‘that the issue starts with us non-Aboriginals Australians’. The repetition of ‘we’ combined with the strong metaphor and listing ‘we took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life, we took the children from their mothers’, challenges the preconceived ideas of white Australia in the sense that quote Geoffrey Bailey, we have ‘moved from the three cheers version of Australian history to the black armband view’. Paul Keating’s ‘Redfern Speech’ can be considered a great speech as he is able to appeal to the pathos of individuals by pitching his language so that it becomes more inclusive. This can be noted through the use of strong, direct lexicon combined with a rhetorical question ‘how would I feel if this were done to me? As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us’. I agree that Keating’s speech was a great speech as he was able to be both contentious as showcased through his varying bold statements and the ongoing motif of a test, ‘committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which we so far we have always failed’. As well as converging into a low modality, persuasive pitch to appeal to human emotions, challenging the predetermined ideas of Australia’s past. ‘Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless. I can agree that great speeches are made so by their challenging ideas and both Sadat and Keating were able to challenge the ideas and values of their time so that they have a timeless
Aboriginal poet, Kevin Gilbert’s ‘The New True Anthem’ (1988), challenges and questions Dorothea Mackellar’s famous poem ‘My Country’ as well as other patriotic Australian poems. Whilst typical Australian poems depict the country’s identity under a positive light, Gilbert criticises its flaws and defects rather than appreciating its culture and beauty. The poet utilises high modality language and personification to portray what he believes to be the ‘true’ identity of Australia.
The article mentions about the struggle for social justice by the indigenous Australians that have constituted challenges to the Australian state, including its welfare and community development practices. The Mabo judgement and resultant Native Title Act 1993 (Stephenson and Ratnapala, 1993; Goot and Rowse, 1994; Brennan, 1995) can be read as marking the success of indigenous groups in obtaining special status as a people within Australian constitutional and administrative systems. This paper briefly portrays the historical emergence of a prejudiced welfare state in Australia as well as more recent histories of community development within Aboriginal people. The early attempts to “civilise and Christianise” were unsuccessful as the indigenous
In this week’s post, I will discuss why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals.
But we have not always celebrated difference. Built on oppression and institutionalised racism, Australia has a dark history, one that cannot be hidden away nor forgotten. The lives and deaths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, South Sea Islanders and migrants are woven into Australia’s history; the people whose blood, sweat and tears built our country.
Australia’s prohibition against the adoption of a charter of rights stems from the beliefs of “framers of the constitution ” as it was declared that “confidence in the legislative branch of government and doctrine of responsible government ensured the protection of the rights of the people of Australia. ” The aforementioned ideal has been widely accepted and is instilled in contemporary legal scholarship. This is demonstrated through Mason J’s statement in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills that the dile...
Singleton, G (2008). ‘The Senate a paper tiger?’, in Aulich, C and Wettenhall, R (eds), Howard’s Fourth Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2004-2007. Sydney: UNSW Press, pp. 75-94.