Thanks Kathleen, I appreciate your response ...and indeed invite many more.
I will try to address your concerns one by one. I have taken your suggestion
regarding my title on board ..I should have deleted the whole thing because in
this instance I am acting as a parent of a child with a disability and as an
advocate of many other children with disabilities and their families who I meet
through my working life. Thanks for pointing that out.
"Without taking any position on whether or not a national voice for
parents, families and carers is needed (although I note that the Carer's
Association already exists), I want to raise a concern about the idea that you
could do this without alignment with any 'cultural perspective on family
structure' as you suggest in #4 of your aims".
Firstly, what concerns me about the representation of families as it exists,
is that it falls within community body and service agency structures which
advocate for the needs of a particular group. What I am proposing is not a
"service" model, but an advocacy "voice" that can be utilised by ANY group who
needs it. We are ALL families, carers or parents, no matter what our cultural
heritage, our particular family circumstance or ability. That is the one
characteristic that binds us all. Working from a democratic principle, our
strenth is in our numbers. WE all have the same right to access the sort of
health, education and employment we NEED to live a safe and active life, free
from poverty, neglect or violence.
The position you are putting sounds awfully like a 'treat everyone as
equal' approach to social justice, that is outdated (although it remain prevalent
in the cultural pysche of the nation). It misses the critical distinction between
equality and equity, where attention must be paid to equality of outcomes, not
just inputs or treatment.
I am not proposing a "treat every as equal" approach at all, but a "support
everyone with a strong advocacy voiceto help them acquire whatever their
NEED" approach. The most disadvantaged in our communities are usually the ones
with the weakest representations, and the least social capital to acquire
it. This needs to be ammended. What I am proposing is true equity i.e providing
everyone with a voice to acquire what they NEED to be on an equal footing with
their fellow citizens. I recognise entirely, that Needs will be different for
every person or group, depending on their very specific cultural, social,
economic, physical or environmental characteristics. The "Union" we are
proposing is a voice for ALL, driven by NEED and not by
faction. I believe factionalisation merely lessens our potential to acquire a
strong public voice, and consequently lessens the impact we could potentially
have in influencing policy.
Whoever makes up the power structure of such a national voice will, by
default, operate by their cultural perspectives of family structure without even
consciously or deliberately trying to do this. It is highly possible that those
who are most likely to take up positions in the power structure will be members
of the dominant culture. Therefore, despite wanting to be broad and inclusive,
without intending it the organisation is highly likely to be aligned with
dominant culture perspectives on family structure, and, more broadly, dominant
culture values. What accountability would there be to other groups who make up
this incredibly diverse group of constituents - parents, families and
carers?
I acknowledge your concerns regarding the structure of the "Union" we
propose. I specifically stress the word UNION ...because it is not intended to be
an "organisational" structure at all. It is meant to be a representative voice
for all people who need one to lend them strength and support, as a good UNION is
supposed to do. To fight for the rights of its members. YOur concerns in this
instance are the same concerns we are very mindful of. What this body of people
will finally look like is yet to be determined, and will no doubt take much
thought and discussion across a wide range of people and groups, beginning with
the inaugural gathering in Melbourne on the 8th. We are welcoming the views and
voices of all.
Having worked a great deal in Indigenous contexts as a non-Indigenous
person, by invitation of Indigenous people (it is wise to use a capital 'I' by
the way), I have witnessed time and again how institutional racism is practiced
by hard-working, justice-seeking and committed people from the dominant culture
(or other non-Indigenous cultures), as they have not considered how their own
cultural values are embedded in everything they do. They have never looked at
what their own cultural values represent, keeping the focus on the 'other' rather
than the self and who/what one represents - it is a description that fits for me
and learning this self-reflection/critique is something I have had to learn to do
as I learned from my own mistakes and developed my understanding of social
justice.
One of the many reasons I believe a national voice for people is needed is
because of the treatment of the Indigenous (notice the capital I) community. IN
our community "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders" is the preferred
reference. There has been a steady withdrawal of funds from Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander education over the last 10 years, together with inappropriate and
unsupported programming thrust upon communities without the systemic support
needed, all to the detriment of the communities. I have already discussed this
concept of a National Union of people with the Elders of this community and taken
their advice on board, as I will continue to do throughout its development. We
have to start somewhere, and I believe this is
as good a place as any. That the provision of basic needs and services across
the whole spectrum of our diverse communities could be so poorly supported by
Government Policy is proof enough for me that we need a strong voice that will
give our people, whoever they are, a fighting chance to get what they NEED. WE
are not waving one banner higher than another, or holding one groups needs above
that of anothers. We are merely offering to combine our collective forces to
better advantage ALL.
Although some families might, based on my experience I would be incredibly
surprised if Indigenous families would be excited about joining such an
organisation. What could it offer them that they cannot seek through a number
of other peak bodies that represent the interests, needs and aspirations of
Indigenous peoples across the country? How would it treat Indigenous people's
cultural perspectives of what constitutes family and its relationship to
community? What could they expect that would be different from most other
mainstream peak bodies who are also caught up in institutational racism (meaning
the patterns of advantage and disadvantage that are sustained through structures
such
as laws, policies and practices embedded within our governance, social, health,
legal (etc) institutions, whether directly or indirectly, that exclude or
discriminate against one group over another)?
In answer to this Kathleen, I hasten to add that Indigenous peoples across
the country also have entirely different needs. For example, the challenges
faced by a young fairskin Urban Aboriginal person in Brisbane are entirely
different to those faced by a young person living within their traditional
culture in a remote area. What about a young Aboriginal person in CARE? without
a community network of support? Who is representing them? IN the words of the
young Yugumbeh woman who heads the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student
Council at my school, who is under the care of the Department herself, " I have
no power. Every decision made in my life is made by people I do not know, and who
do not know me. I want a chance to make my own decisions and
to have my own voice heard above others" That is what this Union aspires to
offer thatr is not currently offered in any other forum. A voice of the
"voiceless"
In short, there is much to consider before making claims about what is
possible, for whom and how. I would hope that anyone who decided to engage with
this idea would take these considerations seriously.
I couldnt agree more! We are not making claims that anything is possible. WE
are however, saying that there are enormous numbers of people who for one reason
or another are not adequately represented, if they are represented at all. What
we want to see is that wrong made right. We want to see equitable division of
public funds. We want to see justice in service provision and delivery. I want
to see,among other things, all children valued in this society through positive
action regardless of their cultural, social, physical, environmental or economic
circumstances. That is my voice. The voices of others will be different depending
on their own needs. That is why we need MANY VOICES.
I hope I have answered some of your questions for you Kathleen. Thanks again
for asking them.
Jenny Shale
Parent, Carer and Family member
Ph 07 3808 3951
RE: [youthgas] Cal
Reply to this message
