Canberra’s Kim Sattler and the Australia Day fracas

johnboy 28 January 2012 30

In the Canberra Times the Secretary of Unions ACT, Kim Sattler, is denying she was the one who riled up the Tent Embassy with news from the Prime Minister’s Office that Tony Abbott was in the nearby lobby restaurant.

When contacted by the Sunday Canberra Times this morning, Ms Sattler said she had been at the tent embassy but she was not the go between.

“I heard it from the crowd,’’ she said.

This is a bit tricky as The Age reports that Prime Minister Gillard is saying it was Ms Sattler.

Furthermore the tent embassy leaders being interviewed on ABC News24 this afternoon have been saying they were set up for the ugly incident by one Kim Sattler.

Aboriginal woman Barbara Shaw, who told the crowd of Tony Abbott’s location on Australia Day, confirmed to The Sunday Age that she believed the intermediary was Ms Sattler.

“Now I know who she is and what her position [is], it’s really disappointing,” she said.

More on this as it unfolds.

Julia Gillard’s press sec Tony Hodges has already resigned for his seemingly minor part in the mess.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to Canberra’s Kim Sattler and the Australia Day fracas
Filter
Order
Deref Deref 8:01 am 01 Feb 12

EvanJames said :

cranky said :

Is’nt ‘inciting a riot” a crime any more?

Evidently more so than actually being IN a riot. Why is everyone running around blaming Abbott, Sattler, the PM staffer who resigned… what about the bloody rioters? Why can’t Abbott suggest nuking the “embassy” from orbit without being attacked by a mob? Why are we accepting that it’s OK for these people to riot because “someone upset them”?

Bingo. That.

Skyring Skyring 2:56 am 01 Feb 12

mareva said :

A guy (dunno who) said on Friday at the press conference, “Recognise Aboriginal sovereignty, or p*ss off out of our country.”

God bless this gentleman and all of those with enough knowledge of Australia’s illegal acquisition to recognise the truth in his statement.

Several things may be said about this piece of glib nonsense. First off, there are about twenty million Australians who are going to follow neither suggested course of action. Second, there is no court that could possibly enforce either. The High Court is as high as it gets in Australia, and they don’t follow the Aboriginal sovereignty line. In Mabo, they recognised that native title pre-existed European settlement, but was specifically extinguished by government action. In other words, the actions of the crown in taking Aboriginal land were legal.

No United Nations court of appeal is going to find that ultimate ownership and dominion over the land resides anywhere but in the Commonwealth of Australia, a respected member of the UN and one of the oldest nations on the planet. (And here I use the word “nation” to mean a state recognised by the UN, whether member or not. Switzerland, for example. Not a micronation such as the Hutt River Province or an indigenous tribal entity.)

Thirdly, this declaration of ownership of “our country” needs examination. Given that no person now alive was living at the time Great Britain claimed the land, how did such “ownership” of an entire nation occur? Was there some sort of transfer at death? Does the fact of being born in Australia confer ownership in part, and if so, wouldn’t that give equal parts to everyone born here, not just those claiming Aboriginality? Is there some genetic mechanism?

Likewise sovereignty. Assuming that sovereignty resided in the inhabitants prior to European settlement, then how was it transferred to people who were not alive at that point?

The answer is that ultimate ownership of the land (i.e. sovereignty) must rest in some organised group whose existence transcends the lifespan of individuals, and transfer only occurs through specific acts, such as the establishment of the Commonwealth or through invasion and conquest such as that occurring in 1066 when the Normans assumed the national government of England.

I ask, where is this organised group that maintained indigenous government of Australia from 1788 to the present day, albeit pushed back by the invading Europeans? Clearly it is not the group calling itself the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, which is only 40 years old.

I note that the indigenous government of the Torres Strait Islands is an example of such a group. Low key, to be sure, but clearly identifiable as controlling the organisation of the people and the identification and ownership of the land through boundary cairns marking where the farm of one family ends and that of another begins. But they never claimed or controlled the entire continental landmass. There is no equivalent identifiable Aboriginal government or confederation of governments.

The chap at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy claiming ownership of Australia is speaking nonsense.

dungfungus dungfungus 10:18 pm 31 Jan 12

mareva said :

Why are we even talking about this. This is what’s wrong with this country. That we get sidetracked by these small pot-shot level issues, ignoring the great big fat elephant in the room – Aboriginal sovereignty. Kim Sattler, unions, Tony Abbott, tip-offs, WHO CARES. This is completely irrelevant to the future of this country.

A guy (dunno who) said on Friday at the press conference, “Recognise Aboriginal sovereignty, or p*ss off out of our country.”

God bless this gentleman and all of those with enough knowledge of Australia’s illegal acquisition to recognise the truth in his statement.

You might wish to clarify what you mean by Aboriginal sovereignty because as I understand it, a sovereign state is a singular, absolute state such as Australia. In other words, if Aboriginals wish to have a sovereign state they will have to find somewhere else because I don’t think 99% of Australians would be happy to hand it over to them. A better solution would be for the few Aboriginals that are fanatical about this lost cause to “p*ss off out of our country” and forget this notion that Australia was illegally acquired because it was going to be discovered and settled eventually and we all should count our blessings that the British got here first.

mareva mareva 7:15 pm 31 Jan 12

Why are we even talking about this. This is what’s wrong with this country. That we get sidetracked by these small pot-shot level issues, ignoring the great big fat elephant in the room – Aboriginal sovereignty. Kim Sattler, unions, Tony Abbott, tip-offs, WHO CARES. This is completely irrelevant to the future of this country.

A guy (dunno who) said on Friday at the press conference, “Recognise Aboriginal sovereignty, or p*ss off out of our country.”

God bless this gentleman and all of those with enough knowledge of Australia’s illegal acquisition to recognise the truth in his statement.

Skyring Skyring 4:11 pm 30 Jan 12

BrassRazoo said :

BTW, where do we stand with a full report into the Grech Affair?

Nice try, Kevin.

BrassRazoo BrassRazoo 4:06 pm 30 Jan 12

BTW, where do we stand with a full report into the Grech Affair?

Skyring Skyring 4:05 pm 30 Jan 12

EvanJames said :

Why can’t Abbott suggest nuking the “embassy” from orbit?

Steady on there. You’ll get the Yanks all excited.

Besides, who would notice the difference?

EvanJames EvanJames 3:43 pm 30 Jan 12

cranky said :

Is’nt ‘inciting a riot” a crime any more?

Evidently more so than actually being IN a riot. Why is everyone running around blaming Abbott, Sattler, the PM staffer who resigned… what about the bloody rioters? Why can’t Abbott suggest nuking the “embassy” from orbit without being attacked by a mob? Why are we accepting that it’s OK for these people to riot because “someone upset them”?

dungfungus dungfungus 3:29 pm 30 Jan 12

For those interested in what Tony Abbott said after the still unidentified reporter ambushed him, the link is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-27/abbotts-embassy-comments/3796304

Abbott’s response was very gracious and there was nothing in it remotely suggesting the tent embassy should be dispensed with. ABC 666 this morning accepted a phone call unchallenged from a female who said it was Abbott’s remarks that started the trouble. Clearly both that caller and the host on ABC 666 haven’t heard Abbott’s response or if they have they are compounding an untruth about what actually was said. It is a very shamefull act to slime someone this way.

Skyring Skyring 1:54 pm 30 Jan 12

Deref said :

Otherwise known as Sattler’s Battlers.

Given the revelation of Ms Sattler’s role, her public comments immediately after the demiriot are illuminating:

“I was present at this incident. A very peaceful event was going on next door when word arrived that Abbott had called for the dismantling if the Tent Embassy! What a provocative and dangerous statement to make on such a day! The PM was not in danger from the crowd – they were angry with TonyAbbott. The police decided to move Gillard and Abbott out of the venue together! Tony Abbott put the PM in danger!”

Given that we know that Ms Sattler was the messenger, we thus have her message: “Abbott had called for the dismantling of the Tent Embassy!”

Well, no. He didn’t say that at all. His actual remarks, as would have been reported to Julia Gillard and Tony Hodge, were relatively mild. Gillard must have known what Abbot had actually said, and she didn’t see the situation, a few metres from the tent embassy, as dangerous. Nor did Tony Hodge advise her of the match he’d just flicked into the petrol.

“What a provocative and dangerous statement to make on such a day!” Mrs Sattler happily continues. Indeed.

poetix poetix 1:45 pm 30 Jan 12

2604 said :

poetix said :

2604 said :

Gee, union officials are fantastic people.

Thank God my profession isn’t unionised, at all.

Yes, all lawyers are beyond reproach. Praise the Lord!

As you’d know if you’d succeeded in becoming one, lawyers are subject to professional standards legislation and can be thrown out of the profession for not being fit and proper persons to continue practising.

Remind me, what professional or ethical standards are union officials subject to?

I did succeed in becoming a lawyer, I just didn’t stay one for very long, although my name is still on a list somewhere, I suppose, as I have never done anything remotely naughty. You should be more careful about getting your facts wrong like that!

And you can act within professional standards and still be a less than wonderful human being, if my understanding is correct.

Five thousand years ago, I worked for a union, and there were no written standards that I can remember for non-elected organisers. I don’t know what the case is today for elected or non-elected union officials. Perhaps Unions ACT could help you?

I am not defending the conduct alleged here, but your sarcastic comment about all union officials was just silly.

davo101 davo101 9:24 am 30 Jan 12

2604 said :

Remind me, what professional or ethical standards are union officials subject to?

Sorry, since when has union official been a profession?

2604 2604 7:04 am 30 Jan 12

poetix said :

2604 said :

Gee, union officials are fantastic people.

Thank God my profession isn’t unionised, at all.

Yes, all lawyers are beyond reproach. Praise the Lord!

As you’d know if you’d succeeded in becoming one, lawyers are subject to professional standards legislation and can be thrown out of the profession for not being fit and proper persons to continue practising.

Remind me, what professional or ethical standards are union officials subject to?

grass grass 5:59 am 30 Jan 12

This thread alone is demonstrating why Ms Sattler needs to resign forthwith. More crap, apparently well deserved in this case, being thrown at unions.

Amanda Hugankis Amanda Hugankis 10:39 pm 29 Jan 12

2604 said :

Gee, union officials are fantastic people.

Thank God my profession isn’t unionised, at all.

Praise the lord indeed, those unions never did nuthin’ good for no one! Darn evil unions … damn them all to hell.

dungfungus dungfungus 7:50 pm 29 Jan 12

MERC600 said :

Well everyone is rightly gettin into a big huff n puff over the apparent actions of Kim Sattler , but the fact is the embassy is supported by the ACT Government, the ACT trade unions, and the ACT supreme court (by an earlier court injunction ). And of course backed to the hilt by the Canberra Times, and Jack, and the ABC.

So nuthin more to do than wonder how strong the Sri Lanken cricket team is. And expect more people to get their 15 mins of fame this time next year.

Is ActewAGL one of their sponsors too? Apart from the Green Barbara Shaw all the others would be Labor supporters wouldn’t they?

RichRick RichRick 7:41 pm 29 Jan 12

Let’s hope all sides now realise things can backfire when you get caught with your pants down!

cranky cranky 6:35 pm 29 Jan 12

Is’nt ‘inciting a riot” a crime any more?

Thumper Thumper 5:56 pm 29 Jan 12

Whatever side of politics you sit on, it doesn’t get much grubbier than this little stunt.

I’m sure that Gillard is even appalled by it all.

Interesting to see how it plays out over the next few weeks.

2604 2604 5:22 pm 29 Jan 12

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

Gee, union officials are fantastic people.

Thank God my profession isn’t unionised, at all.

No unions at the glory hole, huh?

You’d better ask Craig Thomson about all that. You know, the ALP member accused of using funds contributed by low-paid union members to pay for prostitutes?

Keep digging, Jim.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site