Latest news with #YothuYindiFoundation
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
We need to close the gap. But how? Some things need to happen first
There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
ABC News
09-05-2025
- General
- ABC News
Garma Festival ceremonial leader B Yunupiŋu dies after alleged violent attack
A revered Arnhem Land leader of quiet power and dignity, who fought for the rights of his Yolŋu people right into the last weeks of his life, has died aged 70. Note to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers: B Yunupiŋu's name and image are used here in accordance with the wishes of his family. Mr B Yunupiŋu was an elder of the renowned Gumatj clan on the Northern Territory's Gove Peninsula. He was also a board member of the Yothu Yindi Foundation (YYF) and a fixture at the annual Garma Festival, where he would lead ceremonies and greet visitors from across Australia, including successive Australian prime ministers. Mr B Yunupiŋu was also a holder of extensive Yolŋu cultural knowledge, a former musician, a rock-and-roll fan, and a brilliant pub storyteller with a ready chuckle and a grin. In a statement, Gumatj leader Djawa Yunupiŋu said his brother was "a strong and decent man who walked tall in all worlds". "Words cannot say how much he will be missed," he said. "He starts his journey now to be reunited with our fathers, mothers and kin, who wait for him now, on our sacred land. "He will be received by our ancestors with great respect and honour." YYF chief executive Denise Bowden described Mr B Yunupiŋu as a "softly spoken family man". "He had great love for his grandchildren — they meant the world to him. "They were the reason he was so passionate about education and schooling. "As a senior ceremonial leader for the Gumatj clan, he has been an intrinsic part of the Garma Festival throughout its history, the master of ceremonies for the nightly buŋgul." The Gumatj Corporation said Mr B Yunupiŋu "oversaw the ceremonies and like a rock, he was always present in the hosting of Prime Ministers and the conduct of important business". Mr B Yunupiŋu hailed from an important family dynasty in Arnhem Land. He was the brother of the clan's former leader, the late Yunupiŋu, and late former Yothu Yindi lead singer, Dr M Yunupiŋu. He was a founding member of the Gumatj Association, who said in a statement Mr B Yunupiŋu had led the clan's drive "to self-determination, economic development and prosperity in the modern world". "Mr Yunupiŋu had a deep love of his family and his land," the association said. "He was a man of loyalty and patient determination. "Schooled at Yirrkala and then Batchelor College, he was a friend to all. "He loved Creedence Clearwater Revival and country music, he was an expert hunter, and he never left his Gumatj homelands." Mr B Yunupiŋu was allegedly beaten in an attack at his home in the community of Gunyaŋara on April 19, after which he fell into a coma from which he would never wake. He died at Royal Darwin Hospital on the night of May 8, surrounded by dozens of Yolŋu family members and clan leaders who travelled from north-east Arnhem Land to farewell the beloved elder. The family has thanked hospital staff and "nurses of ICU who cared for him so carefully and enabled the final ceremonial rites to be performed". A 42-year-old relative has been charged with domestic violence offences over the incident and is due to face the Darwin Local Court on June 18. The NT Police Force said in a statement that an investigation into the incident remains ongoing. Mr B Yunupiŋu had been involved in the social and political affairs of his people up until the last weeks of his life, fighting for a better future for Yolŋu in north-east Arnhem Land. Most prominently, he was involved in the Gumatj's historic High Court victory against the Commonwealth in March, which sought restitution over a long-running land rights dispute in his region.
