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justice, that is outdated (although it remain prevalent in the cultural pysche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
