The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Howard tilts at title fight
By Michelle Grattan
April 10, 2005/the AGE



John Howard is bent on taking the white picket fence to remote Aboriginal Australia.

This is a crude but not inaccurate way to see the Prime Minister's push to encourage Aborigines in the Northern Territory to own their own homes.

Have a look at Howard's rhetoric at the Aboriginal community of Wadeye, 270 kilometres from Darwin, on Wednesday: "I believe there is a case for reviewing the whole issue of Aboriginal land title, in the sense of looking more towards private recognition. It's a view that I've held for some time.

"I certainly believe that all Australians should be able to aspire to owning their own home and having their own business. Having title to something is the key to your sense of individuality, it's the key to your capacity to achieve, and to care for your family, and I don't believe that indigenous Australians should be treated differently in this respect".

He could be talking to suburbia in Melbourne or Sydney.

Land is at the heart of Aboriginal identity. It is also often at the centre of politics involving Aborigines. ..... <cont.>

<complete article>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Michelle-Grattan/Howard-tilts-at-title-fight/2005/04/09/1112997222229.html?oneclick=true

Well I hope the ALP doesn't blow this one due to ideology and personality fights. It might be a really good idea if someone bothers to ask the people who might be potentially affected by the decision what they'd like.
And it's entirely possible that the federal government might actually have had a good idea.

Sorry goodfielder, I disagree entirely, for now. The cultural differences are too great for this to work, all it will achieve is the complete disenfranchisement of the indigenous for generations.

It adds further proof that John Howard (and apparently his advisors) have no concept of how aboriginal societies work, what their problems are, or any vision for improvement.

Just keep smashing square pegs in round holes.

I've been watching this one develop, wondering why now (so sudden!) & about the ramifications for the aboriginal communities who'll be affected. I'm waiting for more detail & discussion. But, naturally, I'm worried about Howard's motives, the thinking of the folk folk who are giving him the advice for these changes & the timing of the planned legislation to be presented to parliament: July 1 has horrible connotations, for obvious reasons! I hope the Labor Party is on the ball with this. It is obviously going to have it's hands very, very full come mid year!

The new threat to our lands
April 11, 2005/the AGE
By Galarrwuy Yunupingu, AM, a former Australian of the Year, retired as chairman of the Northern Land Council last October after 27 years' service.



The system of communal title on Aboriginal land is under renewed challenge, writes Galarrwuy Yunupingu.

..... a new threat to Aboriginal rights seems to be forming. With Coalition control of the Senate on July 1 looming, two recent papers call for substantial amendments to the Land Rights Act, and attack the very basis of Aboriginal culture - communal title.

Both papers, prepared by the Centre for Independent Studies and for the National Indigenous Council, dismiss communal title as a cultural relic, said to stultify development and prosperity, which should be converted to individual ownership in the form of 99-year leases of Aboriginal land - a device whereby traditional owners' rights would be cancelled for generations.

These simplistic and disingenuous claims are a Trojan horse to attack Aboriginal rights and land councils. They derive from an academic ideology that seeks to blame the victim, and which has no appreciation of the values and customs by which Aboriginal people live their lives. The true cause of impoverishment in remote communities, whether or not on Aboriginal land, is long-term government neglect in providing education, health and housing - especially since NT self-government in 1978. Indigenous Affairs Minister Amanda Vanstone need go no further to appreciate why Aboriginal people in the NT are "land rich, dirt poor"

<complete article>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-new-threat-to-our-lands/2005/04/10/1113071849369.html

~

... & how Bruce Petty sees it:

And as if that wasn't enough, we now the Medicare safety net plan is under threat in the next budget! AND we have the spectacle of Costello & Abbott apparently heading for a bunfight over the issue! (A future leadership contest, perhaps? Things are really hotting up in Canberra.)

Liberals split on safety net plan
By David Wroe and Michelle Grattan
Canberra
April 11, 2005/the AGE

Senior Howard Government ministers are headed for a showdown over plans to break a key election promise by slashing the generous Medicare safety net.

Health Minister Tony Abbott is expected to fight a push by Treasurer Peter Costello to trim the safety net when cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss the May 10 budget.

Mr Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin are, according to one source, "pretty determined" to rein in the cost of the scheme, which has blown out from $440 million to a projected $1 billion over four years.

But Mr Abbott thinks the scheme is not a major budgetary problem for the Government and will resist any changes. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Liberals-split-on-safety-net-plan/2005/04/10/1113071852345.html

In my most uncynical mode, Olga, I can pretend that Howard's motivations are for the improvement of the plight of the indigenous - however his thinking is fatally flawed because he really doesn't understand the indigenous in remote communities.

I'm betting that the extent of his contact with the indigenous is Noel Pearson and maybe Mandawuy Yunupingu, two men who are leaders within their communities but with very questionable motivations in regard to their own people.

It is simple fact that the people in NT communities do not think of land the way we do. It may be paternalistic to stop them from selling off their land but it really is necessary until the councils that run communities are committed to accountability and the improvement of their whole community (not just their own wealth or the wellbeing of those closest to them).

Damn, Howard can flog off Telstra when the majority of Australians don't want it, and as Olga says, July 1 is hell day where will be subject to a bunch of social justice atrocities in the name of 'mandate'. The governance of aboriginal communities is much much worse than the governance of the federal government.

Traditional power and family alliances run roughshod over what we would call social equity, there is not tradition of democracy or people power. Indigenous people don't (generally) think of themselves as part of an indigenous nation, their alliances are more along familial/clan lines.

Howard has already screwed up indigenous affairs buy scrubbing ATSIS in way too abruptly, at once citing the Shergold recommendations and ignoring them (Shergold had some damn good ideas but had a plan for guiding the communities and improving their capacities) the Office of Indigenous Coordination is nailing jelly to the ceiling and herding cats. Fed Depts are working against each other, and lip servicing the OIC. Fed and State govts don't even talk to each other about what they're doing with indigenous communities.

Why? To my way of thinking, two reasons:

a) Howard's slash and burn appeals to the racism bubbling under the skin of Australians which we're quick to deny but it pops it head out regularly (Tampa, One Nation)

b) Aboriginal affairs just isn't a vote winner. Most Australians don't seem to care. It is a mess, it will take a lot of work to even get on a path that might lead to improvement. Why would Johnny even bother, he doesn't care either - why expend any sweat on it? Go for the oversimplified quick fix that will seem reasonable to an Australia largely ignorant about the issue - in fact I guarantee some Hanson acolyte will complain that "the abo's are getting free house and it's reverse discrimination".

.. & speaking of bunfights & the budget:

Discipline is PM's keyword
By Josh Gordon
Economics Correspondent
Canberra
April 11, 2005/the AGE



The Federal Government is gearing up for a tough budget, with Prime Minister John Howard claiming a strong surplus will be necessary to relieve pressure on interest rates and the current account deficit.

Facing a litany of demands for tax reform and major new spending on infrastructure, Mr Howard last week called for financial discipline, saying the Government would at least deliver its December prediction of a $6.2 billion surplus for the current financial year.

However, some analysts believe that the 2004-05 surplus will be $10 billion or higher, as falling unemployment, rising wages, soaring oil prices and strong company profits pump billions of extra dollars into the Government coffers. ... <cont.>

<complete article>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Discipline-is-PMs-keyword/2005/04/10/1113071851891.html

<sigh> I have this feeling that you're probably right, hinge. Howard probably (possibly?) does mean well, but his advice & his own conservative political mind-set could well be as out of touch with the very people he wants to "help" as the missionaries whose aim was to help "civilize" aborigines in the past. (And look were THAT got them!)
Galarrwuy Yunupingu's article (above) is the first I've read over the past few days that even attempts to address the issues of the aboriginal communities' & what their real needs are. Now why wasn't HE one of the advisers on this "reform"?
And you're right about aboriginal concerns being of little consequence to the general electorate, sadly ..... About I hope Australians aren't completely racist, just ignorant of the issues. Though that's no excuse really, is it? ...

More proposed budget cost-cutting measures. This is getting mighty scary! And infuriating! I'm thinking of all the millions (of our taxes) squandered on Howard's dodgy election campaign. I'm thinking of other measures to raise tax like getting the likes of Kerry Packer to pay their fair share. Why is it the weak, the strugglers, the under-privileged & those with no voice to lobby the government that always have to cop it?
Come July 1 we could be protesting about just about everything!

Health, aged care targets in funding plan
By Louise Dodson, Chief Political Correspondent
April 11, 2005/SMH

... Under the new aged-care deal, elderly hospital patients will be assessed by expert teams to determine whether they should be treated at home or in a nursing home.

The Government wants a more efficient system for treating aged-care patients - the heaviest users of public hospitals - and expects the deal will reduce their number on the wards as well as bring about cuts in state funding.

This will involve changes to the federal-state health agreements, which cover about $8 billion in federal funding to the states for public hospitals, but the assessment teams could attract extra federal funding.

The Government is looking at other ways to achieve savings in its health budget. ....


http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Health-aged-care-targets-in-funding-plan/2005/04/10/1113071856452.html

Moir, from the SMH, on the proposed land rights changes:

.. & as if that wasn't enough for today, dear reader: In response to the proposed federal industrial laws & the treasurer's budget cutting measures, the state governments(Labor, all of them) are proposing their own form of retaliation :

States threaten federal powers
Elizabeth Colman and Andrew West
April 11, 2005/ the AUSTRALIAN

THE states are considering retaliation against Peter Costello's challenge to their GST revenue and spending priorities with a threat to withdraw co-operation from key national agreements that underpin federation.

In an escalation of the mounting crisis in federal-state relations, the states are considering walking away from a 15-year agreement to share corporation law powers, due for renewal this year.

The move could undermine any attempt by the Howard Government to create a national industrial relations system as well as weakening national laws governing business, the smooth operation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and aspects of trade practices law.

Business was yesterday horrified at the suggestion. ... <cont.>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12815677%255E601,00.html

Fasten your seatbelts, folks. We're in for a very, very bumpy ride on the journey to July 1!

No worries hinge - I'm entirely ignorant of the fine points of policy on both sides of this issue. I'm more than happy to learn. I'm going against my natural tendencies (some might call them "unnatural tendencies" but c'est la vie) in allowing that Howard and Co might be doing something for the right reasons at last but I'm not undergoing a conversion on the road to Wolstencroft.

On the road to Wollstonecraft to meet the King of Kirribilli? :wink:

That's the one hinge (even if I did spell the suburb wrong LOL)

... so the prime minister retaliates to the states' retaliation to federal provocation .... :

PM's federal vision for 'inept' states
By Misha Schubert
Political Correspondent
Canberra
April 12, 2005/the AGE

Prime Minister John Howard has made an aggressive case for more federal power in major policy areas, arguing state incompetence is forcing him to reshape federalism to ensure choice and freedom for Australians.

But the Prime Minister insisted his goal was ultimately to disperse power to individuals, rather than have it wielded by central government.

Justifying federal intervention in state responsibilities, he attacked the "dead weight" of highly regulated state industrial relations systems and said state TAFE colleges were "failing to deliver what the nation needs".

"For some, this is a terrible incursion into states' rights," he said. "In reality, it is the Federal Government stepping in where eight different state systems are failing to deliver what the nation needs."

But he ruled out a federal takeover of public hospitals, which would not be better run by a "distant bureaucracy".

The provocation comes amid an escalating row with the states - all governed by Labor - replete with federal threats to void the GST agreement and state threats to take back their power to regulate corporations.

But premiers appeared split on their desire for a fight yesterday. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said co-operation was in the national interest, NSW Premier Bob Carr said no one wanted a war - but Queensland remained defiant.

Addressing the Menzies Research Centre at the Liberal Party's Melbourne headquarters last night, Mr Howard said he was prepared to step in where the states had failed. He said his responsibility was to ensure the best outcomes, not preserve the present split of powers.

While water policy and indigenous policy were examples of co-operative federalism, in other areas "the existing structure of federal-state responsibilities has run its course".

And the Prime Minister argued his push was not a betrayal of Liberal traditions advocating more decentralised power - but an extension of liberal principles such as choice, freedom and opportunity.

"The goal is to free the individual - not trample on the states," he said. "But I have never been one to genuflect uncritically at the altar of states' rights. Our federation should be about better lives for people, not quiet lives for governments."

On industrial relations, Mr Howard said he had watched the states "gum up" workplaces with regulation in recent years, ensuring his push was not an "embrace of radical centralism" - but a commonsense approach. "This is not about empowering Canberra, it is about liberating workplaces from Colac to Cooktown," he said.

But in health care, he said he was "not persuaded" by options for radical reform such as a federal takeover of public hospitals, arguing benefits would be outweighed by having the system run by a remote bureaucracy.

On Sunday Queensland Premier Beattie threatened to walk away from a 15-year agreement to share corporations law powers, in retaliation for a federal threat to void the GST funding agreement if states did not abolish a raft of indirect taxes. Acting Queensland Premier Anna Bligh stood by the threat yesterday.

But in Victoria, Mr Bracks said abandoning the shared powers, due for renewal this year, would hurt Victoria's business community and its international investment prospects. "My preliminary view is that we should be co-operating," he said. "And I believe that we should be co-operating in the nation's interest in securing the appropriate revenue base at a state and federal level, and also making sure we deliver good services. I think to turn back corporations law would be a difficulty. It would be a difficulty for the business community more broadly and our investment prospects internationally."

Mr Bracks said it would be ideal for the states to have a unified position on resolving the GST issues, but admitted that this could not always be achieved. "I'm hopeful that good sense will prevail," he said.

"There will be further meetings of the federal and state and territory treasurers, and I hope out of that we can get a sensible arrangement on the Commonwealth and state financial arrangements."

- with Farrah Tomazin

(on the left: Peter Costello, federal treasurer & on the right, Peter Beattie <sp?> premier of the state of Queensland. He has been the most vocal of the premiers in the current states vs federal government bunfight .)

.... Addressing the Menzies Research Centre at the Liberal Party's Melbourne headquarters last night, Mr Howard said he was prepared to step in where the states had failed. He said his responsibility was to ensure the best outcomes, not preserve the present split of powers.

While water policy and indigenous policy were examples of co-operative federalism, in other areas "the existing structure of federal-state responsibilities has run its course".

And the Prime Minister argued his push was not a betrayal of Liberal traditions advocating more decentralised power - but an extension of liberal principles such as choice, freedom and opportunity ...


Um .... anyone want to have a go at spelling out what this is really all about/what the Libs are up to ....? Obviously something to do with $$$$ & the budget & all, but ....