Labor for child protection but urges inquiry into high indigenous removals
The claim that Bill Shorten suggested indigenous children should be left in danger is wrong.
The claim that Bill Shorten suggested indigenous children should be left in danger is wrong (“Shorten needs to listen to voices that protect children”, 11/6). In any discussion about child protection, the rights of the child are absolutely paramount. If a child is in danger or at risk in any way, protecting that child from harm is the number one priority.
The point Labor has made is simply that the rate of removal is too high. Disturbingly, the number of children in out-of-home care has doubled in the decade since the Apology.
But the bigger point is this: First Nations people — families, communities, organisations, academics and service providers — all need to be involved if we are to find a lasting solution to this very difficult problem.
Too often in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs we see solutions imposed from above without properly involving the very people who will be impacted. It’s never worked. If we are to address the high rates of child removal and ensure children are safe, we need to improve family and community safety, and build the resilience of indigenous families. It means looking at the reasons underpinning child removal rates — and identifying why there has been such an increase.
More civilised online
The Ramsay Centre should view the rejection of their Western civilisation course by the hand-wringers at ANU as an opportunity rather than a setback.
While the humanities in our public universities have become ideological dead ends, in the real world the people’s appetite for history, literature and so on remains well catered for by an outpouring of popular works unencumbered by sophistic “theory”. The Ramsay Centre should take advantage of this and use its resources to join the growing ranks of MOOCs — massive open online courses — that are doing so much to subvert the academies’ privileged position, and establish an online Western civilisation course, which would have the twin advantages of reaching a far wider audience at much less cost.
Let’s not sanitise war
It is very sad to see the investigation into supposed soldier abuses in Afghanistan (“Afghan ‘civilian’ deaths probed”, 11/6). What is sadder is our attempt to sanitise war. Sadder still — if found to be the case — is where battle fatigue becomes the reason for undesirable outcomes. These are chain of command issues beyond the soldier, and deeper still are issues with recruitment and retention strategies.
David Irvine will surely evaluate these broader architectural considerations to bring to light the causes of the alleged violent, insubordinate or unauthorised engagement. It is good practice that the Australian Defence Force reflects on all its engagements, providing that the best outcomes are rigorously pursued.
However, it is not appropriate to attempt to sanitise war and attribute miscalculated loss of life in combat to individual soldiers to bear as branded war criminals. This is a heavy and heinous burden to attempt to transfer and reflects an ungrateful if not ignorant nation.
The leaking of confidential reports into allegations of misconduct by Australian Special Forces divisions in Afghanistan is a matter of concern since it pre-empts the findings of such investigations. The public may reasonably conclude there are political and ideological forces at work.
The issue is one of contemporary significance. The relevance of post World War I and World War II military protocols is arguably open to re-examination in an era in which our military forces are asked to fight in theatres of war in which enemies and allies alike fight without such constraints. We should welcome such a debate within our community.
Brendan Nelson is right to remind us of the terrible task we ask our elite divisions to execute. While the standards set by the Nuremberg trials are fully recognised, Australians have always stood by the men who have fought their battles.
Publicity is trumps
I take exception to your editorial (“Tomorrow’s moment of truth”, 11/6) comment to the effect that meeting Kim Jong-un was something that previous US presidents had been unable to do. Previous presidents made conscious decisions not to meet him and Kim Jong-il because they knew it would simply give oxygen to a cruel, rogue regime. Trump, as we know, doesn’t care about such things. He sees a publicity opportunity and that’s all that matters.