I think Peter Tucker should have left off at: "One is that voters make their vote choice based on the few issues that dominate their thoughts on voting day."

The media and politicians squealing about "another Tampa" and the technical claptrap discussed by Peter Tucker don't know - or care - why the average Joe votes the way he does.

My biggest concern this election will be the nincampoop now squatting in my electrorate; right party, but a personal dud.

Interesting - Peter Tucker. But I am pretty amazed that anyone would think that Howard's action regarding the aborigines was ever intended as an election winner. At least - not in the sense that he thought it would win votes.
Still - it could win some - even lefties would acknowledge that Howard did a good thing, way back, on gun control. They might see this as a caring action - taking control of the aborigines for their own good, etc. Meanwhile his red-neck supporters will be happy about the police/military crackdown approach.

But - it shouldn't be an election-loser for Howard. It will reassure his backers, the mining companies, the nuclear lobby, (and his beloved George W Bush). - that Howard is staying on track with his agenda for them. In one swoop, Howard denigrates the entire aboriginal society, including the vocal anti-nuclear aborigines, while he quiettly guts the Aboriginal Land Rights Act - continuing his push for the nuclear industry and international waste dumping.

Howard knows that the two election things that matter are: fear and greed. He just works them both alternately - interest rates - border control- interest rates - terrorism and so on.....
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

ChristineMac

You can't continue dishonestly trying to scare people with such inaccurate nonsense about Howard's proposals and expect to retain any credibility yourself.

Exactly how is Howard "quietly gutting the Aboriginal Land Rights Act"?

The Brough proposals for changing the NT Land Rights Act do not amount to its gutting. Some aspects are retrograde, stupid, opportunistic - but they do not amount to "gutting", which implies killing or annihilating it.

Certainly taking temporary - 5 year - sub-leases (with provision for compensation to the owners for disturbance of the land) over the tiny proportion of Aboriginal land on which the remote towns are located to enable development of infrastructure does not amount to destruction or gutting of land rights.

Such inaccuracy and intemperate language brings you down to the same level as the worst of the Liberals/Nationals and the Hansonites with their dishoneswt scare campaigns about many things Indigenous.

You can't criticise them for manufacturing fear tactics and then do the same thing yourself and think that you can maintain any credibility.

Howard and Co has never directly gutted anything. He first opens the gate a little and attacks at a later date. He is now attempting to open the gate.

If he remains in power, the gutting will come later. His history has shown that he does not believe voters have to know before an election was his goals are.

Yes I do believe he does not support land rights for the Aboriginals. If I remember he fought hard to weaken it when he first came into power.

Mr. Howard has a long memory and does not like unfinished business.

I would also look at any other policy battles he lost in the last 11 years with care. He will be looking to make amends that will not be in most of our interests.

I suggest the action was in part motivated by the need for a bit of housekeeping prior to the election. True, it is not a vote winner at this stage, but if nothing was done there was the possibility of some drift away from the coalition on polling day. It doesn't take many 'small' drifts to add up to real numbers.

However it is still a long way to the election and Aceh-type photos of troops carrying infants to safety, fixing water pumps and making tea for happy little family units would be in the pipeline. Such front page photos, demonstrating as they would some hope for the future for indigenous people and relief for the greater population from worry about rioting activists, would bolster Howard's image as a strong, practical leader who is prepared to make tough decisions. As much as I don't like it, my fellow Australians adore a leader who is more dictatorial - even a bit of a tyrant - who can make decisions for them and relieve them of the bother of having to participate in politics.

There are other benefits for Howard. For instance, Howard has put a lot of effort into celebrating the military (as conservatives are wont to do) and busywork for them plus the windfall lift in pays that a bit of tourism brings, makes their voting block certain for the government.

Aside from any electoral advantage I sense that through incursions into 'tribal' land, Howard is also laying down some foundations for his pro-nuke backers who need a toehold somewhere.

I ernestly hope some good will come of the intervention, however it is up to the media and informed people to ensure that Howard's resolve is not lost.

I see the HREOC has not changed its attitudes, but is maintaining the sexist and feminist attitudes held by the previous Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

The term “women and children” is used a number of times in this article, but the tem is sexist and feminist, and designed to alienate men and separate them from their families and from their children.

This alienation and separation of men from families has been very successful, and nearly 25% of fathers presently in our society only see their children occasionally, or never see their children at all.

The idea that it is only aboriginal men that abuse their children is incorrect. The last double murder carried out in an aboriginal community has resulted in a woman being charged with the murder of a child and of another woman.

However “women and children” are not going to solve the problems in aboriginal communities. 50% of the children are boys who will grow up to be men, and the alienation of men from families will eventually lead to many more problems further down the track.

The experience in a number of negro communities in the US eventually resulted in programs to get people married. More married couples in the community helped to stabilise families and stabilise the community. So those programs were designed to bring men into families and into the community and not to alienate them.

But the feminist attitudes of organisations such as the HREOC will lead to men being alienated and removed from families. The attitudes of organisations such as the HREOC are a backward step.