Hi Laurie,
You wrote:
>Tim, I am probably oversimplifying, but you seem to be saying that , under
>Pearson's proposals,what Aboriginal people in communities are facing is a
>choice between whether ,as individuals they should, in the words of ATSIC
>Commissioner, Brian Butler, have "access to payment" (welfare), and handle
>their own money, or whether the community, alone or in negotiation with
>others, should do it for them.
>
> The Qld. Govt. , under it's "Cape York Partnerships" proposal, which is
>stated as it's response to ' a paper by Noel Pearson outlining his ideas
for
>an overhaul of life in the Cape, specifically relating to welfare and
>economics" seems to be putting the same choice.
>
>My question is ---Why should there be a need for this choice to be made?
>
It's not a choice, is it? I'm not sure that anyone is saying "you can do
this or that, take a pick". Happy to be corrected on this. Isn't it more
that whatever is happening now isn't working, let's try something else?
That was part of my question - do people support the current arrangements?
If not, I guess that means they support an alternative, though maybe not
Pearson's. Fair enough - I don't know enough detail of his actual plans (as
I said) to support or oppose them. I supported his right to voice an
analysis and his right not to be misquoted or misrepresented.
And just thinking about it - though only a bit as I'm writing - maybe giving
people or communities a choice (individual or community-based payment) isn't
such a bad idea? Done within a framework of community consultation and
local law, maybe it isn't such a bad approach? You seem to be suggesting
something along these lines yourself: "the immediate need is for
funds ----not only current
access to payments for individuals or "welfare", but also a huge influx of
funding, through ATSIC and directly to communities through state governments
where they so desire it." Maybe you don't mean to offer these as choices
and that's the difference?
And actually, maybe some local communities wouldn't support ATSIC
involvement?
Your comments about causes and symptoms missed the point I was making. Your
interpretation of Pearson's motives via his methods just seems wrong to me -
for reasons I've already given. Maybe I'm naive but I think he has good
intentions (though you might want to point out that the road to hell is
paved with these, which I accept).
Still curious about why you supported Charles Perkins "burn baby burn"
comments given the fact that he must have known how "they" would interpret
them, but criticise Pearson for saying things that might meet (have met) the
same fate.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
