Acknowledging reality

Does the government wake up and see unicorns in the front garden?

For a party that doesn’t even have a parliamentary majority in its own right, they now want to go and amend the Constitution.


Before any one starts screaming that overused former buzzword raaaaacist*, note that the word “amend” was used, not something like “change” or “alter”. “Amend” has positive connotations. Yet whilst it might be The Noble Thing To Do™, one suspects an acknowledgement of Aborigines as the first Australians – not that they arrived as one group in one hit, either – will be as hollow and meaningless as when the government said, “Sorry”. Good practical work is being done right now, and this proposed amendment really is just a distraction.

Will this government ever learn?

Indigenous Affairs minister Jenny Maklin has come out and told the Opposition not to play politics.

Ha! It would be hilarious in its absurdity if it weren’t also so deceitful, for who’s really playing politics?

Labor knows there’s no hope in Hades that the Opposition will run along with this latest Zeppelin. So, in effect, all the ALP is doing is finding yet another excuse to blame Tony Abbott. ( 🙄 )

You’d think they’d have worked out by now that blaming Abbott for everything isn’t working.

Perhaps if the government actually tried governing instead, they might be a little less reminiscent of a fart in the world’s slowest elevator making it’s way up the world’s tallest building.

*I teach English as a Second Language in Korea, and my wife is Korean. How racist could I possibly be?


Andrew Bolt: “Say No to Racism”.

Also via that link, Samual J at the Cat notes the inconsistency in Labor’s position. On the one hand they seek to remove any racist provisions from our Constitution, yet on the other they seek to introduce more.

The proposed referendum is divisive and should be opposed. All Australians, whether born here or overseas; whether their ancestors are Italian or Egyptian; or whether their ancestors have lived in Australia for generations should be equal under the Constitution. No group should be singled out for special mention: all groups have contributed to make Australia what it is today.

Hear, hear!

As former Labor minister and powerbroker, Graham Richardson notes (he’s specifically talking about the carbon tax, but it may as well apply to Labor, and in particular PM Gillard, as well):

Gillard is at that point where all she can do is wait for the end to come – and come it will. The only question now is whether the coup de grace will be delivered by the caucus or the Australian people.

Who woke up today and thought it could get any worse for our PM? It seemed impossible, and yet they’ve done it.

Indonesia telling Julia to get stuffed, being played for fools by people smugglers and their opportunistic clients, the wishy-washy dilly-daddling over the carbon tax, her delusions of grandeur insofar as likening her useless tax to one of Australia’s most important (and now carbon-taxed) infrastructure projects, her continued lethal alliance with the toxic Green slime despite what her ministers are saying… all in a mere four and a bit days.

Why on Earth would you then crash a jumbo jet into the bushfire with that Constitutional nonsense today???

Sometimes I do seriously wonder whether there is some kind of mental problem at play here.

What a disastrous end to a disastrous week for our most disastrous PM in history.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • July 6th, 2012

    Okay. I really want me, one of these…

    Armed and ready for action at the next election. (If only)

    Change the constitution to make racism law. Hmmm, on how many levels is this a bad idea? It’s just a stunt, BB. It wont work. Referendums mostly fail. This is simply a ploy to get people talking about anything but the Carbon Tax and Gillard complete failure as a human being. It wont work. Labor is dead and we’re coming for her.

    Besides, KRudd said “sorry”. Wasn’t that the end of it?

    • Dagnamit! Edu. Dept. internet filter says no. It’ll have to wait until I’m back home.

      Of course it’s a stunt. I hate to use the cliche, but I didn’t think their ill-conceived, hare-brained, grandiose brain farts could GET any more pie in the sky.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • July 6th, 2012

      Try this… also ready for FNPM!

      • It’s not even 11am here. Patience, man. Patience.

    • paul2471
    • July 6th, 2012

    NT Intervention is Commonwealth racism.

    ALR(NT) earlier Commmonwealth racism.

    As “Traditional Owners” the Central Land Council tells our family we have NO right to live in a house, NO right to have family live with us or visit us.

    The Commonwealth permits segregation of our family on basis of racial testing.

    Commonwealth ongoing refusal to provide legal assistance.

    Courts require legal representation in order to have a “fair trial” and full and proper consideration of serious legal and constitutional issues.

    As Minister Tickner admitted these matters needed be taken to trial.

    Still no legal aid.

    Human Rights Commission when faced with taking the matter to court ran away.

    Commonwealth defends its claimed right to be racist towards Australians.

    Why support any ability of Commonwealth to be a racist to Australians ?

    In 1967 Australians overwhelmingly re-affirmed there was to be NO discrimination between Australians using racial identification.

    The Commonwealth as leading Australian racist, seeks only to defend and to widen its abilty to be even more racist towards Australians.

    • Hi. Thanks for dropping by (and note, only the first comment is moderated).

      That’s utterly ridiculous that you have no right to a house (and I’m guessing private property in that sense) for you and your family. What the hell is the problem that a man can’t own his own home? One of Australia’s best movies, “The Castle”, is based precisely on that, and no wonder it’s so popular.

      Affirmative action, special treatment, in my book is reverse racism. And reverse racism is still racism. That’s not on when everyone’s grey matter has similar potential.

      Not that I have any problem if Aborigines want to live like their ancestors did, but that shouldn’t be at the exclusion of individual choice.

      I’m really sorry you can’t get a top lawyer. It seems in that sense, “The Castle” really was just a movie.

        • paul2471
        • July 6th, 2012

        Large parts of the NT, SA and WA are owned by corporate entities, indeed the largest of these in the NT are Commonwealth created entities.

        Legal issue is not so much the ownership of the land by these corporate landlords eg Haasts Bluff Land Trust, rather whether these corporate landowners are entitled to be exempted from their responsibilities as landowners towards their tenants or guests.

        “Traditional Owners” are shareholders in these corporate entities.

        The Central Land Council is a Commonwealth appointed corporation which acts as the real estate agent, and the lawyer for the collective land trusts.

        The Central Land Council refuses to issue leases to “Traditional Owners” and others, because by giving them leases they are giving them enforceable rights and responsibilities… obviously those lawyers are concerned tenants might have rights.

        Squatting without valid leases means enforceable rights few and hard to defend…

        AliceSpringsNews dot com dot au reports on these, development of basic services, and consequences where people unable to obtain leases over the years.

        Do wonder IF this deliberate government policy to prevent communities becoming sustainable…

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • July 6th, 2012

      That is terrible, Paul. Sorry to hear of your dilemma. I really don’t understand how the government can have pet issues like these that divide Australians and make life difficult for its citizens. It seems to me, the Left just like to make trouble for troubles sake.

      One day, the government tell us everyone who comes to Australia can be Australian based on multiculturalism (asylum seekers come to mind) and the next day, the government wants to make constitutional change to make some Australian’s more Australian than the rest. They can’t have it both ways. Gillard is being ridiculous, as usual.

      BingBing is right when he asks, “Does the government wake up and see unicorns in the front garden?”

      The next election will be a pseudo-referendum on the Carbon Tax. There will be no other issue on the agenda. Gillard can bleat all she likes. Australians have already decided. I get the feeling there will be alot of repealing going on after the next election. From what Paul has said here, it sounds like some other laws need throwing in the circular-file, too.

    • paul2471
    • July 6th, 2012

    Noted is that at Federation existed concerns as Australians were British Commonwealth citizens, that Australia might face difficulty with floods of Commonwealth migrants from China, India, and other places seeking for themselves their better futures in Australia exploited by employers to flood labour markets and destroy growing egalitarian principles of fair work, fair pay and collective bargaining.

    Thus our Constitution s.51 (xxvi) was to enable the Commonwealth to control migrant flows using race as a measure.for persons who were NOT Australians.

    A separate issue is to discrimination upon Australians.

    However Commonwealth claims a right to legalize their racial discrimination upon all and any.

    Is like saying we shall punish some of those who rape, assault and murder as long as you agree we can be allowed to do these from time to time of our choosing…

    • Was it similarly frustrating when the other mob were in power?

    • paul2471
    • July 6th, 2012

    Unfortunately yes to a large degree, whether government led by Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee the advising from Sir Humphrey continues, while they all play the mugs. sorry punters, sorry voters….

    Elected Parliamentarians overly restricted in public discussion by approved party gospel lines. Politicians certainly need explain why they go against a party line, however we need encourage them to see and wear such as a badge of honor, rather than a noose from betrayal.

    Legislative task is to get it as right as possible.

    Considering above am not sure what will work other than requiring replacement of Departmental heads and senior Executive positions when change of government.

    Whether changing departmental heads will change departmental policy is another debate.

    Policy dangers mostly lay within policy details.

    Changes to policy perhaps need more community public discussion.

    Difficult to obtain then maintain public attention to develop rational practical alternatives. IF discussions during development and shaping of policy was more public perhaps easier to achieve and maintain interest.

    Political debates frequently focus on team aims, not legislation aims.

    See the Goebbels oriented philosophy concerning simple easily presented illusions rather than practical realities and changes to be achieved.

    Practical changes rarely simple in detail.

    Essential is requiring legislation be tabled for several months to ensure occurs public debate.

    Make intra-party policy debates public so everyone can read them.

    Everyone with an interest needs opportunity to read and discuss changes with intended impacts and alternatives in public to enable differences of opinion concerning impacts to be considered.

    Commonwealth NT Intervention legislation, was racist and IMHO not required as every state and territory has a welfare department who are supposed to be on top of these issues.

    Children are children regardless of ethnic tags and all deserve protection.

    Welfare departments should be presenting their arguments concerning at risk families and children at risk to their courts.

    Why so few cases presented in court ?

    Commonwealth should publicly review and criticize welfare departmental operations, but not be involved in managing them on a day to day basis..

    Many NT docs departmental problems directly result from earlier Commonwealth legislative barriers and intimidation of the NTG which prevented NT docs from acting when and how they should.

    Role for Commonwealth on welfare NOT to replace state and territory departments, rather to work with states and territories to annually review each department for operational failings, difficulties, budgets, and how these may be fixed and services improved.

    All such reports need be published for community to consider and discuss.

    • Perhaps council style meetings that interested citizens can participate in if they aren’t in place already?

      From reading your comments, it sounds like there is potential for at least some good progress to be made.

      Gillard is probably too busy with her myriad of faux pas, but maybe Abbott would have a more sympathetic ear (although probably when/if he’s PM). He does do extended volunteer work up on Cape York, after all.

      Not an easy one. Keep pushing, mate.

  1. paul2471 :
    Commonwealth NT Intervention legislation, was racist and IMHO not required as every state and territory has a welfare department who are supposed to be on top of these issues.

    Children are children regardless of ethnic tags and all deserve protection.

    Welfare departments should be presenting their arguments concerning at risk families and children at risk to their courts.

    Why so few cases presented in court ?

    My understanding is that various child services departments across the states are grossly overwhelmed and severly under-staffed.

    • paul2471
    • July 6th, 2012


    Commonwealth provided additional funds, really need reviewed where, how and whether expenditures reasonable for the workloads.

    Commonwealth along with state and territory ministers need agree on who should do the “Indpendent” reviews.


    • Not sure how independent a Gillard committee would be. She stacked the one for the asylum seeker issue. She stacked the one for the media inquiry. She stacked the one for climate change policy.

      • Carpe Jugulum
      • July 6th, 2012

      Thanks for that info Paul etc, that is a lot to digest in one reading so i’ll check your links and do some reading.

      You point out some disturbing issues, thanks for your insights.

      • paul2471
      • July 6th, 2012

      Perhaps expecting too much for Commonwealth, states and territories to select a joint review with each nominating one independent person for consideration to be on and/or head such review board, with each lodging their optional preferences on a ballot paper to select.

      • This is a blog where shit doesn’t just get repeated, but where it also starts.

        Happened with the BER, so why not?

        Commonwealth gets to nominate two; states and territories one each?

        That would make 9.

        It kinda sucks but it’s a good compromise. We all know Vic and Tas, even NSW. Compared to NT not even a state and WA way over there.

        No stalemates. Works for the SCOTUS.

        Don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t give a fuck who you are, but you have some good ideas.

        Be sure to repeat that comment any time. If it’s off topic, just type O/T. i.e. It’s Friday night, so…

  2. I can’t get behind the paywall, but I assume these are the same amendments that were being talked about before Jooolya’s Osstraylya Day One Shoe Scuttle.
    Fat chance they’ll go anywhere after that.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: