Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Howard goes walkabout on reconciliation
Hello. Surreal, eh? I have a clear memory of Howard saying in his 1998 election speech that reconciliation would be a top priority in his next (UPDATE: Peter Ellis has found it - see http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/1998/election.cfm: "And I also want to commit myself very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia by the centenary of Federation. We may differ and debate about the best way of achieving reconciliation, but I think all Australians are united in a determination to achieve it.")
I also remember him giving a 'challenges for the next year' speech at the press club after that in which he did not mention reconciliation.
I also remember his government arguing in the High Court case on Hindmarsh Island that the Constitution allowed racial discrimination against Aborigines whenever a government liked. As he did in the recent martial law Aboriginal legislation.
I reckon this is about trying to held his traditional blue ribbon Liberal seats. What a joke - next thing he'll be saying he's been a closet Republican for years, and that he was wrong to invade Iraq. Here's his speech last night to the Sydney Institute. Note that he actually uses the word 'paradigm'!! He's got a new speech writer, I reckon.
If he's serious, which of course he isn't, he could go to Parliament next week and pass the legislation to have his referendum at THIS election. How about it, John? I don't think so...
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP ADDRESS TO THE SYDNEY INSTITUTE SOFITEL WENTWORTH HOTEL, SYDNEY 11 OCTOBER 2007
The Right Time: Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians
Gerard and Anne Henderson, members of The Sydney Institute, my fellow Australians.
Earlier today I released a small document on a big topic – Australian History. It’s a road map for the teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10.
It takes forward a project I launched some 21 months ago, on Australia Day eve 2006. I called then for a root and branch renewal of the teaching of Australian History in our schools.
My sense – confirmed by work done for last year’s Australian History Summit – was that Australian History in our schools had, to a worrying degree, fallen victim to neglect and complacency.
In some cases, it had simply gone missing. Vast numbers of students had no exposure to a coherent and sequential understanding of our national story.
I believed then, and I believe now, that if this country is to live up to its full potential and its highest ideals we must turn this around.
We’re not there yet. But I think we’ll get there.
I want to thank Gerard Henderson and many others too numerous to name who have devoted their time and intellectual energy to this task.
Tonight my focus is another topic of utmost national importance; one that transcends the past, the present and the future of Australia and that goes to the heart of our national identity and shared destiny.
For my generation – Australians who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s – it has been ever present; a subject of deep sorrow and of great hope. The challenge, and unfinished business, of our time.
It is the place of Indigenous people in the profound, compelling and unfolding story of Australia.
In the speech where I launched the Australian History project last year I spoke at length on the secret of the modern Australian Achievement – our national sense of balance.
I said then that: ‘Balance is as crucial to a well-ordered society as it is to a full human life. It should not be mistaken for taking the middle road or splitting the difference. Nor does it imply a state that is static or a nation at rest.
‘Quite the opposite. A sense of balance is the handmaiden of national growth and renewal. It helps us to respond creatively to an uncertain world with a sense of proportion.
‘Keeping our balance means we reform and evolve so as to remain a prosperous, secure and united nation. It also means we retain those cherished values, beliefs and customs that have served us so well in the past.’
The sense of balance Australia has found in 2007 allows us now to go further and to aim higher. The time is right to take a permanent, decisive step towards completing some unfinished business of this nation.
A little more than 100 days ago I spoke at The Sydney Institute on the topic of the Government’s emergency intervention in Northern Territory Indigenous communities.
This intervention – and in particular the public’s reaction to it – has been a watershed in Indigenous affairs in Australia. It has overturned 30 years of attitudes and thinking on Indigenous policy.
The response from people around Australia has again highlighted to me the anguish so many Australians feel about the state of Indigenous Australia and the deep yearning in the national psyche for a more positive and unifying approach to Reconciliation.
A new paradigm
This new Reconciliation I’m talking about starts from the premise that individual rights and national sovereignty prevail over group rights. That group rights are, and ought to be, subordinate to both the citizenship rights of the individual and the sovereignty of the nation.
This is Reconciliation based on a new paradigm of positive affirmation, of unified Australian citizenship, and of balance – a balance of rights and responsibilities; a balance of practical and symbolic progress.
It is this balance which holds the key to unlocking overwhelming support among the Australian people for meaningful Reconciliation.
Some will say: Surely we’ve been here before. What’s different now? Good question.
I’m convinced we are dealing today with a new alignment of ideas and individuals; a coming together of forces I have not witnessed in 32 years of public life.
As always, the Australian people themselves are the best guide.
Let me quote from just one of the many letters I have received since the Government announced the Northern Territory intervention.
It is from Mrs Terry Meehan, now living in Melbourne. Her late husband, Dr Ken Meehan, was the sole doctor of Yarrabah Aboriginal Community in Queensland for many years, looking after some 2,000 indigenous people.
She writes that:
‘His whole life was dedicated to the welfare of mankind but especially indigenous peoples both in New Guinea and Australia. … During my time as his wife in Yarrabah I watched with frustration and anguish at the devastation alcohol abuse caused.
‘The local canteen only served full strength beer and of course was run by the local council. The number of alcohol related deaths was great – but we weren’t allowed to speak about it publicly at that time.
‘You have taken a much needed step in order to make a difference to help these wonderful people become a proud people.’
A major catalyst for the new alignment I spoke about is the rise of the Indigenous responsibility agenda and the intellectual firepower which a new generation of Indigenous leaders has brought to Australian politics.
I’ve been reminded that, in fact, the Indigenous responsibility agenda is an old agenda; the agenda of Faith Bandler and Neville Bonner among others.
At its core is the need for Aboriginal Australia to join the mainstream economy as the foundation of economic and social progress.
This is at the heart of the work the Australian Government is pursuing under the Federal Minister Mal Brough’s leadership.
The central goal is to address the cancer of passive welfare and to create opportunity through education, employment and home ownership.
We seek partnerships which respect communal land rights of Indigenous Australians, but with a view to encouraging wider economic opportunity based on those rights.
Towards a better balance
I’m the first to admit that this whole area is one I have struggled with during the entire time that I have been Prime Minister. My instinct has been to try and improve the conditions for indigenous people within the framework of a united nation and unified Australian citizenship.
I have never felt comfortable with the dominant paradigm for Indigenous policy – one based on the shame and guilt of non-indigenous Australians, on a repudiation of the Australia I grew up in, on a rights agenda that led ultimately and inexorably towards welfare dependency and on a philosophy of separateness rather than shared destiny.
This nation spent (and wasted) a lot of time in the last 30 years toying with the idea of a treaty implying that in some way we are dealing with two separate nations. To me, this goal was always fundamentally flawed and something I could never support.
We are not a federation of tribes. We are one great tribe; one Australia.
I still believe that a collective national apology for past injustice fails to provide the necessary basis to move forward. Just as the responsibility agenda is gaining ground it would, I believe, only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards.
I said a couple of years ago that part of my problem with the old Reconciliation agenda was that it let too many people – particularly in white Australia – off the hook.
It let them imagine they could achieve something lasting and profound through symbolic gesture alone, without grappling in a serious, sustained way with the real practical dimensions of indigenous misery.
There had to be a fundamental correction to the unbalanced approach to rights and responsibilities. This in no way diminishes the importance of government responsibility in providing resources and services.
I acknowledge that my own journey in arriving at this point has not been without sidetracks and dry gullies.
There have been low points when dialogue between me as Prime Minister and many Indigenous leaders dwindled almost to the point of non-existence. I fully accept my share of the blame for that.
On the night of the 1998 election I publicly committed myself to endeavouring to achieve Reconciliation by the year 2001. In the end, that did not happen.
I recognise now that, though emotionally committed to the goal, I was mistaken in believing that it could be achieved in a form I truly believed in. The old paradigm’s emphasis on shame, guilt and apologies made it impossible to reconcile the goal with the path I was required to tread.
The challenge I have faced around Indigenous identity politics is in part an artefact of who I am and the time in which I grew up.
I have always acknowledged the past mistreatment of Aboriginal people and have frequently said that the treatment of Indigenous Australians represents the most blemished chapter in the history of this country.
Yet I have felt – and I still feel – that the overwhelming balance sheet of Australian history is a positive one. In the end, I could not accept that Reconciliation required a condemnation of the Australian heritage I had always owned.
At the same time, I recognise that the parlous position of Indigenous Australians does have its roots in history and that past injustices have a real legacy in the present.
I believe we must find room in our national life to formally recognise the special status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of our nation.
We must recognise the distinctness of Indigenous identity and culture the right of Indigenous people to preserve that heritage. The crisis of indigenous social and cultural disintegration requires a stronger affirmation of Indigenous identity and culture as a source of dignity, self-esteem and pride.
This is all the more so at a time when the blossoming of Indigenous art and dance – and the way it gives unique expression to Australian culture – is something we all celebrate and share.
A rare convergence
The Australian people want to move. They want to move towards a new settlement of this issue. I share that desire which is why I am here tonight.
I announce that, if re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution – their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special (though not separate) place within a reconciled, indivisible nation.
My goal is to see a new Statement of Reconciliation incorporated into the Preamble of the Australian Constitution. If elected, I would commit immediately to working in consultation with Indigenous leaders and others on this task.
It would reflect my profound sentiment that Indigenous Australians should enjoy the full bounty that this country has to offer; that their economic, social and cultural well-being should be comparable to that of other Australians.
I would aim to introduce a bill that would include the Preamble Statement into Parliament within the first 100 days of a new government.
A future referendum question would stand alone. It would not be blurred or cluttered by other constitutional considerations.
I would seek to enlist wide community support for a ‘Yes’ vote. I would hope and aim to secure the sort of overwhelming vote achieved 40 years ago at the 1967 referendum.
If approached in the right spirit, I believe this is both realistic and achievable.
I see this as a dignified and respectful Reconciliation process. It is founded on the notion that we are all Australians together; bound by a common set of laws which we must all obey and from which we are entitled to equal justice.
It rests on my unshakeable belief that what unites us as Australians is far greater than what divides us.
A positive affirmation in our Constitution of the unique place of Indigenous Australians can, I believe, be the cornerstone of a new settlement.
I sense in the community a rare and unexpected convergence of opinion on this issue between the more conservative approach which I clearly identify with and those who traditionally have favoured more of a group rights approach.
It is a moment in time which should be seized, lest it be lost.
Reconciliation can’t be a 51-49 project; or even a 70-30 project.
We need as a nation to lock-in behind a path we can all agree on.
I hope the steps on Australian History that I announced today can also make a practical contribution. As I said at the time of the Australian History Summit, you can’t have a proper comprehension of Australian history without an understanding of indigenous history and its contribution to the Australian story.
Summit participant Jackie Huggins has written that an Australia where all our young are taught the continuing story of indigenous Australians as part of our nation’s history ‘may not seem like such a remarkable outcome but it is’.
Indeed, she argues, ‘the teaching of our shared story is the key to reconciliation because it allows us to understand each other and to build healthy, respectful relationships’.
There is a window to convert this moment of opportunity into something real and lasting in a way that gets the balance right. But I suspect it is small.
Noel Pearson has made the point to me that Australia seems to go through 30 to 40 year cycles on indigenous affairs: periods of reorientation and attempts to find new solutions (assimilation in the 1930s; equality and self-determination in the 1960s and ‘70s) followed by decades of denial of the lack of progress in between.
Some will no doubt want to portray my remarks tonight as a form of Damascus Road conversion. In reality, they are little more than an affirmation of well-worn liberal conservative ideas.
Their roots lie in a Burkean respect for custom and cultural tradition and the hidden chain of obligations that binds a community together. In the world of practical politics they owe much to the desire for national cohesion Disraeli spoke to in 19th Century Britain – another time of great economic and social change. And in a literary sense they find echoes in Michael Oakeshott’s conservatism and the sense of loss should precious things disappear.
In the end, my appeal to the broader Australian community on this is simpler, and far less eloquent. It goes to love of country and a fair go.
It’s about understanding the destiny we share as Australians – that we are all in this together.
It’s about recognising that while ever our Indigenous citizens are left out or marginalised or feel their identity is challenged we are all diminished.
It’s about appreciating that their long struggle for a fair place in the country is our struggle too.
Conclusion
I am a realist. True Reconciliation will become a reality only when it delivers better lives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That, quite frankly, will be the work of generations.
I’m also an incurable optimist about this country. I always have been. And I always will be. I’m in no doubt that if we continue to get the big things right Australia’s best years are still ahead of us.
My optimism has always found its greatest nourishment in the character of the Australian people. Reconciliation – at its best – is, and must be, a people’s movement.
Now, for the first time in a long time, we can see the outline of a new settlement for Indigenous policy in Australia.
It stands at a point of intersection between rights and responsibilities; between the symbolic and the practical.
It is, to be sure, less an end point than a point of light that can guide us to a better future.
We’re not there yet. But if we keep our balance, we can get there soon.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
The long march
How humiliating for Costello. I learn he did march in Melbourne (I knew he marched somewhere) after Howard undid the "ban". "A matter for him" he said.
Unfinished business
I don't think you can discount internal party politics in anything Howard (or any other minister) does. One of the reasons for Costello over Howard is on Indigenous reconciliation, when he marched over the bridge all those years ago. It is a pretty thin reason to elect Costello but that may be all he needs: I think the Liberal party is tired of feeling bad about themselves. If you operate on the basis that Howard is doing absolutely everything to prolong his Prime Ministership, then, this strategy falls naturally in to staving off post-election challenges.
Howard says he will retire "well into" the next term, but the party-room isn't necessarily going to want that. There is really no advantage to the Liberal party in keeping Howard on for much longer if he wins the next election. It will be in their interests to make sure that the man (or woman) who will take them to the next election has as long as possible to establish their credibility. Why be sentimental?
Notice how Howard seems to be implying that he is the only one who can unite conservative Australia on indigenous reconciliation. The obvious source of this philosophy is Noel Pearson, but it could have the simultaneous effect of arguing that only Howard and his conservative street cred. (or, more starkly, his racist past) can bring about meaningful reconciliation. It could be aimed to stave of Costello rather than Rudd, not now but years from now.
Consider these words of Howard's reckoning:
Why these words? Why is this a "moment of opportunity", when every moment of his Prime Ministership was an opportunity? He talks of his "generation", an old-fashioned concept really (I was taught to think in terms of demographics/psychographics) but something which is powerful in its evocation of shared experience - long, wearying shared experience.
Nevertheless a more powerful emotion is the one to the future, that selfless motivation of the aged to the young, not to their children but to their children's children, and so on, in perpetuity. Many won't live much longer, to enjoy this future. It is usually a truism that children will often vote how their parents do, however, I am getting the feeling that this time around that there is the potential for the opposite phenomenon.
I think the aged will vote to affirm the opinions and interests of the young. This is a graceful, powerful act, which can exist even without any repudiation of the Prime Minister. It is possible to continue to support him but to view him as a man of the past, one whom one may feel affectionately for but whom one no longer requires.
There are climate change activists of all ages but I think amongst ordinary people, it is the aged who will be most decisive. I have no evidence for this - I wish I had the time and resources to investigate it - but for my own imagination, yet, there it sits in me, intuitively, unable to go away. If such a situation is true then it wont matter how strongly the Coalition argues its strengths and achievements, because people wont be voting on these reasons: you can believe in them, be guilt-free about supporting the government in the past, yet vote on behalf of your family. People are closest to their own generation, except across their family, breaking that generational connection.
I feel all this, and, when I try and view it through the prism of Liberal party strategy I can find no solution. None of the blows against Rudd are strong enough. His platform is thin, despite all the talk of "vision" but it is enough. He inspires confidence, capability.
Margo: Costello didn't march in Sydney because Howard told him not to.
North Sydney Dark Alleys
Hi David. Now the election has been called, you will recall that back in July this year, I wrote to you to say: "If you walk down those North Sydney dark alleys too many times, you are bound to bump into the ghost one time." Poor old Howard's been down to dark alleys too many times and the ghost is haunting him in earnest as evident by your own pub polling and the Sun Herald poll today, a whooping 59-41%.
The really big issue of this election is simple, by Howard's own admission, his Government is coming to an end as he will not serve out his full term. So the Australian people only need to ask themselves a simple question: "Do we end it now or give/reward/tolerate/indulge another 2 more years of Howard". The answer is so obvious.
Personally speaking, I don't really care who wins but I do want to see Maxine Mckew beats Howard in Bennelong because that is what he deserves.
Cheers - PF
Margo: Seconded!
Total derision
Margo, it is approaching one in the morning and I dutifully report the results of my pub survey here in Howard heartland.
It was utter and strong derision. It was unequivocal in all respects
I was even quite taken aback.
I must retire for the evening but you would have loved it Margo. Liberals are angry it and it is Margo Cup of Tea City.
I am not kidding. That is the vibe in this part of the world.
Not Happy, North Sydney!
We are living in funny times. The reaction I got tonight was brutal. It is clear that people know times are good but they have a social dimension.
Frankly, I am a libertarian. I am horrified how our free speech is not respected. We are below Bulgaria and it makes me feel sick.
North Sydney may have the lowest unemployment in Australia but my pub survey indicated a surprising hostility. Nothing, absolutely nothing I heard tonight would sit well with the government. In short it was damning.
Too little, too late? Perhaps. That's the vibe in North Shore pubs.
Who's shout is it?
Howard's Returns to the Past.
The Howard "New Order" has already taken Australians back to the bad old days of 19th Century Industrial Relations.
When we look at his entire Corporation policies it is evident that he wants to take us back to the past where only the Elite ruled and no other.
To take us back, he must continue to divide the Nation in all areas, such as:
All this and more should the "New Order" be given another term in office.
As I understand it, the Pyramid of power in Australia since Federation has been as follows"
Howard's "New Order" policies seem to be targeted at eventually:
I may not have put my opinions and "predictions" in any proper order but, if those who read this have any corrections or different points of view, - just remember that this forum gives you the right to object.
Personally, I feel deeply offended by Howard using my taxes to try to convince me that what he has done to me, my children, my grandchildren and great grandchildren, is for a "bright future".
I also believe that Howard and his "New Order" have created so many ugly anti-democratic precedents over the last 11 years, that it's absolutely that a change be made urgently.
NE OUBLIE.
Nonplussed in North Sydney
Interesting what you say about the Liberal vote, Margo. I feel a bit numb to be honest. It could be too much champagne last night or it could be more.
Here in North Sydney, we have an interesting electorate. Joe Hockey is the local memeber and it is Liberal to the core but with a twist. We've put in an independent in the past (Ted Mack). North Sydney is the electorate with the highest number of university graduates. It's a republican place with amongst the highest yes vote in the referendum of 1999. We have a great mayor who cares for a sustainable operation. Put simply, it is all rather civilised.
This is also the place where all those people started to march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in favour of reconciliation. I read my chapter again in Still Not Happy, John! again after so many years of not looking at it. I said in that chapter that reconciliation was important to a great number of people like me. I said that practical and symbolic reconciliation did not need to be mutually exclusive. They go together.
I don't know what this announcement means in true blue Liberal seats like this one. I don't think it makes much difference. It is indeed interesting and it should be pursued but after so many years of John Howard saying it wasn't important it now does not sit well when he says it is important. I'd have to judge his actions over time.
John Howard lives in my electorate (at Kirribilli) but I think he has always cared more about the so called mainstream Australia. In lots of ways this area is not mainstream.
What about the doctors' wives? Were they a myth? And what about us men? What if we have hidden views that resemble those of the doctors' wives? Actually in my case, such views are hardly hidden. Is Howard courting the doctors wife in all of us? I think there are a lot of people in North Sydney who have a little bit of doctors wife in them. I wonder what Joe Hockey's view is? I would imagine he would have always been in favour of symbolic reconciliation. He does tend to reflect the views of the area. I like Joe.
Later today when I am at a pub in the heart of this fine electorate, I will ask the regular blokes at the bar if they have a bit of doctors wife in them. The funny thing is that I bet they do and they will be happy to admit it. It is about living in a civilised community. That's what we like around here.
The only twist for Howard though is that the people around here tend to be well informed and quite smart. A reconciliaton rabbit is a hard one to pull in North Sydney. There's more to having a doctors wife sensibility than a love of tennis, 4WD's and labradors. It is a derogatory term in my view anyway. It implies that if you have some depth or concern about social matters in this part of the world then all you can be is a doctors wife. Doctors wives have friends. Friends like me. I'll be watching the North Shore closely on election night.
Margo: I look forward to your report on the pub survey, David.
The First Action is Saying Sorry - GetUp
Dear friends,
This is the headline moment we've been waiting for.
Regardless of what motives lie behind John Howard's reconciliation backflip, let's harness his belated recognition that Australia overwhelmingly seeks true reconciliation and an end to Indigenous disadvantage. Help re-start the reconciliation movement now by demanding the next parliament and PM say 'sorry' as their very first act on the very first day.
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheFirstActIsSayingSorry
Australia's parliament holds a key to this new way forward - symbolically and practically. An apology is not about guilt or shame or individual responsibility - it is the embodiment of the spirit of reconciliation, and the springboard for a nation committed to stamp out the systemic ills that still flow from a nation unable to address its past wrongs. Join us in demanding an apology to Indigenous Australia:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheFirstActIsSayingSorry
After over two hundred years of dispossession and ten years of despair, we must use this startling pre-election conversion to push for so much more: a commitment to close the health gap; Australia's signing of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples; a consulted and empowered Indigenous community enjoying the rights and privileges of a first-world country - not just a non-binding amendment to the Constitution's preamble.
Starting with an apology on the new parliament's first day, demand real action to create a brighter, reconciled future for all Australians:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheFirstActIsSayingSorry
Let's make sure this moment is not lost. John Howard is making this political gesture because of a people's movement demanding better for all Australians - and you are a part of that movement. Our healing journey has stalled, but now in the true reconciliatory spirit we can put aside our past differences with the opponents of reconciliation and move forward.
Thanks for being part of this,
The GetUp team
PS - Join high profile leaders on Indigenous issues in our blog, giving their opinion on John Howard's startling pre-election conversion and plan to amend the Constitution's preamble.
--------------------
GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations.
The sound of conservatives, vomiting
I've asked a few of my Lib friends here in Wenty for their views on Howard's reconciliation epiphany. Universal condemnation, even from the blue bloods. Because either:
Big risk strategy - looks like desparation.
Margo: As it is. Trying to shore up traditonal Liberal seats. David, hope you can come to my Sydney launch next Tuesday.
David E...
Newhouse?
Newhouse aside, the theory put forward ce soir over a few wines was that as the blue bloods are now well aware of the risks posed to Liberal hegemony in the fine seat of Wentworth by the recent inclusion of an assortment of innercitty riff raff and beach bums (I answer to both) that it's likely they'll close ranks behind their man Malcolm.
Chances are he'll win, but he's been working the crowds pretty hard in the electorate at street markets, shoppin malls etc. nonetheless. It's hilarious to watch as Malcolm instantly terrifies babies and domestic animals alike at close range.
I tried to make myself a myspace friend to his daughter Daisy yesterday to get closer to the inside running but she wouldn't bite....
Newhouse
Newhouse's minions were also out in force at Rose Bay Nth. 2 weeks ago. I have been trying to contact Newhouse for over a week to get his views on the Pulp Mill, but he does not answer any emails. He also would not answer emails when he was the Mayor of Waverley, as I have said before he is a twit.
Margo: And the Oz reports today that his ex will stand against him, on the Gunn's pulp issue! You're in for a treat in Wentworth, Alan.
Newhouse
Margo, I think it is a stunt that his ex is standing against him, I think they are trying to split the vote. She will only take votes away from the Greens as they once again have a poor candidate in Wenty. I think the Informal vote will be bigger than the Greens.
Eliot, Eliot, Eliot
Lemme see, just off the top of my head - Geoff Clark, Terry O'Shane, Murrandoo Yanner, Ray Robinson, Galurway Yunipingu, and just about anyone else who stood against the Prime Miniature.
Before you tell me about the "criminal" nature of these men, I'll remind you that the oppressed in an rogue state who stand against that oppression are going to be criminalised. Nelson Mandela is a "criminal". Vaclav Havel is a "criminal".
I remember Boggo Rd prison in Brisbane in the 80s, when inmate Ted Watson and his friends formed the Incarcerated People's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation to teach traditional culture in prison, because just about every Aboriginal young man in SE Queensland was going to pass through one day. It worked a treat.
All the men I mention were elected to office by their people, but then I suspect you don't much care for democracy, Elliot.
Lighten up
One day, the seven dwarfs left to go work in the mine. Snow White stayed home to prepare lunch. When she arrived at the mine with the lunch, she saw that there had been a terrible cave in, but Bill Shorten was there organising the Press and camera crews.
Tearfully, and fearing the worst. Snow White began calling out, hoping against hope that some of the dwarfs had survived.
"Hello, hello," she called. "Can anyone hear me? Hello." For quite a
while there was no answer. Losing hope, Snow White called again, "Hello. Is anyone down there?"
Just as she was about to give up all hope, there came a faint voice from
deep in the mine. The voice said, "Vote for Rudd. Vote for Rudd."
Snow White, somewhat relieved screamed out,” Oh, thank God Dopey is still alive."
Terrific Alan.
G'day old mate.
My Wife and I like that story very much.
If we can't laugh at ourselves as much as we do at others, then we are devoid of a reasoning mind.
Cheers,
Rosie and Ern.
Howard today
JOURNALIST:
Do you think conservative Australia would have been surprised...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Do you think conservative Australia would have been surprised to hear your words last night?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no sensible conservative people, they would understand me, they would understand because it's their view. I mean, it's a mistake to see conservative people as being against reconciliation. What they are against, what I am against, is a repudiational reconciliation if I can put it that way, something that involves repudiation of the past. Obviously there were great injustices done to indigenous people in the past but I have never been willing to embrace a formal national apology because I do not believe the current generation can accept responsibility for the deeds of earlier generations and there's always been a fundamental unwillingness to accept in this debate the difference between an expression of sorrow and an assumption of responsibility and I think we have...but the important thing is this; that because of the new mood following the Northern Territory intervention we have an unexpected and perhaps time limited convergence of sentiment and we've got to build on that. A sentiment that unites conservative people on this issue and people who have a more rights based attitude.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, why did you go out of your way in the speech last night to say that you accepted your share of the blame in the past for the past relationship between yourself and the indigenous leaders? Why did you go out of your way to talk about your share of the blame?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because I think looking back I might have handled things better. I might have handled myself better at the reconciliation conference in 1997, was it? I mean, I've acknowledged that previously and on something as tortured and difficult as this it would have been, if I am willing as I indicated two years ago, willing to go more than half way, it would have been conceited in the extreme to have pretended that I didn't carry some of the blame.
JOURNALIST:
So Prime Minister are you saying that this is the closest your government can get to saying sorry?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think to typify this as just whether you say or don't say sorry is to misunderstand what's involved and to trivialise the issue.
JOURNALIST:
Are you the Fonzie of Australian politics?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry?
JOURNALIST:
Are you the Fonzie of Australian politics?
PRIME MINISTER:
The which?
JOURNALIST:
Are you the Fonzie of Australian politics? Happy Days, he was never able to say sorry.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think you're trivialising a very important issue.
JOURNALIST:
But are you? Do you watch Happy Days?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I am who I am and I think you're trivialising it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you believe that the Coalition, led by you, is only capable of providing that conservative convergence on this issue? Do you believe Labor could do it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't. I don't believe Labor could unite conservative and progressive Australia on this issue, I don't.
JOURNALIST:
And do you, you specified an 18 month time frame. You've also indicated that you would retire at some stage in the next term if re-elected. Does that 18 month time limit mean that you would remain until this was actually delivered?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what it means is that within 18 months I would want to see a referendum. I'm not getting into anything in relation to my future beyond what I said some weeks ago about well into my next term, I would retire. I've made that clear and I would then expect to be succeeded by Mr Costello. So there's nothing added to, subtracted from implied by, derived from, constructively altered by what I've said last night. It's...that's a free standing thing and that's it. But I think that, you won't get this referendum up unless you can unite conservative Australia with people who adopt a more strident, rights based approach, or group rights based approach to this issue. See, what I'm talking about is a statement of reconciliation which accords a special place to the indigenous people, their language and their culture within the concepts of an indivisible citizenship and a reconciled nation.
I mean, this is moving on from what underpins so much of the discussion of the last 20 years and that there was some notion of negotiation between two parts of the nation. I have never accepted that and you can go back and look at every single thing I have said about this issue as Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition and in whatever other positions I've held. I have never believed in the idea of customary law having ascendancy over the general body of law. I have never accepted the notion of split citizenship. I have always wanted to see the indigenous people assisted by involvement in the mainstream of the Australian community but I think we have seen a tectonic shift in this whole debate over the last few months. The Northern Territory intervention would not have been accepted by the public five years ago, let alone 10 years ago and one of the reasons why it has been accepted is that people think the old approach has failed and they see a solution through dealing with the problem on the basis of all of us being Australians together. Now there's nothing incompatible with that and the notion of a special place in the Australian community.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the significance of this and your own personal, long personal history of involvement, given that with indigenous relations, wouldn't it help if you were actually there to help persuade the Australian people why this is a good idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm talking about doing this and doing all of this very early in my term if I'm re-elected...
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, if I can take you back to the past for a moment, can you tell us about working in 1967's referendum, how you voted and why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I voted yes, yes. Well I voted in favour of putting the references in to the power of the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to Aborigines and I also voted at the same time in favour of their inclusion in the census which, of course, some people have forgotten as one of the things but I also voted to break the nexus, but that went down in a screaming heap. It was supported by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, the Coalition, the Country Party as it then was, but it was opposed by the DLP and the DLP scored a stunning victory at...they certainly did at the Campsie Public School and I think they did just about everywhere else.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of vote would you like to see this time, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would like to see something in equal to this. I would.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that's feasible? I mean that...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think if you can get a genuine bipartisan consensus, and if it is seen by conservative Australia as being what it is meant to be, and that is a reaching out and a respectful recognition of the special place of indigenous people in the life of this country and the history of this country, but is not seen as some kind of back door way of entrenching special rights and special entitlements, and it does not involve a revival of the old paradigms of treaties and formal apologies and so forth; I think there's a real likelihood of it. Because I did incidentally discuss this with the Leader of the National Party before I made the speech and he was very strongly supportive of the sentiments.
JOURNALIST:
Was that yesterday too, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
What's your response PM to criticism that what's happened over the last 10 to 11 years, you've got a problem with trust with the indigenous leadership. What's your response to that particular point?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my response is that there are some people who are styled as indigenous leaders that will never accept anything I say because they come from a radically different stand point, they belong to what I can only call as a school of thought which says that the only acceptable way forward in relation to indigenous policy is a repudiation of this nation's past. Now I'm not going to do that because on balance I'm very proud of this nation's past. It's got blemishes but the balance sheet of Australian history is an incredibly impressive one and I will never do that. And they know that, and that's why whatever I put forward is not acceptable.
But I think we have moved on from that. I think there is a new and different mood and I even detected it in some of the comments that were made this morning. Now I'm not going to single out the comments I have in mind but I was not unhappy with the comments that were made this morning. I found some of them rather more positive than some might have accepted. Others were entirely predictable and not to be seen as representative of mainstream indigenous opinion. But we're talking here about an amalgamation of opinion. You can't get anything into this Constitution, and we can't resolve this issue, we can't finish the business on this issue unless we can unite conservative and other sections of the Australian community.
JOURNALIST:
How much does this speech represent a change of sentiment on your part? How much have you changed your mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't really changed my mind if you look at what I've previously said, as much as some people have argued. I think what I have come to accept though is that in order to get movement on this issue I've had to personalise it more, and that's what I've done. Because in the end the personality of the Prime Minister does influence these things particularly if you've been Prime Minister for a long period of time. But I am very heavily influenced by the passionate One Australia view I've held for all of my political life. I have seen this nation as a federation of ethnicities or a federation of interest groups. I've always seen it as an indivisible entity.
JOURNALIST:
So you decided that you actually would (inaudible) as a person and as a leader was standing in the way...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, that misinterprets what I'm saying. I think with some of these things you...in order to make the point; you really have to be more personal about it and to be more willing to bear your soul than you might in relation to other issues. But there's nothing, and you can tell from what I'm saying today, this afternoon, there's nothing that I said last night that I felt in anyway uncomfortable with and there was nothing that was forced or gone beyond my well held and well known beliefs...
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given the sensitivity on the announcement on reconciliation and given the Treasurer's role as your successor, why didn't you consult with him more fully beyond briefing him yesterday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I had no reason to believe he wouldn't agree with what I was about to say.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think it will help his prospects?
PRIME MINISTER:
His prospects? I think his prospects, like mine, are in the hands of the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
What about as a successor to you? He's been heavily identified with reconciliation in the past. Does your own change of heart...
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, if you're asking me who do I think my successor will be, I think it will be Peter, and I think it should be, although it is up to the Party when the time comes, but I have no doubt as to who the Party should choose as my successor. Thanks a lot.
Aboriginal Reconciliation
John Howard has only ever cared about getting power and keeping it. Does anyone really believe this? I doubt it.
If it is an instance of him finding a way and being listened to the conclusion after listening will most likely be that he is just pathetic.
On a related matter. I would like to see someone in the media ask Rudd about the record of the Goss government on this issue. Not a squeak about this!
Know any good journalists who would be willing to ask this Margo?
Margo: Tony Koch, perhaps?
Tony Koch
Another Howard Diversion?
So after all of his time in office, Howard has been against reconciliation and dismissive of the abuse of Koorie children.
Now, facing the first election that seriously puts him and his conga-line in political danger, he and his Mal Brough robot decide that an "Emergency" Intervention in the Northern Territory, is necessary NOW "to protect these children". Bless his "caraway seed" heart!
And he will remove their protection of Permit control, the Anti-Discriminatory Laws and will reduce their welfare payments by 50%.
And the take-overs just happen to be right where his Corporate Bosses want Uranium mining and a Nuclear Waste Dump.
Unperturbed by the unfair treatment of the majority of these Koorie settlements, only six (6) of which have alcohol readily available from white owned shops, he uses his fascist jack boots for their better good. Struth.
But now, what was that he said in 1998 about reconciliation - it had some effect in making people think that he believes in thse "blacks" having some sort of citizenship.
Let's do it again and it will take WorkChoices; Foreign and personal debt; a failing false economy; Health; Medicare; Hospitals; Education; Climate Change and of course his pet subject of Nuclear Reactors and a Nuclear Waste dump.
I wonder if the South Australians remember that he tried to jack-boot them into a Nuclear Waste dump and, while he lost in the Federal Court - his ultimate answer of his "influence" in the High Court can still be used. And, should he be returned, he may well do that.
So let's have a reality check on his latest "reconciliation" diversion:
There is nothing to worry about if we accept that neither he nor any of his robots can be trusted - however, if there is some doubt:
Ignore the diversions of the spiteful little schoolboy who still believes that he can fool all of us all the time with his brilliant, unbridled lies.
Bring on the election and keep our eyes on the ball.
NE OUBLIE.
Gutting of ATSIC
Bryan Law says:
"His "practical reconciliation" saw the gutting of ATSIC, the starvation of indigenous led programs aimed at social reconstruction, the demonising of Aboriginal leadership and the endless dog-whistles calling on bigots to rise up in bile and bullshit - to the extent that Howard has poisoned the national character."
Labor also accepted that ATSIC had not worked. And by 'Aboriginal leaderrship', are you refering to Geoff Clark?
He makes me vomit
I was working for Dr John Coulter of the democrats when Hawke wanted the ATSIC legislation passed in the parliament and heard the speeches of the liberals with Howard the most vociferously opposed to ATSIC or any form of self-determination by aborigines.
I propose a new constitution written by the elders of all the tribes which grants that if we are nice, if we don't stir up race hatreds against refugees and aborigines, if we don't bomb other nations to bits and promise to husband their land they might allow us citizenship of their nation.
I would suggest one and all get hold of a copy of Women's Weekly this month and flick to page 60. A wonderful interview with one of the unthrown children and Laura Whittle who saved the life of another unthrown children and the real story finally of the man with the baby in the pink jacket.
Astonishing stuff. Then look at Spooner's cartoon and the 353 Pacific Solutions on SIEVX - there is still enormous rage in the community for the treatment of these refugees and it should be thrown at Howard every day.
I marched in 1988 for truth, justice and reconciliation, worked on ATSIC, have advocated that this is an aboriginal land since I was 14 and the referendum stopped aborigines being listed as flora and fauna, marched in 2000 and on and on for aboriginal rights in this beknighted place.
This speech by Howard is not a good speech Solomon, it is a speech for Howard about Howard and no-one else.
I Agree with Lil' John
"I am a realist. True Reconciliation will become a reality only when it delivers better lives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That, quite frankly, will be the work of generations.
I’m also an incurable optimist about this country. I always have been. And I always will be. I’m in no doubt that if we continue to get the big things right Australia’s best years are still ahead of us.
My optimism has always found its greatest nourishment in the character of the Australian people. Reconciliation – at its best – is, and must be, a people’s movement".
Apart from the misuse of "continue" in para 2, these three sentences from John Howard are spot on, and I wish the ALP would show a similar inclination.
Sadly the rhetoric isn't matched by reality, and Howard over the past 11 years has done everything he can to foster a national spirit of hatred, bitterness and racism towards indigenous folks.
His "practical reconciliation" saw the gutting of ATSIC, the starvation of indigenous led programs aimed at social reconstruction, the demonising of Aboriginal leadership and the endless dog-whistles calling on bigots to rise up in bile and bullshit - to the extent that Howard has poisoned the national character.
Can we get over these disgraceful years. Yes we can. Goodbye John, time to go.
Smart Bombs Richard?
G'day Richard,
I remember some time ago that you mentioned the existence of "Smart Bombs".
Rummaging through my "Files" I found this: US Bombs To Be Tested In Australia: Report
Digressing for a moment - my Wife considers my files to be "untidy".
But, as an ex-matelot, we were taught "If it moves - salute it, if it doen't move - paint it".
I also found an undated post, probably in the Canberra Times HYS, close to the time of the Bali bombings. It doesn't appear to be my syntax so I must have been impressed by it to copy and save.
"The Bali factor is essential for Howard's maintenance of Australia's role in the 'war against terrorism'.Some may see some logic in this strategy. After all, there is supposedly a war against terror and the tragedy of Bali should be held up as a reminder as to why we are fighting this war. I may even be persuaded by this logic but for two reasons:
1) Howard has ulterior political motives for propagandising the tragedy in this way and,
2) something that cannot ever be forgiven; his government let the tragedy go ahead, without warning Australian Travellers, knowing that if it did happen he would receive political benefit from it.
For these reasons I do not believe for one instant that Howard is motivated out of sympathy for the Bali victims' relatives and friends.
Whoever wrote it - I fully support the reasoning.
Cheers Richard,
Ern G.
Villains
Bless Webdiary for publishing entire transcripts. Certainly the mainstream press gave it piece-meal coverage. Looked at in its entirely it is a good speech. The Beazleyesque fumbling of the paragraph I quoted before is one of the few really low points. One of Howard's problems has been that he is inarticulate, most of the time. Occasionally he scores a hit (enough to keep him in the game) but mostly he has a particularly feral use of language.
If he has a new speech-writer who can look inside him and speak powerfully for him, then this is a positive. Shakespearean, really, this kind of work - giving a voice even to the villains. I enjoyed it.
Deja vu
Hi Margo, here’s one reference to Howard's previous 1998 conversion to (and renouncement of) reconciliation.
There is some serious déjà vu going on here. Another ‘new’ John Howard! What’s most amazing to me is that, after doing so much to derail reconciliation over the last 11 years, and all the empty promises and lies, Howard still expects people to believe him. He really doesn't give Australians much credit.
This isn't an election winner, even if people do believe him. White Australians generally have little sympathy for indigenous Australians, in my experience (with many notable exceptions). My own cynical view is that Howard simply doesn't want to be remembered as the mean-spirited leader he really is, so he's getting in as much 'compassionate Johnny' as he can, while he can, in case he loses the election.
The trouble is, given the 1998 promises and all that has happened since, this just makes him look pathetic. History won't record the enobling of an already great leader; it will record a desperate scramble for such a history. Too little too late.
History won't be kind to Howard. It will be about squandered opportunities, division, complacency, and foreign policy disasters. Political cunning and luck, alone, do not make a great leader.
And anyway, what possible meaning can Howard’s new symbolic reconciliation have if it’s accompanied by his steadfast refusal to say sorry, on behalf of all non-indigenous Australians, for the sad litany of past wrongs? Of course, Howard's 'sorry' would be worthless anyway, since nobody would (or should) believe him.
Tossing the flag
I suppose Howard does not mean he would campaign against Hanson.
He said he dropped the ball, mainly because he, himself, was fixated on the bogeys of 'treaty' and 'sorry'. It's pretty easy to hide behind an embroidered personal affront when you have no intention of seeking for another way forward. Just take offence, point the finger of blame, and close the door.
He said the teaching of history had "fallen victim to neglect and complacency". So had conditions in remote communities. He had plenty of advice telling him what alcohol was doing - why wasn't he listening? What was he waiting for? Mal Brough? But Costello wanted to take the necessary steps. So much for returning loyalty, and it's a symptom of the hostility of Howard toward Costello.
Howard had "simply gone missing" on this issue, no doubt encouraged by elements in favour of unrestricted access to homelands.
His re-energised support for individual rights is propelled by his absolute hatred of collectivism. He cannot give credence to anyone, let alone a person of the first nations, who subsumes their own identity to the group. It's a false dichotomy, but I don't think he is concerned that he will have to go into battle to force his views.