NATIONAL ABORIGINAL BODY CALLS FOR 6 MONTH COOLING OFF PERIOD FOR 99 YEAR LEASES

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL BODY CALLS FOR 6 MONTH COOLING OFF PERIOD FOR 99 YEAR LEASES

Speaking for the recently conceived National Aboriginal Alliance, member Michael Mansell called for a “6 months cooling off period before Aboriginal communities are firmly and legally committed to 99 years leases being sold through Aboriginal affairs Minister Mal Brough”.

Mr Mansell said, “Canberra is placing enormous pressure on Aboriginal communities to sign land over on 99 year leases. Canberra has an agenda it is not fully disclosing to Aboriginal communities. The implications are enormous and not well understood by community leaders. Galurrwuy Yunipingu’s capitulation is a classic example.

Having had their land titles recognised for less than 30 of the past 229 years, Galurrwuy Yunipingu’s people will effectively lose the land once again until 2106. That is one third of the existence time of white Australia, and with the continued rapid commercial and social change likely to take place over the next 100 years, it is certain the Aboriginal people affected by these leases will not realise the consequences.

Legal title holders of lands burdened by a lease lose their normal ownership rights, which remain theoretical and subject to the terms of that lease. Exchanging security of tenure for money will destabilise whole communities by making them more susceptible to “mobility” policies coming out of Canberra.

In the short term, communities will be cashed up with infrastructure funding but will see their physical connection with a place eroded. As commercial development, tourism and greater European occupation replaces community control, the demands of the city life will override any cultural connection.

If Mr Yunipingu has a crystal ball to predict precisely how his people and culture will prosper at the end of 99 years, he should tell us all.

On a larger scale, dismantling Aboriginal communities will have unforeseen social effects. One certainty is that by the time the lease has expired European interests will be so firmly entrenched that Aborigines will not be able to claim the occupation of the lands back.

As we have seen in Alice Springs, where use of the Todd River by Aborigines has existed for thousands of years, the needs of tourists and Europeans has gradually driven Aborigines from their traditional places. In the absence of some very clever social and town planning, the Gove Peninsular will go the same way. Already mines, a refinery, a yacht club and a town of miners have made massive social incursions into the area.

It is for these reasons Canberra must agree to a cooling off period so that communities are able to get more information before committing to so long a period of loss of land. It is inevitable.”

Michael Mansell
Spokesman
National Aboriginal Alliance
182 Charles St, Launceston, TAS 7250
contact 0429310116
20th September 2007

Socialists, the Greens and building a working class alternative

With the Federal Election just around the corner (will it be 6 weeks, or 16?), the usual speculation, horse-trading and hand-wringing has begun to hot up, with psephologists often found perspiring in a dazed or manic state in bus shelters, inner-city bars and going through the garbage outside polling companies to quadruple check last weeks pollings on Howard vs Howard-lite.

Unfortunately, coming off the back of the very successful anti-Bush protests at APEC, some of the far-left has started playing little games of recrimination, trying to prove who's the most R-R-Revolutionary (the Russian revolutionary VI Lenin once wrote a lovely little pamphlet about the infantilism of trying too hard to do exciting little things with few people to make up for not doing less exciting big things with more people). The wombats are un-impressed. The protest was successful because it focussed on Bush, and then on the right to protest, and because it was resolutely peaceful in the face of government, police and media hype. A large part of the discussion can be found here.

Unfortunately, on top of this, the irrational behaviour of some left groups is finding new ways to express itself. In the face of an existing socialist organisation with national reach, some groups, particularly the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and Socialist Alternative (SAlt), have migrated to the land of the blind, and are calling for a vote for the Greens, while others have been living there for some time.

In traditional sectarian fashion SAlt appear simply to ignore the existence of the rest of the left, and call for a vote for the Greens in order to send a message to Labor over IR and other issues. This , it must be admitted, is in itself an improvement for SAlt, for as far as the wombats are aware, they have previously clung to calling for a vote to the ALP.

The ISO, more ambivalently, appear from their newspaper coverage, as well as discussions and interventions made by ISO members, to be advocating a Green vote, also (understandably) in order to hold Labor to account on a number of issues, not least WorkChoices. In doing so however, the ISO continue on the path they took earlier this year when they formalised their exit from the Socialist Alliance (although they had been inactive for a couple of years before that, and some members had already been handing out for the Greens at polling booths).

The Socialist Party (who are more or less limited to Melbourne with a small handful of members in Newcastle and Sydney) has written a letter to the ISO, calling for them to support an explicitly socialist project (particularly, the Socialist Party) in the elections, rather than calling for a vote directly to the Greens, and challenging them to a debate on "How should socialists relate to the Greens?". The arguments are plain enough, even without reading the SP letter, and much the same argument has been made by the Socialist Alliance. A further trump in the SP hand is that they have, unlike the rest of the far left, had some success in elections, getting Stephen Jolley elected to Yarra Council.

It is obvious that the left in Australia needs to work out how to relate to the Greens, who are rapidly emerging as the electoral third force around the country, and to develop a coherent approach and critique. Even the ALP, and what remains of the left in that party, is taking up the issue. For socialists, this is particularly important, as the Greens take up most of the electoral space, and a lot of the political space, on the left, making it harder, in many circumstances, to get a hearing for a socialist perspective. Socialist Alliance, like the Socialist Party, directs its preferences to the Greens before Labor, but there still remains the need for an explicitly socialist alternative to all the major parties (Greens included) to be posed - both at election time, and in-between.

This all raises another, more important, point. Despite the SP's piece of electoral success, they have a limited scope of activity - mostly Melbourne. Neither the ISO nor SAlt (nor the other, smaller groups outside the Alliance) run in elections, and their membership is limited to a smal number of capital cities.

By contrast, the Socialist Alliance has multiple branches in capital cities across the country, as well as branches in places like Newcastle, Geelong, Wollongong, Armidale, Cairns, Lismore, Taree, and so on (as well as at-large members dotted across the country-side where there are no branches - yet), giving it the broadest reach of any of the socialist organisations, and the greatest opportunity to profile alternative politics.

Nor is it an homogenous organisation, with a set-in-stone program, despite the inactivity of many affiliates, and the leading role played by the Democratic Socialist Perspective. It remains open to individual socialists and activists (who make up a majority of its membership) and other socialist organisations to join and play a role in organising and building the a united socialist voice. And these factors in turn have brought Socialist Alliance more notoriety in the media and elsewhere. Lesson? The more united we are, the more people listen.

Both the SP and SAlt were initially invited to join the Socialist Alliance, but declined and continue to organise in parallel, despite the advantages that socialist unity might bring. Furthermore, like SAlt and the ISO above, the SP also neglects in its paper to mention that there is any other socialist organisation running in the elections. By contrast, the Socialist Alliance has traditionally avoided running in the same seats as other socialist candidates in order to create good will (and avoid confrontation) pursuant of building a larger socialist alliance, and Green Left Weekly makes a point of profiling all socialist candidates running, not only those in the Socialist Alliance.

The Socialist Alliance remains as the only socialist organisation with national scope, and, in contradistinction to the aforementioned groups, is indeed an "alliance" of people and groups, which all of those above are invited to join, and play a part in building a united, effective socialist voice in this country as an alternative to all the capitalist dross and terra-cide of the major parties and the political ambivalence of the Greens.

Workers in Australia need a party of their own, not a dozen toy revolutionary outfits, all with the perfect program. Despite it's relative electoral weakness compared to the Greens, the Socialist Alliance is at least trying to lay the foundations for such a party.

The wombats appeal to all the groups on the socialist left (and individuals, at that) to get over your petty differences (you have more in common than not), and unite in a single socialist alliance that will be worthy of the name, and can take socialism back from the fringe into the mainstream, into the unions, into the parliaments and streets, and into the 21st Century and beyond. As a wise old bearded German once said: "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."

* In addendum, we understand that the organisation Solidarity, a composite of splits from the ISO and SAlt, as well as some newer student activists, is calling simply for a vote for the ALP, while in a wonderful piece of sheltered hypocrisy, the Communist Party is trying to set up a new "Communist Alliance" for the elections - as if there were no socialist options open already...

APEC: Why the Stop Bush protest was such a victory

The wombats have been asked to post this contribution to a discussion taking place in the aftermath of the successful 10,000-15,000 strong anti-APEC "Stop Bush" protests held in Sydney last week, from Socialist Alliance members Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge, both of whom were involved in the Stop Bush Coalition which planned the protest. The detail of the debate is in the piece below, and so needs no repeating, but other groups' reports of the rally can be found here, and here.

Why the Stop Bush/ Make Howard History protest was a success

By Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge

Socialist Alliance

Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
By Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge
Socialist Alliance

The success of the Stop Bush protest on September 8 during APEC was not only a victory for the progressive movements, it revealed that the mass action tactics being advanced by the DSP/Resistance and the Socialist Alliance and others throughout the debates among the Stop Bush Coalition over how to organise this particular protest proved correct.

From the outset, since the Asia Pacific International Solidarity Conference in 2005, we argued that the visit of George Bush to Sydney for APEC would be the key mobilising draw card given the US-led role in Iraq and Afghanistan. We argued that despite how hated John Howard is, he would not pull the same attention.

Given that it was apparent for about a year that APEC would be close to an election, most people (rightly or wrongly) would be more interested in just voting him out.

We also argued that focusing on APEC as a summit protest would not work not only because APEC is not a significant trade organisation, even for the capitalists, but also because the post-Seattle anti-globalisation movement had, in all significant respects, become the anti-war movement in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and beyond.

Focus on Bush

The focus on Bush was disputed among the left: Solidarity and the International Socialist Organisation (caucusing with each other) were unconvinced, as was Socialist Alternative at the outset.

A Solidarity position paper sent to the Stop the War Coalition organising list on May 4 stated: "The biggest possible protest will be achieved by politically building our actions as an opportunity to mobilise against the Howard government's agenda (including its neo-liberal agenda for the region) to help kick them from office and build stronger movements in the process."

However, most were convinced that having a focus on APEC would not be a strong drawcard.

Solidarity, along with the ISO, until the last minute, argued that Howard had to be the protest's main focus.

Their reasoning was that: as Australia was hosting APEC; as Australian imperialism is increasing its militarisation of the Asia Pacific region; and as it cements an even closer alliance with US, having a focus on Howard would help build a movement to throw the Coalition out of office. While we agreed with the political critique of Australia's imperialist role in the region, we disagreed that the sentiment against Australia's role in the region, and the more abstract question of its alliance with the US, was enough to bring people out into the streets during APEC.

While the organised section of the anti-war movement has dwindled in Australia since 2004, with the invasion anniversary events shrinking to some 800 people in Sydney this year, we judged that the anti-war sentiment could be mobilised onto the streets when Bush was in Sydney. This was confirmed when US vice-president Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Sydney in February. We had just two weeks to organise a response, and more than 500 people turned up to one protest, defying the police crack down, and about 150 to another the next day.

The following paragraphs are Solidarity's position (largely supported by the ISO throughout the debates) from their May position paper, a position its members were arguing right up until the protest on September 8.

"Within Stop Bush 07 committee, there has been a perspective that focussing on Bush, 'world's number one terrorist', and doing promotional work for this demonstration will bring large numbers of people and re-invigorate the anti war movement. This is demonstrative of a tendency [they mean Socialist Alliance] that has held back Stop the War Coalition since the February 2003 rallies - the idea that there is a big antiwar 'sentiment' in society that can be brought into action simply by promoting some particular rally."

But this is exactly what happened on September 8, and Solidarity is not honest enough to admit that they were wrong.

Solidarity continued:

"By itself Bush being here won't build big demonstrations. It will of course be a particularly significant focus and give poignancy to any demonstration such as we saw when Cheney was in town."

"But for the movement to be built and bigger numbers won to the importance of street demonstrations, Stop the War cannot fold into logistics for "stopping Bush", but must redouble its efforts to creating domestic political issues out of the international situation - linking the war to prominent local concerns of the day such as Workchoices ..."

Civil rights attacks

The 10,000-15,000 peaceful protest in Sydney proved Solidarity's perspective wrong. But rather than let facts get in the way, they are now arguing that it was their focus on the excluded persons' list that brought the massive crowd onto the streets. That despicable fear campaign by the state would have helped make people angry about the security overkill, but it did not bring people into the streets.

If anything, the lightening rod that made people decide to come out was the extreme lengths to which the state was prepared to go to keep people away, and to stop people from entering certain parts of the city - the security overkill - which the Chasers' stunt so well sent up. When the barricades went up, the water cannons, the snipers, the mobile police units, and the excluded people list came out, people were rightly enraged.

But being angry doesn't necessarily mean that will take action. The Stop Bush Coalition's emphasis on the need for these protests to be peaceful to draw in the largest numbers of people, and to show up the violence of Bush and Howard and the police state - put largely by DSP member Alex Bainbridge, media spokesperson for the Coalition - had a huge impact on people deciding to come out on the day. We know that because so many people, not members, have told us.

Relating to the unions

Solidarity agreed, rightly, that it was important to involve more groups - in particular climate change groups and the unions. But they were only prepared to work with those who shared their overall political perspective.

They paid lip service, at best, to wanting to work with the unions: the fact that the couple of unions which did decide to support the Stop Bush protests, the Maritime Union of Australia and the Fire Brigades Employees Union, stressed that they would only do so if the rally was peaceful was lost on Solidarity. And it was largely us, and ISO member Jim Casey from the Fire Brigades Employees Union, who did most of the work to get union support.

UnionsNSW had, early on this year, met and decided not to allow its union affiliates to support the Stop Bush Coalition protest, on the pretext that it did not want union flags to be mixed up with "protestor violence" as that would jeopardise Labor's chances of being reelected. This was how the left union, the CFMEU, explained it to one of the protest organisers. When it looked like the protest was growing, AFTINET decided to organise a stationary "protest" in Hyde Park, on the Friday, an opportunity for unions to be seen to be doing something about APEC.

While it was always clear that the Labor state government was preparing for a huge security operation for APEC, just how big that was to be was revealed with the new police powers laws being leaked to the media, and then all the equipment and numbers of police being assigned.

The militarisation of Sydney for APEC was clearly going to scare a lot of people away from joining the protest. But Solidarity, along with the ISO and some anarchists, were opposed to the Stop Bush Coalition declaring that the protest would be peaceful from the start. For them, this had pacifist connotations, and would send the wrong signal that the protestors were not defiant, or militant, enough!

While they continued with this ultra-left posturing right up until the very last minute, it did not receive majority support from non-aligned activists in the Stop Bush Coalition meetings.

Ultra left posturing

Solidarity and their anarchist friends scored a pyrrhic victory at the 500-strong convergence meeting the night before the protest when Ian Rintoul (a leader of Solidarity) put a counter motion to the first part of a motion being moved by the majority of the tactical committee about the march route.

This first part of the tactical committee's motion (moved in the name of Alex Bainbridge (Socialist Alliance), Anna Samson (Stop the War Coalition), Damien Lawson (Greens), Diane Fields (Socialist Alternative), Paddy Gibson (Solidarity) and Paul Garrett (MUA) was:

"That we confirm the planned march route for tomorrow's rally will be from Town Hall, down Park Street to Hyde Park North".

Solidarity's counter motion was: "That we reject the prohibition of demonstrations in the declared zone and declare that we will march to the police lines to assert our right to protest and our opposition to APEC, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to their nuclear agenda and to Workchoices and the attack on workers rights."

Solidarity's motion won 273 to 221, largely with the help of the Socialist Party, Workers Power, ISO, Alliance for Civil Disobedience Coordination, Latin America Solidarity Network - from Melbourne. From Sydney, Mutiny, Flare in the Void, and some others also supported it.

Ian Rintoul, at the time, admitted his motion would not actually change the march route. He knew that the Stop Bush Coalition had been informed by the NSW police that they would be lining the march route and that given the huge mobilisation of police, there would no chance of breaking through police lines. But he, and others, insisted that it was the "attitude" of the motion that was different.

Solidarity's motion was a posture, designed to make out that they were the "militants". This is despite their consistent refusal to take any serious responsibility for the overall organisation of the protest, a product of their lack of political confidence in the overall shape of the protest as supported by a majority at every Stop Bush Coalition meeting.

(Solidarity's lack of confidence in the rally and its political focus was confirmed again on the Saturday afternoon when two of their members admitted that they'd only expected 3000 people to show up. The Stop Bush Coalition had been publicly saying it had expected 5000 or more.)

The rest of the tactical committee's motion, which was unanimously adopted, was:

"That we plan a sit-down (or die-in) in the middle of the march

"That we endorse the list of planned speakers (overleaf)

"That we all on all groups and individuals to respect the unity and diversity of the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest."

The tactical committee's motion had been discussed and moved by a majority of the tactical committee, although a member of Solidarity had implied on the Stop Bush organising list that the sit-down motion was his idea.

Having lost the overall political debate about tactics, Solidarity, and others, are now trying to scandalise the DSP, in particular, for not respecting a "democratic decision" of the convergence meeting to sit-down at the police lines.

This is untrue. As already mentioned, a lot of people did sit down, some many times, and a lot didn't (some because the ground was wet).

The biggest sin, apparently, was that Alex didn't announce that there would be sit-in from the platform!

After the first bracket of speakers, Alex went to the corner of George and Park Streets to organise to get a mobile sound system there for the sit-down and the middle bracket of speakers. But getting any sound to that point was difficult given the police obstruction and size of the march. In any case, the unions led the march off, and everyone starting moving, although a section at the back of the march remained at that corner.

The MUA and others organised a longish sit-down at the front of the march. Others organised their own - to make a statement that the city belonged to us, not the cops. The inadequate sound system meant that a lot of people with megaphones, including Alex, and Paul and Warren from the MUA, and the union secretary from Geelong (also a Socialist Alliance member), urged people to sit down.

The criticism that the motion's "politics of defiance" and our rejection of the exclusion zone was not put from the platform is also absurd. The Stop Bush Coalition, from the beginning, has stressed that it did not accept the special police powers and the exclusion zone (organising public meetings around this very theme, and constantly putting this line through its media work). This political line was not only put at the rally by the co-chairs, it was also put by most, if not all, of the speakers.

The criticism that the motion was to march to the police lines and this didn't happen is bizarre. The rally was already at police lines before the march had even started to move!

Paul (MUA), Paddy (Solidarity) and Alex were at the corner of Park and George Streets and agreed that a sit-down would happen when the front of the march reached the second set of lights. Paddy agreed with this course of action. Alex announced it over the megaphone as the rally marched off down Park Street.

We were at the police lines - we couldn't have gone any closer without trying to bust through them. But is this what Solidarity wanted to do?

The questions that Solidarity (and the ISO) should be asked include:

Why did they want a clash with the police?

How would that have advanced the confidence of the movement?

If they had decided to have a clash, it would have only have fed into the police operation, and it certainly would have helped John Howard in his much hoped-for post-APEC electoral boost.

The fact that the majority who came to the protest denied Howard his much-needed APEC electoral boost with our determination to carry out a peaceful protest in the face of huge provocation.

This shows that the mass action approach which the DSP, Resistance and Socialist Alliance had argued for in the Stop Bush Coalition for almost a year, was correct. It allowed the Coalition to win a section of the union movement, the Greens and other non-aligned movement activists to play a big role in making this protest a success. This is also in a context in which the Sydney anti-war movement coalition, Walk Against War, had been split by the ALP after the Iraq invasion.

Mass action approach

The feeling on the streets on September 8 was electric and defiant - but apparently not enough for Solidarity and a section of the anarchists whose long faces stood out from the crowd.

They argued that their motion was different because it conveyed "the politics of defiance"! They seemed to completely miss the fact that people who came to the rally were very consciously being defiant.

Solidarity's argument is the argument of those who wish to separate themselves out - the so-called "militant minority" - from other working people.

They believe, wrongly, that they have to show everyone else how to think and behave politically, and that this is "leadership". In fact, the real leadership was shown by those who took up the challenges of organising a protest in difficult circumstances, who did the work instead of only turning up to meetings to criticise and point score, and who were prepared to discuss with people who did not always share their opinions the often tricky tactical decisions. Real leadership was shown by those who knew the movement would gain confidence from having pulled off a huge rally.

Trying to scandalise the DSP, now, for the success of the protests back fires badly on Solidarity (and the ISO).

The success of the Stop Bush protest was that it managed, under very difficult circumstances, to bring out a slice of that pre-war rally in February 2003.

The strategy followed by the DSP/Resistance and Socialist Alliance was one of mass action: that is, to build a broad united front around concrete demands. It is a general strategy, there is no rule book to follow, and certain political realities dictate certain choices.

This is a vastly more effective strategy than trying to separate out a "militant" minority from the rest of us.

The mass action approach derives from our understanding of how change comes about, through the self consciousness and self-organisation of the working class. Our tactics should be geared to drawing in the mass of workers into active struggle and not tactics that drive those workers out of struggle and help the ruling class strengthen its ideological influence in the working class.

.

Russia finds eco-friendly way to massacre millions

The news today brought a huge wave of relief to the Wombats - finally, the danger of a Nuclear Winter has passed. After years of testing - particularly on Chechen civilians, the elderly, pregnant and ill - Russia has announced that it has just tested the world's biggest "vacuum bomb", of comparable magnitude in blowing stuff (and people) up to a nuclear weapon.

The name is a wonderful little piece of warmongering, elitist, spin - redolent of, perhaps, hoovering up the mess on the floor, those inconvenient unsightly crumbs (and people) that might embarass you if a neighbour sees them lying (or bleeding) on the carpet. The true nature of the "vacuum" bomb, described prosaically as "the bomb which has no match in the world" is slightly less tasteful.

It's also known as a "fuel-air explosive" or "gas bomb", and Russia made quite effective use of one of them on the Chechen capital Grozny during Moscow's long and bloody wars of extermination in the 1990's. Issuing a warning to the Chechen capital to evacuate, the Russian military then proceeded to drop one of these nice, clean, devices onto the city, killing thousands.

The bomb works as follows: an initial explosive charge bursts the main container open at a predetermined height in order to allow the fuel to disperse in a cloud, mixing with oxygen, and becoming highly combustible. Then, a second charge ignites that cloud, creating an enormous fireball, large enough to engulf whole buildings, or blocks, depending on the size. Imagine Dresden, but with only one or two bombs. Very humane.

But at least it's not a nuclear weapon. Rest assured, dear friends, the military world is as concerned as the rest of us about protecting the environment. As the report from Alexander Rukshin, deputy head of Russia's armed force chief of staff, points out:

"At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one."

So - no uranium. Must be ok then... The options laid out for humanity by Rosa Luxemburg all those years ago have never been starker: socialism or barbarism.

New nation-wide indigenous leadership body formed!

A new coalition of Aboriginal leaders from around the country formed a couple of weeks ago, and has released its first public statement, according to the National Indigenous Times article (reproduced below) A decade under Howard has been a living nightmare, says new black leadership group.

The new (but as-yet unnamed) group includes

• Pat Turner - former senior public servant, Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the NT
• Olga Havnen - ACOSS and ANTaR, Northern Lands Council, Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the NT
• Naomi Mayers - CEO Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service
• Dennis Eggington - WA Aboriginal Legal Service
• Sam Watson - Murri academic, activist and Socialist Alliance Queensland senate candidate
  
• Bob Weatherall - FAIRA
• Michael Mansell - Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, long-time activist and member of Aboriginal Provisional Government
  
• Michael Williams - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland
  
• Gracelyn Smallwood - Aboriginal health expert, political and human rights activist from North Queensland
• Nicole Watson - Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney
• Larissa Behrendt - Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney, Chairperson of National Indigenous Television
  
• Bradley Foster - community leader from North Queensland

PHOTO: TOP L-R: Pat Turner, Olga Havnen, Naomi Mayers, Dennis Eggington; MIDDLE, L-R: Sam Watson, Bob Weatherall, Michael Mansell, Michael Williams; BOTTOM, L-R: Gracelyn Smallwood, Nicole Watson, Larissa Behrendt and Bradley Foster.

This comes at a crucial time for indigenous Australia after a decade of fierce attacks from the Howard Government: the abolition of ATSIC, the undermining of Native Title, the invasion of indigenous lands held under Land Rights, the continuing deaths in custody and police racism, the return of assimilation and paternalism, the cuts in funding to essential aboriginal services, the ongoing denial of justice to the stolen generation, the stolen wages of generations and the refusal to say sorry.

All this 40 years after the referendum which overwhelmingly showed the support of non-indigenous Australians for a change in the treatment of Australia's first people. Yet what has changed? Not a lot - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are still massively over-represented in prison, still die 17 years earlier than the rest of the population, still suffer systematised diiscrimination, and are still denied the substance of a sovereignty never ceded.

Both Labor and Liberal have promised the world, and failed. Or worse, lied and manouevered, and tried to condemn indigenous Australia to the dust-bin of history. At the UNSW Indigenous Legal Centre's National Forum on July 20, two sentiments was repeatedly expressed - that both the major parties have failed; and that the re-invasion of the Northern Territory needs to be to the Indigenous rights movement what WorkChoices has been for the union movement - a catalyst to action.

On Friday August 31, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy set up in Victoria Park in Sydney again, and the same night politics in the Pub packed the Gaelic Club to the rafters (the Wombats counted over 130 people) in a discussion on the fight for indigenous rights. ANTaR, Oxfam, the Greens, the Socialist Alliance, ReconciliACTION, the newly re-formed "Women Against Wik", and many more groups are getting ready to take the fight to the next level.

But the leadership has got to come from the indigenous community. It's time.

It's time to get more than angry - it's time to get active!

A decade under Howard has been a living nightmare, says new black leadership group
National Indigenous Times
Thursday, 23 August 2007

By Chris Graham

NATIONAL, August 31, 2007: A new coalition of Aboriginal leaders from around the nation has released its first public statement since forming a fortnight ago.

And the group, which has yet to adopt a formal name, has come out swinging, issuing a release that is written in the vein that the group intends to continue fighting… with plenty of aggression.

Describing the past decade under the Howard government as “a nightmare” for Aboriginal people, the group attacks both the Liberal and Labor parties for creating policies which “blame the victims”.

The group includes former senior public servant Pat Turner, Olga Havnen (ACOSS and ANTaR), Naomi Mayers (CEO, Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service), Dennis Eggington (WA Aboriginal Legal Service), Sam Watson (Murri academic and activist), Bob Weatherall (FAIRA), Michael Mansell (Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre), Michael Williams , Gracelyn Smallwood (North Queensland), Nicole Watson and Larissa Behrendt (both Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University Technology Sydney) and Bradley Foster (community leader from North Queensland).

It formed a fortnight ago in response to the federal government's 'emergency intervention' into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

“A decade under John Howard has seen native title made harder to get with his 'bucket loads of extinguishment' legislation,” the statement reads.

“The elected body ATSIC was sacked; the Reconciliation Council dumped; paternalistic funding conditions imposed, such as being asked to wash hands and attend school to get Commonwealth monies.

“The Northern Territory Land Rights Act has been amended to increase access for mining and now vulnerable Aboriginal communities in the NT are invaded by troops.

“It has been a nightmare decade for Aboriginal people.

“We have been reduced to beggars in our own country.”

The group accused the Howard government of selective listening when it came to hearing Indigenous people.

“Any dissenting voice is ignored by a Government that selects "yes" people to promote its own agenda, and the select few are tragically held out as the voice of Aborigines,” the statement read.

The group accused both the Coalition and the ALP of 'blaming the victims' and launched a scathing attack on the NT intervention plans, which are endorsed by both major parties.

“The Howard and Rudd response to policies that have kept families and whole communities destitute is to blame the victim.

“Those victims, long denied a real chance to make a go of it, will now have their income stolen and must go to the local store with food vouchers: those vouchers will have a list of purchasable items on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

“The balance of family incomes will never be seen by the "beneficiaries" because the bureaucracy keeps it to pay "other" costs.

“This demeaning approach will create greater dependency and strip the last form of human dignity from those subjected to a destructive policy.

“The increased police presence in community areas with "dob-in desks" is designed to humiliate, not rehabilitate.

“Portraying all Aborigines as paedophiles and drunks, and taking land away, undermines the remaining virtue we have: our dignity.

“We cannot watch developments in silence any longer. Our people deserve better.”

The group says the new coalition will seek to “represent the unrepresented Aboriginal communities” from around the nation and it promises to never align with any political party.

“We believe we bring experience and sincerity to the national political landscape.

“In our quest, we will not favour any political party as we see Aboriginal issues as being above party politics. Our single aim is to improve the lot of our people.

“We see our culture and people as an asset, not a liability.

“If we cannot persuade governments, then we will take our case to the court of public opinion - to the Australian people, to give us a chance to create a better future.”

Also, readers who haven't done so already should check this out, and sign it.

Socialist Alliance media release on ALP IR policy

The trade union movement can only rely on itself

“The Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard has ceased to be a party that in any serious way can be said to represent the interests of working people in Australia”, Socialist Alliance National Coordinator Dick Nichols said today.

“Those in the union movement who don’t see this, simply don’t want to see it”, he added.

Nichols said that it was “clear as day” that the union movement could only rely on its own strength, and called on all states to follow the Victorian Trades Hall example and call a massive independent union protest against Work Choices on September 26.

“The more the union movement has simply placed its hope in an ALP election victory and worked for it through its marginal seats campaign, the more it has allowed the Rudd-Gillard federal leadership to carry on abandoning pro-union and pro-worker policies”, he stressed.

“Now we have the disgusting spectacle, in the Rudd-Gillard ‘Policy Implementation Plan’ for industrial relations, of Labor maintaining Work Choices’ restrictions on union right of entry into the work place. This simply means that unions will not be able to do their job—bosses will be able to intimidate their employees, run unhealthy and unsafe working sites, and pay below agreed rates.

“No wonder both the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group have hailed the ALP’s plan ‘as an important step forward’—it entrenches the employer’s power in the workplace.”

Nichols said that anyone who doubted this should read the August 28 Open Letter to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Victoria, which describes that union’s experience of workers in tears because they were forced to sign Australian Workplace Agreements that sacrificed their rights and conditions.

Nichols concluded with the comment that “the union movement has poured millions of members’ dollars into ALP coffers to help its re-election, and for this it has received a series of kicks in the head. It is money down the drain.

“It is now time for unionists to call on their leaders for a serious re-evaluation of the policy of using their money to support an anti-union, anti-worker party.”

INFORMATION: Dick Nichols (02 8011 4108)

George Galloway letter to Respect National Council

Via Mac Uaid's blog, the Wombats have come upon an interesting item from England, republished below. It is the text of a letter from George Galloway to the Respect coalition's National Council outlining what he regards to be some of the problems and criticisms. A fair bit of discussion is already beginning to circulate around the arguments made.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

The Shadwell by-election victory has stunned the New Labour establishment, turned the tide in Tower Hamlets and opened up the real possibility of winning two parliamentary seats in East London which, together with the potential gain in Birmingham, would make us the most successful left-wing party in British history.
New Labour’s decision to try to rehabilitate Michael Keith – the former leader of Tower Hamlets council who we first defeated last year – raised the stakes in this election enormously. A victory for him in a ward where we had all three councillors would have thrown us into a grave crisis. Instead, it is Labour that is suffering shattering demoralisation and we are enjoying a post-Shadwell bounce.
Ealing Southall, on the other hand, just a few weeks before, marked the lowest point in Respect’s three-year history. The failure to harvest even the vote we had secured in just one ward of the constituency in the local elections 12 months earlier was a sharp reminder that what goes up can come down and should shatter any complacency about the London elections next May.
It is clear to everyone, if we are honest, that Respect is not punching its weight in British politics and has not fulfilled its potential either in terms of votes consistently gained, members recruited or fighting funds raised.
The primary reasons for this are not objective circumstances, but internal problems of our own making.
The conditions for Respect to grow strongly obtain in just the same way as they did when we first launched the organisation and had our historic breakthrough in 2005.
Anyone who was at the 1000-strong street celebration after the victory in Shadwell will attest that the idea of Respect remains very much alive and, as Jim Fitzpatrick MP said in Tribune, it’s clear that ‘the Iraq war hasn’t gone away’.
Michael Lavalette’s advancing position in Preston shows what can be done with imaginative and dedicated work. In Bristol, around Jerry Hicks, and in Sheffield around Maxine Bowler, we have placed ourselves in pole position to enter the council chamber. But to achieve that we must recognise our serious internal weaknesses which are becoming more apparent and which threaten to derail the whole project.

Membership
Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline. Whole areas of the country are effectively moribund as far as Respect activity is concerned. In some weeks there is not a single Respect activity anywhere in the country advertised in our media. No systematic effort has been able to be mounted - in fact, a major effort had to be launched to get back to the levels of membership we had, despite electoral successes, widespread publicity and the continuing absence of any serious rival on the left. This has left a small core of activists to shoulder burden after burden without much in the way of support from the centre, leading to exhaustion and enervation.

Fundraising
This is all but non-existent. We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another. And with the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies. None of the Respect staff appears to have been tasked with either membership or fundraising responsibilities. Or if they have it isn’t working. There is a deep-seated culture of amateurism and irresponsibility on the question of money. Activities are not properly budgeted and even where budgets are set they are not adhered to. Take, for example, the Fighting Unions Conference which was full to the rafters but still managed to lose £5000. The intervention at Pride, where we gave away merchandise rather than sold it, lost £2000.
It is a moot point whether the turn to building Fighting Unions which occupied the National Office for four months was the correct prioritisation of slender resources, following our breakthroughs at the local elections last year. What is not moot is that mismanagement turned an event which ought to have been a money-spinner into a money-loser.
Equally the Pride intervention, which occupied a great deal of the organisation’s time (I personally was telephoned three times to be asked if I would make it, and others report similar pressure) can be compared to the total lack of a presence at the Barking Mela last weekend - the biggest in Europe - or the minimal campaigning presence at the recent London Latin American festival. Again, while it is arguable that Pride was the priority, what is not arguable is that fundraising at it should have been included in the plan.
Further, what ought to have been the unalloyed success of the Pride intervention was seriously marred. Instead of a simple encouragement for members to attend – with a logical emphasis on LGBT members and young people – several members in elected office were subjected to a high-handed “instruction” from the national office to take part. It appeared to them to be some kind of misplaced test of their commitment to the equality programme of the organisation. This is frankly absurd. There are LGBT people who don’t feel comfortable being on a float on a parade. It would be a serious mistake to read off someone’s commitment to equality from their willingness to be dancing on the back of a truck on the Pride parade.
Having done that and spent £2,000 there was no effort to publicise our intervention externally by ensuring that all the relevant media and organisations were made aware that we were the only political party to have a float on the parade.

Staffing

This is a mystery to me and others. People pop up as staff members in jobs which have not been advertised, for which there have been no interviews and whose job descriptions are unclear and certainly unpublished. One staff member was appointed at a meeting at which that same staff member was present, making it obviously embarrassing for anyone to query whether they were the right person for the job, whether they could be afforded or why the job should go to them rather than someone else. This unnecessarily poor management leads to tensions, even animosity and the suspicion that staff are recruited for their political opinions on internal matters rather than on a proper basis. Sometimes the conduct of some staff buttresses this suspicion. For example, at the selection meeting for our Shadwell candidate two members of staff were openly proselytising for one candidate and against another - including heckling - and even after the decision had been taken. This undoubtedly contributed to the exceedingly poor involvement of the wider membership in the subsequent election. No paid member of staff attended the Shadwell victory celebrations and when I asked one of them if they would be attending I was told ‘no, I will be watching the football’. This was noticed widely by the activists who were present at the celebration and commented upon. It is again bad management to allow such culture and practices to proliferate.

Internal relations

There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy and has been the ruin of many a left-wing group before us. This began with Salma Yaqoob, once one of our star turns, promoted on virtually every platform, and who is responsible for some of the greatest election victories (and near misses) during our era.
Now she has been airbrushed from our history at just the time when she is becoming a regular feature on the national media and her impact on the politics of Britain’s second city has never been higher.
There appears to be no plan to rescue her from this perdition, indeed every sign that her internal exile is a fixture. This is intolerable and must end now. Whatever personal differences may exist between leading members the rest of us cannot allow Respect to be hobbled in this way. We are not over-endowed with national figures.

Decision making and implementation

There is a marked tendency for decisions made at the national council or avenues signposted for exploration to be left to wither on the vine if they are not deemed to meet priorities (which themselves are not agreed). For example, there was a very useful discussion at the last national council on what initiatives we should explore following Brown’s succession and the then anticipated failure of the McDonnell campaign to get out of the starting gate. Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government. None of these have been seriously followed up. The overall emphasis – that the departure of Blair and the failure of the Labour left’s strategy opened up possibilities for us both to build Respect directly and to place it at the centre of a progressive realignment – was allowed to run into the ground.

Building the organisation

We must be much more systematic in building Respect’s profile in the wider arenas our members are active in. There is no question that struggles such as Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, anti-racist campaigns, activity around trade union disputes and so on are the lifeblood of a progressive political force such as ourselves. But the great lesson of the Stop the War movement in 2003 was that these movements do not automatically give rise to a force that can punch through on the political scene. That requires – as it did when we founded Respect – patient, detailed work and single-mindedness about ensuring that Respect grows out of the wider radical milieu.
Two of our outstanding members are at the helm of Defend Council Housing; many of our members are active in it in their localities. Yet as an organisation we have done far too little to raise the Respect banner inside the campaign and, to put it bluntly, cash in on the work our activists have put in and the turmoil the campaign has caused among disaffected Labour councillors and Labour-supporting tenants and trade unionists.
At the successful Stop the War demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester in September last year the nationally produced propaganda was for the Fighting Unions conference. It was thanks only to the Manchester comrades that we had a tabloid promoting Respect as a political formation. It was again thanks to the Manchester comrades that we had such a publication for the protest outside Brown’s coronation.
In every area of activity we need to encourage in our members a focus on recruitment, fundraising, establishing the profile of our candidates and unashamedly promoting Respect as the critical force in the wider reconstitution of the progressive and socialist movement.

Internal selections

Then there is the practice of the creation of false dichotomies between candidates for internal elections. Neither Oliur Rahman nor Abjul Miah nor Haroon Miah is Karl Liebknecht. And Sultana Begum is not Rosa Luxemburg. Yet in internal election contests these four contested in Tower Hamlets the divisions between them were deliberately and artificially exaggerated and members mobilised about “principles” which never were. This has led to deep and lasting divisions which show no signs of healing in the current atmosphere. So we must make a new atmosphere. If we are to rally to win the prize of a seat on the GLA, and three members of parliament, we must start right now.
Relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low and this must be addressed. I have proposals to make which are not aimed at a change of political line, still less an attack on any organisation or section within Respect. They are aimed at placing us on an election war-footing, closing the chasm which has been caused to develop between leading members, together with an emergency fundraising and membership drive to facilitate our forthcoming electoral challenges. Business as usual will not do and everyone in their heart knows this.
The crossroads at which we now stand can take us either down the Shadwell route or the road to Southall.
Instead of three MPs and a presence on the GLA we could have no MPs and no one on the GLA by this time next year. A few honest moments thoughts should suffice to calibrate where that would leave us. Oblivion.
I cannot imagine that any member of the National Council wants to see us arrive at the destination where now lies the wreck of left-wing politics in Scotland and so I hope that these proposals will be considered with the best interests of the Respect project uppermost in our minds.

A way forward

It is abundantly clear for a variety of reasons that the leadership team must be strengthened and all talents mustered. I therefore propose the creation of a new high-powered elections committee whose task would be to rapidly evaluate our election strengths and weaknesses, proposed target seats, supervise the selection of candidates - national and local - and to spearhead a national membership and fundraising drive. This committee must comprise the leading members of Respect, including Salma, Linda Smith, Yvonne Ridley, Abjol Miah (as the leader of our 11 councillors in the central election battleground of Tower Hamlets), me, Lindsey German, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack as well as the National Secretary.
I also propose a crucial new post of National Organiser, preferably full-time, whose task would be the aforementioned re-organisation and re-energising of the key clusters of Respect support and the encouragement of members everywhere. This position would sit alongside the position of National Secretary. It must be advertised and subject to competitive interview overseen by the elections committee.
While this document may seem stark in black and white it reflects a widespread feeling which has surfaced in various ways - including at the National Council - and it is clear that the status quo, or minor tinkering, are not options. Time is short, renovation is urgently required and we must start the process now.
George Galloway MP