Well
Where do I start.
I CHOOSE TO START THIS RANT ......... NOW!!
Firstly, he identifies a problem, and there is a problem, but makes it sound like it has all come about in the last 11 years. It is all a failure of John Howard's Government, implying that everything was perfect before. He never mentions the other parties, and when he does mention Bob Hawk he does not mention Labor it is as if he is a politician without a party. Didn't Bob Hawk promise in the mid eighties that no child would be living in poverty? Anyway, see i am doing the same thing he did, make provocative statements that highlight the problem but don't contribute to the solution.
The problem has been around for decades, attempts have been made but they have failed. For example for many years Aborigines were given more generous welfare payments, easier access to welfare, and positive discrimination in terms of education, housing etc. These attempts failed, and I believe it is untrue to say that the failure was foreseeable. As a rule if you assist someone financially, you would expect them to prosper more than they would have without the assistance. This does not seem to have happened with many Aborigines. Although I believe that if you look at the data, from now, and compare it to 30 or 50 years ago, there would be a notable increase in the number of aborigines in full time employment, with professional and trade qualifications who are capable of standing on their own two feet without Federal or state assistance. The issue is that not enough of them have reached that point, and many of them live in the conditions described.
So to me the questions become
1. Why is it so?
2. Can we change it?
3. Should we change it?
But back to those questions later.
The third paragraph really pissed me off, he says the following"
"Children and mothers make up 75% of the world's poor."
Newsflash children and others make up 75% of families!! Well that would appear to be normal to me, if the average family in Australia has 2.4 children, making the average family 4.4 people, and rounding down to four people, i would expect hat 75% of them are women and children. Amazing. I wonder what the statistics are for all male aboriginal families is, I suppose in that case only fifty percent would be living in poverty (since there are no women)!!
On page three, paragraph one of, he says "The medical evidence indicates that we will only....." But then does not state what the evidence is, who did the research, he provides us with no means of confirming that is being said. Admittedly in a speech you would not have full references but in a written transcript of said speech, particularly one put out by a uni, i would think they could provide some references. He makes the same mistake numerous times
"More than thirty major reports on child abuse state....."
is just one example. At least tell us which organisation did some of those reports, no need to mention all of them in the speech, but mention the ones that he gives the most weight to.
Anyway, the major issue in my view is "aboriginal autonomy", and he talks about it, but in the exact opposite context to what i would say. He says aboriginals should be autonomous and blah blah blah, I gathered that that was what is causing part of the problem, not enough autonomy. They have a degree of autonomy to deal with their own issues under their own law, and in many cases can't be compelled to follow western practices. No problem with that. But what happens when those practices are below the minimum level accepted by the rest of us. If under tribal law, the penalty for rape or child abuse is lesser than the western penalties, what should we do about that. He speaks of autonomy as if it is the end of all aboriginal problems, when in fact it causes some problems of it's own.
He also says "It is increasingly clear that this intervention is using the emotive language of child abuse to implement a radical indigenous policy agenda"
Whoa, the government has an agenda! Well Newsflash, i got no problem with that. The standard welfare based system we have used has not worked, all previous attempts have failed, some radical thinking is required. If someone wants to hide behind child abuse, to improve the standard of living of aborigines, whilst incidentally preventing or lowering the instance of child abuse, well that's okay by me.
He says, "The question for you my fellow Australians is, do you believe John Howard has changed? That is the Consequence of your Vote?"
Wrong Question, the question should be "Do you think that John Howard's Actions, however much you like or dislike him, will result in an improvement in Aboriginal living standards" It does not matter whether you like him or not, what matters is whether he is doing the right thing, and saying i would do it differently is a cop out. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but you don't want to stand around arguing about the best way, whilst the cat decomposes. Let the leaders lead, and and the cat is more likely to get skinned.
Personality politics is often full of crap. In the first ever televised political debate between JFK and Nixon, those who watched it on television overwhelmingly said JFK won, those who listened on the radio overwhelmingly said Nixon had won. What the hell is going on there. Evidently JFK had better personality, more presence on camera etc etc etc. Evidently this was more important than his policies. Utter Tosh, I say.
"The first Australians do have a right to autonomy that is once again being denied" like i said before, i suspect this is part of the problem, but is quoted here as part of the solution.
And finally he presents his 10 point plan. People, Friends, Australians, country men, one nation voters ET AL, I say this to you. Do not trust anyone that has a 10 point plan. 10 point plans are full of crap. If it was a 9 point plan, or an 11 point plan, i would have more respect for it. People inflate plans to get to 10 because 10 sounds important, 'Ten Commandments" "Americans Ten Most Wanted" "Top Ten Songs" top ten blah blah blah. If I saw this in a report, opinion for the author would probably go down, after i had confirmed that there were some plan padding in action. So, what have we here in this plan;
All Australians should sign a new statement pledging to support a national effort to achieve equality for all of our children.
Point 10 is one that I partially agree with. I agree that as a nation we need to apologise for what was done in the past, but i know we are not gonna get every individual to do so, so I'm not gonna waste my time trying. I musta done something wrong, I've only been in the country twenty years, but already I'm apologising for the sins of someone Else's fathers. I think there is something in that for everyone.
Anyway, i think we could get most of this to go away if we were truly committed to the policies of equity and diversity, which don't try to treat everyone as equals, but recognise that some people have different needs, Muslims need to pray at certain times of the day facing Mecca, and so should be afforded this right, aborigines need assistance recovering from the institutionalised racism of the recent past, and so should be afforded whatever assistance is required.
There is one waste of time we can't get rid of, and that is politics, the sugar coating of policy to make it equitable. Find me a politician that didn't sugar coat anything, and i will vote for him. he'll lose, but at least he'll do it for being honest.
Anyway back to my three key questions;
Why is it so?
Can we change it?
Should we change it
Well i will leave that up to you. Maybe they should come up with an Automatic-Vote-Amatic for those who don't want to make decisions. By not writing anything down, i can't be questioned so in response to my own three questions, i choose to be enigmatic and maintain a dignified silence. "Go forth and solve this problem i say, but beware, if it should come to my attention that you have been dilly dallying, i shall be most put out!"
