Another extravagantly pious & condescending article from the infinitely superior & omniscient Graham Ring. How unusual. How lucky Australia is, to have his wisdom placed before it.

There is one thing and one thing wrong with this or any Indigenous affairs policy, the policy itself.

Just like multiculturism it has pushed these people into a group and what for votes nothing more.

When the government start treating them as australian then thing will change and change quickly.

www.tapp.org.au

Kevin Rudd has been very careful thus far to say NOTHING unattractive at all ! This is going to be a very hard Act to maintain all the way to election day! In a normal distribution of voter opinions on this issue, knock off the outliers, which might be indigenous people themselves on the one hand, and radical right wing zealots on the other, one would be hardpressed to find many Australians who are not both highly supportive of our aboriginal people, and hugely frustrated at their inability to grasp the rope and pull themselves out of the cess-pit they claim they are in. Living in the wrong place with limited access to health services, education and employment wears a bit thin about three generations down the track .......
See also my comments under the Indigenous Health item.

so, you read a paper from a politician and say, "it seems fatuous, fuzzy, and familiar." mate, if you listen to ducks, expect quacking.

instead of being sardonic, how about 3oo words on "what should be done?"

to be fair, no one cares what you think- you're not the minister. in an oligarchy, only the minister's opinion matters.

Graham, I think it very disappointing that on what I consider one of the most important moral issues facing Australia- the lives that our First Australians seem condemned to live - your article only gets four comments, and apart from DRW these offer little to the debate.

But I think the fault does lie partly in your original article. It is easy to criticise a draft document, but the crucial thing is what kind of policy would (1) Actually address the real issues and (2) Gain public support (because without that it is just white man dreaming)

I don’t think these are opposing positions. Australians are in general both practical and good natured people. What Australians find most frustrating is that despite all the goodwill, all the money, and the Reconciliation Walk across Sydney Harbour Bridge, the situation of the First Australians has not changed and in fact seems to be getting worse.

To me the major figure addressing these issues in the public domain is Noel Pearson (see his article in the Ausralian, 21-22 April, 2007)and what I would really like to see is you engaging in his debate on combining Rights with Responsibilities and seeing the “victim” mentality as, despite being a reality, something that has to be overcome. As an Australian with a European ancestry and, I hope a moral sensitivity, what I would love to see is a vigorous debate by Indigenous people (who from my experiene are also full of goodwill)on the part Governments could play in changing these deplorable conditions. Over to you! Posted by Ian Keese Contact:(review@isaa.org.au)

Ian K is right, but to characterise the Ring article as 'criticism' is being too tolerant. It is simply ridicule. Why should we bother trying to engage with a smartarse who places himself so far above normal human debate, and who infers bad faith on the part of those who lack his apparent intelligence or simply disagree with him?