Why not just get straight to the point and say that the real problem in the "reconciliation agenda" is that it's not about what is in the Constitutional preamble or the law, but about bridging the differences between Aboriginal and Western culture. Westerners have traditionally been more interested in things like intellectual development, while Aboriginals have been interested in tribal life, which is essentially about survival and anything other than human development. These two attitudes are worlds apart. Until people start addressing this division (which is pretty huge), the whole reconciliation agenda is a bit of a joke and just spawns competing academics to square off against each other.

I saw Difference of Opinion last night and thought that the speakers were just following down their same well-worn ideological paths. One of the speakers made some sense when he said that Aboriginals need to help themselves and essentially work with like-minded individuals to get practical outcomes.

There is an added complication that uneducated Aboriginals who may want to reconcile with white society don't, because they know they'll feel humiliated; while whites don't want to have anything to do with Aboriginals because they see them as uncultured losers. The only way to overcome this is for black and white people to sit down together as equals and work things out. This is the nub of reconcilaition. No one on the show had the guts to say this. As long as the academics continue to control the agenda and skate around the real solutions to the issue, we'll solve none of today's problems.

If you read Howard's address to the Sydney Institute, nothing in his agenda has changed. There is no death-bed conversion, not even a positive gesture in the hope of clawing back some lost electoral ground. Howard wants to use the Preamble to further his goal of mainstreaming traditional communities. I haven't got space here, but see my blog http://mike-servethepeople/2007/10/howards-constitutional-reconciliation.html if you're interested. Beware geeks bearing rifts, I say!

I'd be surprised if anyone can honesty view this move by Howard without any skepticism. It's clearly a move to distract voters from the dismal political failure of the NT intervention. He's using this symbolic gesture to create the appearance that he considers the issue important, while because the preamble is merely symbolic he isn't risking the support of the big land holders and users.

"In Howard speak, this means he will not touch the right of his government to legally discriminate against a group of people on the basis of race."

If Howard did take such steps, it would be the end of all the indigenous welfare (eg AbStudy) and could potentially leave Aboriginals much worse off.

The intervention by the government is the single most distressing thing i have ever seen in the Howard Reign.

it is not the 1950's, this is the same philosiphy that caused the stolen generation to occur:

"they cant look after themselves so we better look after them"

It is deplorable that in 2007 mainstream Australia allows this to occur.

In any other country in the world this 'intervention' would be viewed with disgust and with contempt. Indigenous peoples need to protest not here in Australia, but overseas just like the tibetans and the falon gong. If worldwide attention was captured the Aussie government would face serious consequences and be labelled hipocrites in regards to human rights etc.

No person or authority has the right to control another person's finances, intervene with the raising of their children and the like on the cop out pretext that it is to save the younger generation from molestation and the like.

I put it to you all that it is the socioeconomics and location more than the race that has anything to do with any problems in the communities. So to use race as a pretext and the determining factor is an absolute disgrace. Havent we grown up at all as a nation in the last 50 years?

This is a crime and all Australians should be ashamed of what our government is doing.

Realist says Australia should be ashamed at what the government is doing.
I thought the real shame would have been in letting the toxic conditions in which women and children are dreadfully abused ,go on.
And the activists who know all about the conditions are prepared to let the people suffer so they can wallow in symbolism to suit their own egos.
How about THEY apologise to all those suffering community members and the kids who grow up abused, uneducated and untrained for any future life.
That is where the apologies should come from.

"Difference of Opinion" last night was the last straw for me. I will no longer support any government policies that continue to keep these people either back in the stone age or separate from the rest of the country. If they wish to continue their mythical "traditional lifestyle" they must do it without taxpayer's money.

The only one of them who had anything productive to add was Sue Gordon. She was the only one who had actual experience on the ground.

The other three were just fakes. All on the government tit, earning HUGE salaries and contribute nothing positive. All Tom Calma could do is quote chapter and verse from irrelevant obscure UN statements. The UN has nothing to do with this issue. Why are our taxes paying this man?

Lotitja O'Donohue She is the only person I have ever encountered who thinks having an honorary doctorate entitles her to laud it over others as though she has actually completed a Ph.D, when she hasn't. She is just a bitter hateful Old Woman with a low IQ. The number of lies and fantasies she spun last night was just tragic.

Olga is just another hugely paid woman addicted to victimhood.

It is time we told these people, either join us or you're on your own.