Chapter 71

The autumn rolled along quite smoothly. Rachel was back at the Gallery and, I think, looking ever-more critically at the art works there. She spent a lot of time in the Library, looking at images and reading old issues of art journals.

I'd been reading and one day I asked Sean about the 'Harvester judgement' of 1906 and why it hadn't applied to Aborigines.

"That's interesting," he remarked. "We had a Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration set up in 1903 to deal with industrial disputes. So, when the Sunshine Harvester Company had a dispute over the minimum wage, the workers' case was heard in a peaceful way by the chief judge, H B Higgins, instead of them relying on a big strike or individual bargaining with their employer.

"Higgins in his decision wrote that the standard for a 'fair and reasonable' wage must be 'the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being living in a civilised community.' So Australian workers got a basic wage based on the minimum needs of a family of five sufficient for proper food and clothing, rent and frugal comfort.

"But, clearly members of bands weren't part of a 'civilised community'. It would be interesting to take the issue to court now."

"Yet another place where the first Australians don't count."

"True, Patrick, true."

It took me two weeks to "clear" the digital backlog and another month for the hardcopies. Sean was right: the submissions easily fell into his categories. Unfortunately about half was clearly "no." Of the other half, most went for revision. Only a few were clearly ready for publication. However, I noticed that we had three subjects that got a good deal of attention.

First, what I thought of as "still-lost generations," the theft of Aboriginal children; second, the theft of land (the Noongar claim, for example); and third, treaty-breach elsewhere (the proposed pipelines in Canada).

I suggested to Sean that he run three "topic" issues and he thought it was a great notion. It was such a good notion that I now had several new chores: classifying, revising and ordering the articles for the three issues and suggesting someone notable to write an introductory essay for each issue. I immediately thought of John Pilger where the children were concerned.

The Noongar claim was finally agreed last July

Noongar people of Western Australia have received a formal, final offer of almost $1 billion, 320,000ha of land and an indigenous housing project, to resolve a long-running native title dispute over Perth and the state's southwest.

Premier Colin Barnett's offer to the South West Land and Sea Council yesterday is valued at an estimated $1.3bn across 12 years and requires the six claim groups representing more than 30,000 Noongars to drop their claim for native title rights, which had been the first to cover an entire capital city. The Barnett government plans, as part of the agreement, to make an act of parliament recognising the Noongar people as the traditional owners of the lands.

The Past, Present and Future Recognition Bill would be the first of its kind in Australia. – The Australian, July 6, 2013

Barnett's still Premier of Western Australia – maybe Sean could write to him.

The Canadian issue would require me to do research. I knew nothing about it outside of the three articles I'd just read. But it seemed that (as usual?) the European colonialists didn't thin k that treaties with indigenes meant anything.

Alberta groups registered to give "oral traditional evidence" include the Métis Nation of Alberta — Gunn Métis Local 55, the Samson Cree Nation, Michel First Nation and O'Chiese First Nation.

The Gunn Métis council, which represents people in the Lac Ste. Anne area, has said it needs to know more about the project's impact on traditional lands used for hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering.

Its representatives will speak Wednesday.

The remaining groups are scheduled to speak the following week, NEB spokeswoman Whitney Punchak says.

More sessions to gather oral evidence from aboriginal interveners will be held in British Columbia this fall in Chilliwack, Kamloops and Victoria. – Edmonton Journal, August 25, 2014

It was an interesting set of problems. I had no notion who might be available where the Canadian issue was concerned. While I was reading about the Canadian "First Nations," I came across

"The oral histories were used in an attempt to establish occupation and use of the disputed territory which is an essential requirement for aboriginal title. The trial judge refused to admit or gave no independent weight to these oral histories and then concluded that the appellants had not demonstrated the requisite degree of occupation for "ownership". Had the oral histories been correctly assessed, the conclusions on these issues of fact might have been very different."

in a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

It started me thinking. The US, Australia, Canada – all promulgators of democracy and equality – paid no heed to agreements or treaties with non-europeans. Shoving the natives around was the standard thing. And the Brits started that. And they started the Opium Wars in China and I-don't-know-what in Indo-Pakistan.

What was it that Marx had written? Something like the only real history was economic history.

When I got home, I told everything to Rachel. "Shake it off," she said.

"What?"

"You'll give yourself high blood pressure or migranes or an ulcer. You can't take it all to heart! You've got to let some things slide. There's a Schubert Lied about poor unhappy Atlas whose burden is the world of pain. Well, you're not Atlas. You don't need to pick up everything. When you're actually working you won't get personally involved with every client or case. You'd have a breakdown in no time at all."

"You're right. But it's all so sad. Look at Abbott! He actually said that Australia was uninhabited prior to 1788!"

"Getting angry and irritated won't help. And I'm sure nothing you say will teach him anything. Remember, he's sexist, anti-evolution, and doesn't believe in global warming, either."

"Yeah. An all-round winner."

"That's why he got elected, dear." Her phone rang. "Yes? ... yes? ... No, I don't think so ... Let me ask him ... It's Winnie. She has some visitors from the UK and wants to know whether we can join them. Not over formal. [I nodded.] He says, of course. No, 20:00 isn't too late. Private dining room at the Park Hyatt? Ooh, that's posh! Thank you ... Yes, we'll be there."

I looked at her. "Private room at the Park Hyatt? That's going to run two or three hundred each. I wonder what it's all about."

"We'll find out, won't we? I'm going to shower first."

"OK. I'll go and look at my snazzy wardrobe."

We left with an hour to drive to the hotel and try to locate a non-extortionate place to abandon the Lexus I'd bought Rachel as an anniversary gift – "retaliation" for "Mulju" [see Chapter 43]. I drove up Millers Point and under the approach to the Harbour Bridge on Hickson Road. The dozen spaces near the Hyatt were occupied so I just pulled in to the entry, opened the door for Rachel and handed a folded brick [= $20] to a young man in a uniform, saying "We'll be in the Private Dining Room with the Gallery folks."

"Yessir, I'll take care of it."

We went inside. Rachel said: "You're so smarmy! It's disgusting!"

"Yes. But it worked." I asked where the Private Dining Room was and we walked there. It was about 19:45, but I could see Winnie in the doorway. I got a hug and Rachel got a "hi."

"Do we get to find out what's up?" I asked.

"Of course. But it's both strange and complex. These are Gallery and Museum folks from the UK. One's from the Tate, one from Kelvingrove,..."

"Glasgow?" asked Rachel.