There’s a bit of an irony there!

It is not possible to throw any more money at aboriginal health.

A snippet from the editorial

What is needed is for all Australians to take responsibility for their “mates” just as they did 40 years ago, and to push the shocking state of health among Aborigines high up the political agenda.

The comments thread is open, but as I said let’s share memories, respectful appreciation and links please.

All that was posted was a link. Take it round to Andrew Bartlett’s place where there’s substantive discussion of the report if you want to stoush about it.

Perhaps “Fake but accurate”?

Just sayin…

As a document worthy of serious policy attention the Bringing Home Report should never have been realeased. I am appalled that a social scientist such as yourself, who ordinarily will shout his disgust at sloppy biased methodology can laud this piece of garbage.

There is only one interpretation. You are a racist.

Will they apologize? Tragically, of course not.

Barry Cassidy interviewed Mal Brough on Insiders.

Brough made a distinction between urbanised Aborigines, those on the fringe of population centres in the “long grass’ and remote settlements. In the case of the latter two he is keen in tailored negotiated assistance.

Howard was accused of genocide when he spoke at a function this morning.

Rudd said Labor in government would “say sorry for past atrocities committed by European settlers.”

news.com.au has a roundup of events associated with the anniversary and reports new research on Australian attitudes which

showed Australians were ready for a new, stronger relationship between its indigenous and non-indigenous people.

The study of attitudes of 1000 adult Australians by Aboriginal progress group Reconciliation Australia found 71 per cent believed building better relationships between indigenous people and the rest of society was important.

The majority believed reconciliation was about “developing mutual respect� and “indigenous people having equal rights�, the research found.

“These findings suggest that the values which motivated the 1967 referendum are still held by the majority of Australians,� Reconciliation Australia chief executive Barbara Livesey said.

Rudd promised

to close the 17-year gap in life expectancy between black and white Australians within a generation.

The Age gives details:

“I would propose that we commit the nation to the following goals to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians within a generation.

“To at least halve the rate of indigenous infant mortality … within a decade.

“To at least halve mortality rates in indigenous children aged under five within a decade and to at least halve the difference in the rate of indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within ten years.”

Mr Rudd said a Labor government would tackle the high rate of rheumatic heart fever in indigenous children aged between five and fifteen through proper diagnosis and early access to antibiotics.

Labor’s plan would be funded by a $186.4 million contribution from federal funds and $75 million from the states and territories.

It would include new child and maternal health services for indigenous Australians and individualised learning plans for indigenous students up to year 10.

http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1499

I think it was Rowse of the Rowse and Goot combination who said that the ABS had been counting Aborigines and that they had been counted in NSW as early as 1828.

Rob, sorry I didn’t check the spaminator earlier. I have no expertise in the area, but I was attracted to Elkin’s four category conceptualisation of inclusion. Rowse and Groot believe that the Australian people in general were more than happy to extend political rights to the indigenous peoples but social inclusion was quite a different matter. They would say that that is where the fault line lies. As far as I can make out there was an expectation that Commonwealth involvement would lead to a better deal, and as such the subsequent years have been disappointing.

It doesn’t mean that anyone saw the referendum as an “end”, however. I think that just slipped off Kelly’s pen.

Kelly always manages to sound a bit pompous, and I think his characterisation of those times as ’simple’ is, well, a bit simplistic.

Katz, I didn’t hear all of the Awaye! program tonight, but there were claims that the race power of the Commonwealth had been used against Aborigines.

However, it is important to be very clear about what the constitutional change actually means.

Annulment of the section relating to Aborigines means that Aborigines are now equally subject with members of all other “races” to the “race powers” in the Constitution. In other words, racist legislation is now constitutional for all “races”.

And this fact has not been missed by the Tories. In the early months of the first Howard Government, Senator Mellon, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, mused out loud in Parliament over whether it might be politic to pass special legislation under the “race powers” provision to annul certain unwelcome aspects of Native Title.

It didn’t happen, of course. It was unnecessary. The Howard Government lacked the motive but not the opportunity to find a new use for the still existant “race-powers” provision of the Australian constitution.

This possibility continues to exist while the “race powers” provision of the Constitution remains.