# data[].attributes.body
http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/History_1_AUSTRALIA.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History

"The history of Aboriginal dispossession is central to understanding contemporary Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations." Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

The history of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations, while complex, has had the following phases:

The 60,000+ years before the arrival of Europeans

Initial invasion and colonisation (1788 to 1890)

Protection and segregation (1890s to the 1950s)

Assimilation (1940s to the 1960s)

Integration, self-determination and self-management (1967 to mid 1990s)

Reconciliation (1991 to the present)

Effects

For Aboriginal people living today, their experience of living in Australian society with this historical legacy has many significant impacts on their lives. Three of many impacts with implications for service delivery are:

The emotional impact on Aboriginal people of their experiences and their families experiences

The barriers to gaining living skills (for example being separated from their family)

The lack of trust of institutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Working with Indigenous Australians Website

# data[].attributes.body
https://lms.latrobe.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=6603672

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important Notices

Classes are now being delivered online and in-person, in accordance with the Government's COVIDSafe protocols. For the most up to date information, please check your LMS subject site, email and timetable.

All staff and students have responsibilities to ensure their work and study environments are COVIDSafe. An overview for students returning to campus is available via the Student FAQ.

We encourage students to continue to use the , and to collaborate online. If you have any further questions in relation to COVID-19 please visit our frequently updated

Principles to keep COVIDSafe:

Don't attend in-person classes if you are unwell

Practice good hygiene

Comply with health directions

Academic Integrity

At La Trobe, academic integrity is taken very seriously. The University is responsible for awarding credit for honestly conducted work. You also have responsibilities and understanding these will help you to succeed in your studies.

Statement of Student Responsibility

By submitting any piece of work you agree that:

1. The work is your own or was produced as part of a group assessment task to which you contributed original work

2. You have not previously submitted all or part of this work for assessment in any subject, unless the subject coordinator for the current subject (or your research supervisor, if applicable) has given you written permission to reuse specific material and you have correctly referenced the material taken from your own earlier work.

3. You have read and agreed to be bound by the Statutes, Regulations and Policies of the University relating to Academic Integrity available at https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/admin/academic-integrity/academic-integrity-module ; and

4. You may be subject to student discipline processes in the event of an act of academic misconduct by you including an act of plagiarism or cheating.

Students further agree that all submitted written work may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com. All submitted written work will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. Use of the Turnitin.com service is subject to the Usage Policy posted on the Turnitin.com site.
In case your submission contains personally identifiable information you should be aware that your submission will be stored in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important Notices Classes are now being delivered online and in-person, in accordance with the Government's COVIDSafe protocols. For the most up to date information, please check your LMS subject site, email and timetable. All staff and students have responsibilities to ensure their work and study environments are COVIDSafe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The existence of a dispute tells us more than its adjudication is ever likely to. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

The Redfern Park Speech, given by former Australian prime minister Paul Keating on December 10 1992, was a speech worth fighting for. It captured harsh truths about Australian history; it used those as a basis for building trust with Indigenous Australians; and it marked a turning-point for non-Indigenous understandings about Aboriginal reconciliation.

But a particular line of interest in the speech is the tension that has arisen between Keating and his former speechwriter Don Watson. This tension essentially dates to the publication of Watson's memoir Recollections of a Bleeding Heart (discussed below).

Thinking about the dispute with reference to the manuscript - which I have been researching for a longer article in Overland - is an opportunity to reflect on the speech itself. It points to reasons why Watson and Keating have something worth arguing about - why the speech has acquired such lasting resonance in a country that often prefers to forget.

Keating proclaimed the Redfern Park Speech just over a year into his term as prime minister. He chose to do it in the inner-city Sydney suburb of Redfern, which for decades had been the focal point for Aboriginal cultures in Australia's largest city.

As you might sense from audio and video (see videos below) of the speech, it was a rowdy audience.

Keating was speaking to the converted in one sense, but in another sense he was speaking to a certain unconvertible contingent - some of the Koori locals, whose experience was so bitter that nothing a white prime minister said could mollify them.

As he tried to, though, Keating named the parties to Aboriginal reconciliation in a way that has characterised the grammar of non-Indigenous discussion of it - by supporters, sceptics and apathetic citizens alike - ever since:

1) a "we" that incorporates all non-Indigenous citizens, no matter how recent or ancient their family histories of immigration to Australia.

2) a "they" that incorporates all Indigenous Australians.

In Australia's public discourse since 1992, to switch pronouns and their entailments away from this frame of reference effectively signals a move away from discussing reconciliation as such.

The video recordings of this speech remind us that Keating's performance was strikingly "writerly," rather than performed for charismatic effect. That marks a significant contrast with his fluency, command, and sheer destructive glee as an improvising speaker - an aspect the recent Kerry O'Brien interview series brought out strongly.

When we look at the manuscript below, we see a document that Watson typed and printed out for the prime minister in landscape-oriented pages, using large type, sans serif, line-and-a-half spaced.

Numbers 1-22 are handwritten near the top of each page. The same hand, Keating's, has scrawled changes to very few words.

PJK MSp

Much more common, though, are annotations that mark up timing, emphasis, and phrase coherence. These non-verbal annotations show a speaker striving to interpret and make the most of his manuscript before delivery, but not so much to edit and alter it.

They are the sorts of annotations a musician might make in preparing a score. They suggest a powerful sense of fidelity to the manuscript.

In 2002 Watson published Recollections of a Bleeding Heart, an insider memoir on the running and then the decline and fall of Keating's government. It offers a fairly detailed historical background to this manuscript.

Keating's response to the book was hot anger. He quoted the Australian Labor Party's most revered speechwriter, Graham Freudenberg, who he claims remarked to him: "Broke the contract mate."

This Freudenberg quotation itself is of uncertain value as evidence. Whatever its status, Keating uses it to suggest either that former political staff should not reveal anything their former employers do not permit. That is, the ethical and professional compact should outlast the defined terms of the contract of employment.

Watson's essential counterclaim seems to be that he still is a writer - of books. When he stops writing for someone in particular, he still keeps on writing.

But the sharpest point of Keating's complaint was an intellectual property dispute. He insisted:

Watson was not the author of the [Redfern Park] speech. The sentiments of the speech, that is, the core of its authority and authorship, were mine.

So does that make Keating the author? Joel Deane and others agreed with this line, arguing the first rule of speechwriting is that "the words aren't yours".

Complicating the situation, Watson had already pleaded no contest. Prefacing a published collection of transcripts that includes this speech, Watson set out a very minimalist ethics of speechwriting:

There are no rules or guidelines, except the unwritten one: ownership resides in the speaker.

But is the speech's authorship in that sense really the contest here? It seems that we have a contest about the wordsmithing, about the creative work.

As a study in rhetoric, the most interesting aspect of Keating's remarks is the assertion that he was an integral part of the drafting team. He wants to be known as a fellow-techie, not merely some benign director who fed the running briefs to his staff - and certainly more than a show-pony performing the scripted lines.

There must be at least some truth to this view. To think it even matters, though, reveals how assumptions about creativity and conceptual design in political speeches rest with the writer not the performer.

Against such assumptions, speechwriters have traditionally received little attention from political history.

Ultimately, there is not enough evidence, nor any particular need, to find one or other party conclusively right or wrong on this matter of Keating versus Watson. The very existence of the dispute tells us more than its adjudication is ever likely to.

People who remember Keating fondly often cite his employment of Watson as evidence for their attitude. People who admire Watson generally count his work in Paul Keating's office as evidence for theirs.

This speech typically features somewhere near the top of the list in both conversations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keating's Redfern speech is still worth fighting over

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Redfern Park Speech, given by former Australian prime minister Paul Keating on December 10 1992, was a speech worth fighting for. It captured harsh truths about Australian history; it used those as a basis for building trust with Indigenous Australians; and it marked a turning-point for non-Indigenous understandings about Aboriginal reconciliation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kevin Rudd apologises to the Stolen Generation in 2008 - Daily Mail

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25608720

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Clean, Clad and Courteous" Revisited: A Review History of 200 Years of Aboriginal Education in New South Wales on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Richard J. Reynolds, "Clean, Clad and Courteous" Revisited: A Review History of 200 Years of Aboriginal Education in New South Wales, The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Winter, 2009), pp. 83-94