Comments on: Mal Brough

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:56:56 +0000

Barney,
I actually queried Mal’s office on two of the issues that you raise. The only one that I am not sure was justified was the abolition of the permit system, although I think it has to be said that the permit system wasn’t performing any useful purpose.
Haven’t read Crikey on this, and I suspect I won’t – it’s become the first line of offence for the Aboriginal industry. The policies most of those people have been advocating have caused a deterioration in Aboriginal welfare because they stem from the idea that somehow Aborigines should be left in suspended animation as a museum culture, but without having to support themselves, and with advanced economy standards of living.
That just doesn’t hang together.
I’ve been a great supporter of aboriginal land rights, and aboriginal rights generally, but it has always been on the basis that aborigines have a right to negotiate the way that they enter into the 21st century.
Unfortunately what has happened is that the lucky few have become Europeanised, like Noel Pearson, Lowtija O’Donohue, the Dodson brothers, to just pick some names, but the brothers and sisters and aunties and uncles back on the communities have been going down-hill. I’m not saying Pearson et al are to blame, they’re not. But I will side with Pearson when it comes to solutions, despite the fact that they contradict some of the things that I used to believe 30 years ago.
When things aren’t working, it’s time to change. I want Aborigines to survive to be able to make their way into this century.
That means they need to stop being a museum culture and move on. We need to empower the entrepreneurs amongst them and kick-start a real economy, and we need to put a halt to the destructive social practices, like excessive alcohol consumption.
Why did they vote against this? It’s paternalistic, most are comfortable in squalor, but go with the vote and things get worse. Sometimes popular votes aren’t a good decision making mechanism.

By: barney

barney — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:17:42 +0000

Graham,
Like many people i suspect, I had mixed feelings about the NT intervention. Given the Howard government’s absolute propensity for making just about every decision based upon cynical opportunism, it was difficult to overturn my own skepticism that this was just another example of wedge politics. But like most people I suspect, I decided to give Brough the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately from my analysis the intervention was made murky by the overturning of land rights, the abolition of CDEP and the ending of the permit system. These (admittedly from the perspective of a long way away) appear to have everything to do with ideology and little to do with improving the lot of Aboriginal people.
It is obvious that you have a lot of time for Brough. I would be interested then in hearing of your response to the analysis of the intervention in yesterday’s Crikey, and particularly what your response is to the fact that Aboriginal people appeared to vote overwhelmingly against the intervention.

By: Derek Sheppard

Derek Sheppard — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:22:02 +0000

Sorry, I meant:
… in order to realise that military style planning and execution of decisions is NOT the best way.
It’s late.

By: Derek Sheppard

Derek Sheppard — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:08:19 +0000

I hope that Brough sees sense, after some time out of the cauldron of federal politics and re-enters politics. He could well learn from ex-PM Howard’s early years, and his last years, and get back to where he was. Some time working with people in community would do him well, in order to realise that military style planning and execution of decisions is the best way. It is true that he has the potential to go further, but he needs to move on and forward from defeat.

By: frank luff

frank luff — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:09:45 +0000

A committed person is what all are trying to say, and I agree.
Perhaps he will be offered a post by labor, they could do worse!
fluff4

By: tyro rex

tyro rex — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:08:27 +0000

He can come and oust my local member, the completely useless bludger Michael Johnson and take over the seat of Ryan. I am solid Labor and I think its seriously a shame that a dill like Johnson didn’t get ejected when others of much better quality and talent did.

By: ray

ray — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:56:10 +0000

Perhaps his defeat is linked to his attitude being more like a “principal” (sic) than his so called principles!!

By: Rollo Manning

Rollo Manning — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:55:15 +0000

Whatever Brough decides to do I hope he does with a bit more homework on the background to an issue than he showed with the NT intervention. I have been working in Aboriginal health for the past 10 years and am still learning. Brough seemed to think that a fly in fly out visit to numerous communities meant he knew it all. Whoever was advising him in the NT intervention should hang their head in shame and lament with Brough at their passing. Sure something had to be done but not in the crude rude and unattractive way that the Brough/Howard intervention was done.

By: Karooson

Karooson — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:44:20 +0000

The man that allowed John Howard to send in his storm Troopers in amongst the Aboriginal people an haress them for political gain.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:42:07 +0000

I read this morning that he’s hosed down any talk of a move into state politics, but I would have to concede (as someone who quite likes anna bligh) that he’d provide a few headaches for the Premier as the leader of a merged opposition. Anything you can arrange there, Graham?