The Forum > Article Comments > Indigenous Australians: the preamble is a start, but only a start > Comments
Indigenous Australians: the preamble is a start, but only a start : Comments
By Sean Brennan, published 15/10/2007Kevin Rudd has some ground to make up in the public debate on Indigenous Affairs.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by daggett, Monday, 15 October 2007 10:29:46 AM
| |
daggett, the choice is never between 'hitler' and 'prince charming'.
it's always a choice between pollie1 and pollie2. faced with this choice, and with just one vote, rational voters choose the pollie who will hurt them least, or benefit most. this requires a certain amount of nose-holding by most people, but it can't be helped while we live in a medieval (pseudo)monarchy. howard is not uniquely crooked, as you will discover after rudd is in power. the tools of struggle within the politician's guild are lies, deals, and bribes. they all must do it. ethical persons don't enter this profession, or don't stay, or achieve nothing against the standover gangs we dignify with 'party'. a better society is possible, but it needs a better quality of voter. the statement: "you get the government you deserve" is not a joke, it is the literal truth. oz is drifting into fascism. only a large group of ozzies becoming aware of what democracy is, and the need for it, can stop this drift. i don't see this happening soon, but some young people are dissatisfied with the current polity and so we may allow ourselves to hope for change. Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 15 October 2007 12:06:51 PM
| |
Sean, track backwards to where the reconciliation concept and you will discover Bob Hawke's promise for national land rights legislation.
Besides the blatantly obvious opportunism of Howard’s reconciliation back flip is clever ideological wedge that Howard has launched and for two specific for two targets, 1) one for Labor who don't want to return to why Keating lost (he was seen to favour blackfellas and Hanson delivered Howard government and 2) for the divide that exists between the old guard and the new neo-con Indigenous leadership. The Old guard are those who can tack back a few decades the new are those who various Labor state governments and Howard have chosen and anointed as 'new age' and less adversarial, less likely to speak about ‘rights’ being a precondition for any Service delivery or Community development, Policy development, etcetera. Don’t hold your breathe for an auction between Rudd and Howard on Indigenous policy - the deals have already been done behind closed doors with the anointed ones. Some have already urged that we support this new ‘settlement’ and “roll with it” to see if it gathers moss. Hopefulness aside, i think we know when we've been sold a pup. I for one think both political parties are happy to have it off the agenda in an election, as they have for the past 11 years. Now that’s bipartisanship for you! More like ‘reckon – silly –nation’ in action. Posted by Rainier, Monday, 15 October 2007 2:32:37 PM
| |
UNDER DEVELOPMENT and its extent in a developed nation with so much surplus... in a country that for years has boosted it's surplus as good economic policy is mortifying.
The terror, hardship and life lost in this countries indigenous history is comparable to the life lost in the history of any bloody war. We honor the rituals of war through the dead, yet not the humanitarian focus of indigenous events which is equally historically relevant. We are in denial of our past because to say SORRY or to "APOLOGISE" might (some fear)... COST MONEY. GADS... where do we get OFF? The thing that is even more abhoring is that whenever social issues are discussed it suddenly becomes a spatter labelled as left-sided socialism/s rather than "responsiblity". These abusive contradictions undermine our national humanity and has fettered the need to address the infrustructure and enterprising issues needed to address life-quality for indigenous people since white settlement. The whole political climate reminds me of the 17th century where John Lock refers to non-essential matters vs the apparent essenital matters in his essays concerning Human Understanding. ie: focus on non-essentials can not be seen as trival because for the individual even the non essentials ... it is unfair to expect her/him to temporise for forms sake something that deeply engages his/her conscience. Frankly Australia would gain much to revist the issues of Tolerance or Lockes Two Treaties of Government as in some ways I believe we are loosing the common ground for liberal unity and it is the civic wellbeing that suffers from the impact of this top-heavy political ignorance. http://www.miacat.com Posted by miacat, Monday, 15 October 2007 11:06:44 PM
| |
Rainier,
So where have the activists gone.? To Nambour? They certainly aren't in the news of late and I had great admiration for Yanner. I think the neo-cons are doing the best they can and I don't believe they have taken the 'thirty pieces of silver'. Look on the bright side though, you might get to help write part of our constitution. :-)...but somehow I suspect some of the words you'd use would not fit in all that well. When I first heard of the proposal, I was taken aback at the backflip, but pleasantly surprised and my initial thought was well it is maybe a step on the path to convincing Australians for the need of a treaty. The principles, not the politics, are basically the same. Posted by keith, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 10:32:53 AM
| |
Aren't indigenous Australians already a part of the Australian Constitution?
Posted by enslegis_procata_exhumei, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:51:38 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Even if there is any sincerity, whatosoever in Howard's supposed about-face on reconciliation, how can this possibly negate the disgraceful track Howard of John Howard which has harmed both indigenous and non indegenous Australia alike:
* 'WorkChoices' (never even put to the Australian public in 2004), * slashing of spending on eduacation, health and social welfare,
* privatisation and the almost innumerable disasters of outsourcing, sale and leasing-back of Commonwealth assets,
* the Iraq War,
* AU$296million in bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime,
* criminal neglect of the Australian environment, woodchipping, the pulp mill, fueling of runaway global warming,
* record high immigratioon from the man who told the Australian public in 2001 "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come",
* years o inaction in regard to aboriginal welfare,
* destruction of the native land title system,
* etc., etc.
?
That anyone could give this obviously insincere, last-minute stunt any more than a moment's thought is testimony to me that many members of the 'chattering classes' are not nearly as indignant about the effects of the maliciously intended polices of the Howard Government as they would have us believe they are.