Grown-Up Government: Bindi for Prime Minister! (Or President!).

Last week I called the Australian federal campaign the Inception election. As we lurch toward voting day on August 21, reality has tried to kick in, but to little avail. The two leaders, Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Labor) and challenger Tony Abbott (Liberal), both of whom recently toppled their predecessors in party-room coups, are now frantically searching for their own identity. And that’s what the election itself is increasingly about. Even though both have substantial track records as ministers, they are untried as national leaders. The real conundrum of the campaign – for them, if not for voters – is: Who the heck are these people?

Poverty in perception : a study of the twentieth-century prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand, as English-speaking nations with dominant white populations, present an ethnic anomaly not only in South East Asia, but also in the Southern Hemisphere. Colonised by predominantly workingclass British immigrants from the late eighteenth century, an ethnic and cultural connection grew between these two countries even though their indigenous populations and ecological environments were otherwise very different. Building a new life in Australia and New Zealand, the colonists shared similar historic perceptions of poverty – perceptions from their homelands that they did not want to see replicated in their new adopted countries. Dreams of a better life shaped their aspirations, self-identity and nationalistic outlook. By the twentieth century, national independence and self-government had replaced British colonial rule. The inveterate occurrence of poverty in Australia and New Zealand had created new local perspectives and different perceptions of, and about, poverty. This study analyses what relationship existed between the political directions adopted by the twentieth-century prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand and their perceptions of poverty. Using the existential phenomenological theory and methodology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the study adds to the body of knowledge about poverty in Australia and New Zealand by revealing the structure and origin of the poverty perceptions of the twentieth-century prime ministers.

Fabricating reconciliation : Howard's forgettable speech

In this chapter, John Howard’s policy speech to The Sydney Institute, a conservative think tank, on October 11, 2007 as the Australian Prime Minister of the day, is analysed within the frame of discourse analysis to make visible how the speech works in old ways to dress up neoliberal policy as new and reformist. Taking centre stage, Howard pointed to concrete steps undertaken to achieve what he called a “new reconciliation.” This cynical manoeuvre, which put reconciliation back onto the election agenda (after it was earlier derided for its divisive and muddle headed symbolism), constituted a “neoliberal quickstep” (Reiger, 2006) or quickfix of sorts. The speech was also used as a place to reintroduce the Northern Territory Intervention, which at the time was purported to be a response to child abuse and Indigenous community dysfunction.

Using digital storytelling to capture responses to the Apology

This article discusses a pilot project that adapted the methods of digital storytelling and oral history to capture a range of personal responses to the official Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008. The project was an initiative of State Library of Queensland and resulted in a small collection of multimedia stories, incorporating a variety of personal and political perspectives. The article describes how the traditional digital storytelling workshop method was adapted for use in the project, and then proceeds to reflect on the outcomes and continuing life of the project. The article concludes by suggesting that aspects of the resultant model might be applied to other projects carried out by cultural institutions and community-based media organizations.

Rethinking the notion of culture in the national history curriculum

Major global changes are placing new demands on the Australian education system. Recent statements by the Prime Minister, together with current education policy and national curriculum documents available in the public domain, look to education’s role in promoting economic prosperity and social cohesion. Collectively, they emphasise the need to equip young Australians with the knowledge, understandings and skills required to compete in the global economy and participate as engaged citizens in a culturally diverse world. However, the decision to prioritise discipline-based learning in the forthcoming Australian history curriculum without specifically encompassing culture as a referent, raises the following question. How will students acquire the cultural knowledge, understandings and skills necessary for this process? This paper addresses this question by situating the current push for a national history curriculum, with specific reference to the study of Indigenous history and the study of Asia in Australia.

Disrupting the new orthodoxy : emergency intervention and Indigenous social policy

This article develops a critical analysis of the ideological framework that informed the Australian Federal government’s 2007 intervention into Northern Territory Indigenous communities (ostensibly to address the problem of child sexual abuse). Continued by recently elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, the NT ‘emergency response’ has aroused considerable public debate and scholarly inquiry. In addressing what amounts to a broad bi-partisan approach to Indigenous issues we highlight the way in which Indigenous communities are problematised and therefore subject to interventionist regimes that override differentiated Indigenous voices and intensify an internalised sense of rage occasioned by disempowering interventionist projects. We further argue that in rushing through the emergency legislation and suspending parts of the Racial Discrimination Act, the Howard and Rudd governments have in various ways perpetuated racialised and neo-colonial forms of intervention that override the rights of Indigenous people. Such policy approaches require critical understanding on the part of professions involved most directly in community practice, particularly when it comes to mounting effective opposition campaigns. The article offers a contribution to this end.

What’em with the apology? : the National Apology to the Stolen Generations two years on

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Apology to Australia’s Stolen Generations, delivered on 13 February 2008, is both personal and political to me just as the people who talk about it make it political and personal through their actions. This paper represents my attempt to turn the gaze through articulating some of my thoughts on the Apology, policy statements (Close the Gap) and the inconsistencies within the leadership of the present governments. I have endeavoured to do this through exploring the articulations of others and by sharing examples and personal experiences. In bringing forth some analysis to the literature, examples and experiences, I reveal the relationships between oppression, white race privilege and institutional privilege and the epistemology that maintains them. In moving from the position of being silent on the Apology, and my political experiences, to speaking about them, I am able to move from the position of object to subject and to gain a form of liberated voice (hooks 1989:9). Furthermore, I am hopeful that it will encourage others to examine their own practices within political parties and governments and to challenge the domination that continues to subjugate Indigenous peoples. It is only through people enacting their responsibilities and making changes in their daily lives and through the institutions and organisations to which they belong (the personal and political), can the Apology move beyond symbolic to action.

Mediatisation and institutions of public memory : digital storytelling and the apology

Institutions of public memory are increasingly undertaking co-creative media initiatives in which community members create content with the support of institutional expertise and resources. This paper discusses one such initiative: the State Library of Queensland’s ‘Responses to the Apology’, which used a collaborative digital storytelling methodology to co-produce seven short videos capturing individual responses to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s 2008 ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’. In examining this program, we are interested not only in the juxtaposition of ‘ordinary’ responses to an ‘official’ event, but also in how the production and display of these stories might also demonstrate a larger mediatisation of public memory.

We’ve had the Redfern Park Speech and The Apology: What’s next?

What really changed for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people between Paul Keating’s Redfern Park Speech (Keating 1992) and Kevin Rudd’s Apology to the stolen generations (Rudd 2008)? What will change between the Apology and the next speech of an Australian Prime Minister? The two speeches were intricately linked, and they were both personal and political. But do they really signify change at the political level? This paper reflects my attempt to turn the gaze away from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and back to where the speeches originated: the Australian Labor Party (ALP). I question whether the changes foreshadowed in the two speeches – including changes by the Australian public and within Australian society – are evident in the internal mechanisms of the ALP. I also seek to understand why non-Indigenous women seem to have given in to the existing ways of the ALP instead of challenging the status quo which keeps Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples marginalised. I believe that, without a thorough examination and a change in the ALP’s practices, the domination and subjugation of Indigenous peoples will continue – within the Party, through the Australian political process and, therefore, through governments.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

Response to the apology : Queenslanders reflect : a State Library of Queensland project

On the 13th February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made an apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples on behalf of the Australian Parliament. The State Library of Queensland (SLQ) with assistance from Queensland University of Technology and Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, has captured responses to this historic event. ‘Responses to the 2008 Apology’ is a collection of digital stories created as part of this research initiative. Until recently, digital storytelling has not generally been treated as a necessary addition to the research collections of Australian libraries. However, libraries increasingly aim to promote new literacies and active audiences as they seek innovative ways to encourage life-long learning by their users, and digital storytelling is one methodology that can contribute to these goals. The State Library of Queensland is the only Australian State Library to have undertaken a major role in the collection of digital stories. They currently lead the way with their Queensland Stories digital storytelling program. This presentation will report findings and outcomes from this research project.

Who's afraid of the dark? Transpower New Zealand Ltd

On 12 June 2006, the lights went out in New Zealand’s largest city and major commercial centre, Auckland. Business was disrupted and many thousands of people inconvenienced. The unscheduled power cut was the latest in a series of electric power problems in New Zealand over the past decade. Attention turned to state-owned enterprise [SOE] Transpower, which was in charge of maintaining and developing New Zealand’s national electricity grid. The problem of 12 June was traced to two shackles in poor condition, small but essential parts of the electricity grid infrastructure. Closer examination of New Zealand’s electricity sector indicated these shackles were merely the tip of a power supply iceberg. Transpower’s Chief Executive, Ralph Craven, was now answerable to the Prime Minister for the issues creating the problems, and a workable solution to fix them. Transpower Chief Executive Ralph Craven needed to produce answers that went well beyond the problem of the two faulty shackles. The power crisis had brought to the fore wider issues of roles, responsibilities, and expectations in relation to the supply of electric power in New Zealand. Transpower was contending with these issues on a daily basis; however, the incident on 12 June publicly highlighted the urgent need for solutions that served the stakeholders in this critical industry.

Steering (towards a post apology Australia) without a rudder

After Kevin Rudd’s Apology to Indigenous Peoples after his election as Prime Minister in 2008 the climate was hopeful with many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (and non-Indigenous women, too) breathing a sigh of relief that the disastrous effects of White Australia’s government policies had at last been symbolically, publicly and officially acknowledged. There was also, though, skepticism about the ‘real’ change this Apology might have for Indigenous Australians. Many of us wondered if the Apology would make any difference at all in the ‘real’ world, where the gaps between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians is still so glaringly apparent in areas such as health, education, housing and employment.

Responses to 2008 Apology : Digital story collection

On 13 February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made an apology to Australia’s Indigenous People on behalf of the Parliament of Australia. The State Library of Queensland, with assistance from Queensland University of Technology and Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, captured responses to this historic event in a collection of digital stories. Stories were created with: Tiga Bayles; Jeremy Robertson; Natalie Alberts; Sam Wagan Watson Jr; Nadine McDonald-Dowd; Anna Bligh; and Quentin Bryce.