“Salt-of-the-earth National Party types . . .”

Good morning, Pubsters.

When I read Leone’s dissertation on Noel Pearson a few minutes ago, my instant reaction was “next thread-starter”. I hope Leone will forgive me for doing this.

I will repost BK’s and Gravel’s links very soon.

The link in the tweet should open this story, if not, just google the headline.

You are going to need a vomit bag. This should end any lingering ‘But Noel Pearson does some good work’ thoughts.

Pearson’sarticle contains this drivel.

Salt-of-the-earth National Party types — practical people with indigenous Australians in their electorates — are most open to honest discourse with their indigenous countrymen. Where the average inner-city liberal has met few indigenous Australians, let alone sought to understand their hopes and dreams, country people have lived and worked with them. Like indigenous people, these Australians share an intimate love of and connection to their country. As patriots, they usually understand that the indigenous heritage of this land is their heritage too.

Obviously Pearson has never been to Taree, or to Kempsey, or Port Macquarie, or any of the other National Party homeland towns in NSW that have indigenous communities. Racism is rife and flourishing in every one of them, and those Nats types are right into it. I’d say he, rather than “the average inner-city liberal” is the one who has met few indigenous Australians in these places, if he has met any at all. Being feted on an official visit and escorted around town by white VIPs and the occasional indigenous elder does not give anyone, especially an over-privileged, over-entitled coconut like Pearson an understanding of the way things are in National Party electorates.

I’ve lived in a few places in NSW, from the far north coast to the inland north-west and south-west and a few in between, and in every town, over almost 50 years, I have seen racism loud and clear. For example, I’ve seen the way indigenous tenants have been treated by local landlords and by retailers and the way some teachers discriminate against indigenous students. There’s no reason for this to still be going on after 200+ years. The only reason racism exists is because we teach our children to hate. Being a “salt-of-the-earth National Party type” is no protection from that inbred ignorance. Instead such people are more likely to be the perpetrators of racism.

I have not forgotten the comments that were made by these alleged “salt of the earth National Party types” when Rob Oakeshott, then a newly elected National politician, turned up to a party meeting with his indigenous girlfriend, now his wife.

Oakeshott’s bubbly wife, Sara-Jane, who works part-time for the Birpai Land Council in their home town of Port Macquarie, was his partner and “best friend” when he was elected in 1996 as a Nationals MP to NSW parliament.

At a party to celebrate his success, Oakeshott was stung by a racist remark that seemed to be a pointed reference to his girlfriend’s proud Aboriginal and South Sea Islander heritage.

An older Nationals stalwart was heard telling a group of people that he despaired for the future of the party now that “blacks” were joining its ranks. None of the cronies listening spoke up or challenged his view.

Speaking to The Australian this week, Sara-Jane said she learned of the comment only later

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rob-oakeshott-put-off-by-racism-in-nationals/story-fn59niix-1225913033617

Comments like that flowed around this area during every one of Oakeshott’s election campaigns and are still out there. They came and still come from National Party stalwarts.

So there, in just a few minutes I’ve demolished Pearson’s argument about the alleged tolerance of white Australian country folks Now I’ll answer his question “Could Pauline Hanson actually help indigenous Australians?”

It’s a resounding “NO!” Not possible. Not when that creature spouts rubbish like this:

Pauline Hanson Says There Is ‘No Definition To An Aboriginal’

‘If you marry an Aboriginal you can be classified as an Aboriginal.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/11/28/pauline-hanson-says-there-is-no-definition-to-an-aboriginal/

Advertisements

Friday . . . at Puffy The Magic Dragon’s Request

Can we have a Friday thread of Spring flowers, gardens, wildlife, pets, nature, where a Mod is on hand to upload photos provided by Pubsters of their own images, after stripping any location info from them.

Here you go – if only my garden looked like this!

State Rose Garden, Werribee Park

My email address if you want to send pics to me is fiona.atthepub@gmail.com

Dutton is grossly incorrect on Fraser and refugees

From Saturday AM 19th November 2016 (reprinted with permission):

Elizabeth Jackson:

The former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and former secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has hit back at comments from the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, that Australia is now paying for the mistakes of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.

In a television interview, Mr Dutton said Malcolm Fraser made mistakes in bringing some people to Australia the 1970s and he said, “We’re seeing that today”.

Mr Dutton said many foreign fighters getting involved in conflict zones were the children or grandchildren of migrants who came in the 1970s.

John Menadue was a senior public servant under both Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser in the 1970s and in the 1980s in the Immigration portfolio.

I asked John Menadue whether Australia was, in fact, now paying for Malcolm Fraser’s mistakes.

SBS

John Menadue:

No, we’re not. I think Malcolm Fraser was probably, together with Ben Chifley – at least in the post-war period – the most successful prime minister in managing refugees and migration into Australia.

The contribution that Malcolm Fraser made has strengthened this country. It broke the back of “White Australia”. Including family reunion, we brought 250,000 Indochinese to Australia. It was a great success story.

But every migration programme, every refugee programme, has its problems from time to time. Malcolm Fraser was aware of that. And in the Department, I was in with him for three years, we took action to ensure that the integrity of the migration and refugee programmes were ensured. That meant coming down like a ton of bricks where criminality or malpractice occurred. And he was very conscious of that, as I was.

But that’s not to say there weren’t problems, but they were addressed in a rigorous way.

Elizabeth Jackson:

Is it fair, then, for the minister, Peter Dutton, to say that it was a mistake that Malcolm Fraser’s policies constituted a mistake?

John Menadue:

No. Grossly incorrect.

The Indochina programme, for which Malcolm Fraser was particularly responsible – and we see the results in terms of the success rate of young Vietnamese in Australia today – it’s remarkable what they’ve done.

But there were problems. My recollection is there were about 1,000 Vietnamese that had criminal records or were misbehaving. They were deported. And Malcolm Fraser and Ian Macphee were very supportive of the rigorous action that we took.

Since we’ve ever had migration, there have been problems. We had difficulties with the Croatians and the Serbs: the Ustashi group amongst the Croatians were planting bombs around Australia. The Italians have been marvellous settlers, but we still have elements of the Mafia amongst them. (Italians arrived in large numbers in the 1950s and 1960s but Robert Menzies cannot be held responsible for the Barbaros today.) The Irish have been great settlers, but some of them were supporting the IRA back in Northern Ireland.

So there’s a history there that we have to recognise. But in each case, we should not discredit the whole programme and the enormous contribution which these new settlers have made.

There is a problem, currently, in the Middle East. And some young people, particularly those born in Australia, have sympathies for what’s been happening and are supporting ISIS in the Middle East.

The person that bears most responsibility for the tragedy in the Middle East – for the rebellion, the war, the terrorism that has affected us, of course – is John Howard. Together with George Bush, Tony Blair, he was responsible for the invasion of Iraq. More than anything else, these three opened this Pandora’s Box of terrorism and violence in the Middle East.

And some from Australia have participated. I can see the political background to it but in every case it’s important to protect the integrity of our programmes. Those people who do get involved in those wars and terrorism should be very, very firmly and harshly dealt with.

Elizabeth Jackson:

But does Peter Dutton have a point: is there any evidence that foreign fighters travelling to conflict zones in the Middle East are the children or the grandchildren of migrants who settled in Australia during the Fraser Government in the ’70s and ’80s?

John Menadue:

I wouldn’t be surprised that that is the case. They’d now be Australian citizens, those kids.

Elizabeth Jackson:

In that context, is it not fair to blame Malcolm Fraser?

John Menadue:

I think it’s grossly unfair. As I said, every migrant group, every refugee group has its problems.

I think Peter Dutton is wanting to make a political point by discrediting refugees.

When we look back at our migration history we can say: “we’ve really done that extremely well”. And it is unfair to highlight particular groups – particular people – and discredit the whole refugee group.

The last figures I saw showed that the crime rate of overseas-born in Australia is lower than it is for Australian-born.

So I think it’s wrong to make general accusations about particular groups, as Minister Dutton is doing.

Elizabeth Jackson:

That’s John Menadue, a senior public servant under both Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Malcolm Turnbull: ‘The prime minister just had to stand there, smiling, face fixed into a mask.’ Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian