“In the leafy suburbs of the cities of the south, it's likely that many will find the notion that human rights can be “suspended” as deeply offensive - even if it is only for Aboriginal people.”

It is more likely that they would care more about the abuse of children and the premature deaths of aboriginals of all ages due to living in remote camps where they cannot get a proper chance at life. People are also likely to be sick of this ‘racist’ crap which some aborigines and their apologists use as a cover for their unsavoury activities and getting money for nothing.

"That whiff of turkey in the air may well be emanating from" the National Indigenous Times & its amateur but very self-satisfied correspondent. And that mess of fatty sludge which passes for the turkey's droppings when they are served up to us in the OLO is merely a thick layer of cliches mixed with anti-Rudd bile and simple-minded sanctimoniousness. Let us pray that not many benighted souls are fooled by this pietistic preaching and worship at the altar of conventional idealisism and stupidity.

Ah, yeah, G'day Nah!

Sorry Dan... can you explain why Ring's commentary is anti-Rudd bile, but yours isn't just anti-Ring bile?

From where I'm sitting, yours smells much more bilious.

New "road" to hoe? Try new "row".

"Sticks and stones may break his bones but your words will never hurt Rudd, Dan old boy."Give the man a break!It is only FEB.08.Kevin 07 is a Queenslander and so is Wayne.We know how to dish it out when it comes to politics, but we have grown up a bit, we don't rush in, in egotistical "KNOW IT ALL" action before we consider the community who as a majority elected our Government.Rudd is prepared to listen to 1,000 other Australians' ideas, and then act.The last bloke thought because his second name was WINSTON,HE DIDN'T NEED ANY ADVICE!
I and many others have already said sorry, and reconciled with Indigenous Australians.If compensation is required,it should not be given by politicians, give it to St.Vinnies and The Salvos to use their long term skills and discretion learnt in dealing with the disadvantaged of all varieties.That's only one old man's opinion,take it or leave it.I've told Brendan and my local bloke what I think.It's called e-mail!

-- "The disingenuous government line - that the money could be better spent on improving health outcomes for Indigenous Australians - is hard to swallow."

I don't find it hard to swallow at all. I think the indigenous communities need substantial education and social reform before we can just throw money at them and expect them to deal with the problems.

-- "People are entitled to reasonable health care as well as to compensation for wrongs done to them by the state."

Except that once compensation is paid, they deserve no different treatment that that of white people who live in remote communities. And health services out of major population centres are not in good shape regardless of the race of people involved.

Leigh in one line the only answer the post needs thanks

With respect, these are ancient people, and the white people expect them to keep up! Are you all insane! They need to be given their own city, with their own government, and place them in the most beautiful place of their choice and let them run it. They have enough elders that are educated, so why not help them to do this. Their evolutionary
position must be respected, and lets face it, the currant system is not working.
They will grow, if we think about it.

TRTL, Poor Dan suffers from something akin to the "I'm the only gay in the village' syndome. Talented writers like Ringy get right up his proverbial goat.

“Governments must summon up all of their political courage and take the opportunity to make great strides forward in the journey towards Indigenous justice.”

More drivel about the fraudulent claim of wrongs.

the supposedly stolen children were actually being “saved”, from aboriginal communities,

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/truth_stolen_in_tasmania

I think the need for an “apology” is not warranted and if anything, those who claim to be “stolen” should be saying thank you for being saved, not that I expect that.

The nature of the people with the humanity to defend the innocent from their predatory and neglectful parents do not expect the innocent to respond, they just wish the saved ones to live an independent, productive and worth while life. I guess that would include not walking around with a perpetual begging bowl.

As for “But now that the NIC is knackered, Labor must move swiftly towards replacing it with a truly representative body.”

So what % of aboriginal genes does an “aborigine “ have to have (versus migrant genes) to qualify to be represented by such a body?

regarding

“The nation's economy is booming and we have wall-to-wall Labor governments. But managerialism must not be allowed to triumph over vision.”

Yes the "boom" which Labor inherited though liberal prudence, far better than what the liberals inherited from Keating.

I thought the labor party had a manifesto and policy. Why do they now need some talkfest of the brightest to identify new ideas? If those who voted for labor had actually read their party manifesto, they would be aware of the ideas and innovations which were driving the government.

It seems strange to me that having only just come to power, Krudd & Co should need newer ideas to implement but of course, I forget, this was the me-too election where the labor party simply copied the liberal manifesto and branded it new, well it was new, to labor.

Ah Leigh, as always, so succinct.

And rainier, adding his own form of wit to the debate.

The Bringing Them Home Report clearly found the vast majority of stolen children did not benefit. They had less education, less stable relationships and were more likely to have spent time in jail.

Quoting Andrew Bolt or Keith Windschuttle in defence of stealing children is hardly justification. These two are part of the white wash of history brigade. Like Howard they are yesterday's people.

Jack Waterford made the point in the Canberra Times on Saturday that the same arguments about saving children are being used today and that when future generations look back they might come to the same sorts of conclusions about our activities now with aboriginal children that the Bringing Them Home report did about our past actions.

According to Jack the rate of removal of Aboriginal children today is 50% higher than that identified in the Bringing Them Home report. Are we not continuing the cycle of disposession and genocide in the name of caring for kids?