There is a really sinister and divisive underpinning to Howard’s proposed reform of the Native Title Act. His reasoning seems to be based on driving a wedge between Australians – a tactic that has kept him in power for a long time. Howard is an opportunist. I do think there is an ideological underpinning to his positions but, in true Machiavellian style, it is not necessarily the ideological position that he used to argue his point.

I think Howard is frustrated by Land Rights because he hates Australia’s indigenous population getting any special treatment (racist?) and it can easily frustrate mining interests who are obviously a particularly big lobby group in Australia and no doubt large parts of the Liberal party have significant financial interest in mining.

So what Howard has done is given right-wing commentators their que (although it wouldn’t surprise me if it was the other way round). He has provided an argument that is astoundingly simplistic but divisive because, with a lack of further information, it sounds like a well reasoned argument. But it is based on some nasty untruths (lies?)

Howard is saying “Why can’t you ‘elites’ just let the Aborigines have what they want? It is just what every other Australian wants. Why do you keep holding them back like that?” So what does “every Australian want?” Home and business ownership. That’s reasonable enough, isn’t it?

Of course it is reasonable enough but it over looks several key points. Firstly Native Title is a collective ownership. More importantly this is what under pins the law and is the argument for Native Title. The Mabo case argued that Australia was not Terra Nullius when it was invaded by the Brits, but that the land was collectively owned by the indigenous populations of Australia. Mabo argued that the indigenous population wanted a return to this form of land ownership and as far as I can gather this is an almost universal belief across our Indigenous population. The Indigenous population also want a chance to get ahead. Business ownership is one way of doing this. However, as has been pointed out over at Larvatus Prodeo, that really doesn’t do you much good if you are situated in some of Australia’s remotest regions which is where a lot of Native Title land is. Add to this that your consumers have been neglected by the federal government and largely live below the poverty line.

The second key untruth here is that Howard’s plan will open the way for mining leases. There is no doubt that mining companies will have easier access to Native Title land.

Finally, it is a way of wiping Howard’s hand of responsibility. “Hey, we gave you what you want which is the opportunity to own your own business. If you can’t make a go of it, it’s your fault.

I was recently disheartened on the motorcycle front when I learnt that Terry had bought a scooter. Shame.

However my faith was restored by the first round of the Moto GP in Spain. I watched eagerly as a lot or riders had switched teams. Bayliss the Aussie was now on a Honda which he should start to win races on, Biaggi was finally on the Repsol Honda so he no longer had any excuses considering he’s riding the best bike on the field and of course Rossi on the brand new M1 Yamaha and my main man, Gibernau, looking like the only person who could take it to Rossi.

As usual it was Rossi and Gibernau up front for the whole race, Gibernau leading, Rossi watching his every move. Then, with three laps to go Rossi makes his move and gets in front, only for Gibernau to get back in front half way through the final lap. But we all knew Rossi wasn’t going to take that lying down. On the last corner Rossi came in breaking late and running wide, but doing just enough to literally make contact with Gibernau mid corner and push him off the track. I nearly cried. This is motor sport at its finest.

I’m particularly interested in Blogs as a medium so often draw peoples’ attention to ideas about the medium. Over at LarvatusProdeo, Mark provides some interesting thoughts:

But political blogs arose partly in response to the perceived departure from this important accountability and information role by big media. Witness the increasing transformation of The Australian into a Neo-Con, Howardian mouthpiece that still likes to maintain the pretence of objective journalism. Is Antony missing something here – that the Blairs of the world are actually reproducing in the Blogosphere the subservience of journalism to power and profit that now characterises much of the mainstream media? Maybe that’s a more powerful critique than questioning Tim’s journalistic practice?

The Blog’s he is referring to are Tim Blair‘s and Anthony Loewenstein‘s. Blair seems to be the Andrew Bolt of the Blogsphere but Anthony’s makes for a good read.

…And could someone confirm for me that RWDB does stand for “Right-wing dead beat”?

Update: John Quiggin has also recently weighed in on the debate about blogs at Opinion Online.

Admittedly I don’t know as much as I’d like to about the issues surrounding low-cost housing but it seems to me that charging developers a levy is a good way to fund it.

Talks of integrating low-cost housing into development areas to prevent the creation of ghettos is also a good idea. That said, I’m concerned about this housing only being available on the urban fringe. A really positive aspect of the commission flats in Carlton, Collingwood, North Melbourne and a few other places is that they are very close to the city and therefore have the infrastructure that they need – transport perhaps most importantly. This gives people geographical access to opportunities. There are a lot more job opportunities in the inner suburbs.

The demolition of the current housing estates is fine providing new ones are built on the same ground. Currently this housing is really problematic particularly if we consider people with a disability (who are often in need of low-cost housing) living in “walk-up” housing. We’ll see how it pans out but I’m optimistic at this stage.

I have no sympathy for Spammers.

I’ve never exactly keep my hatred of Doyle to my self as regular readers of this blog will know.

So needless to say I nearly pissed myself when I read This.

A Nationals senator has come out against VSU. If this senator crossed the floor the Libs would no longer have a majority in the Senate.

I’ve said many times before that the Nationals probably have more in common with the greens than with the major parties and I suspect the same could be said of Family First. Obviously there are some pretty key issue that there are some massive differences on but greens policies would benefit rural and regional Australia far more than either major party. VSU will hurt rural universities. The full sale of Telstra will cause the bush considerable harm. Proposed Industrial Relations changes will mean less job stability in rural areas where unemployment is endemic in some areas.

Add to this a health dose of irrelevance for the Nationals. I think they have their smallest parliamentary representation in a very long time and there is increasingly no love lost between the Nats and the Libs.

So is it conceivable that the Nationals could undertake an amicable departure from the Coalition and become a minor party that sticks up for the interests of rural Australia? It is probably the quickest route to relevancy. They have massively compromised their position by being part of the Coalition which has cost them a lot of votes.

The only problem is that the Libs still need one more seat in the House to form government. Then again, there are others to form coalitions with.

Howard’s planned land rights changes worry me no end. I’ve always said that I don’t think Howard is necessarily racist himself but that many of his policies have racist outcomes.

“The elders of Wadeye, a former Catholic mission, told Mr Howard they wanted to break out of a cycle of welfare dependency and to be given the chance to use their own land to create jobs, wealth and security.” Of course they do! But Howard has a way of turning this around as he did with the mutual responsibility issue.

Let’s not forget Howard’s 10 Point Plan.

The Federal Government is looking to adopt a UK-based wage-fixing model for low income earners. Under this system a panel of economic experts sets the mimimum wage based on its impact on the economy.

The knee-jerk reaction here is clearly that we are talking about giving people a wage that they can live off, not what benefits the economy. It’s human rights, not economics. Surely the economy would benefit from lower wages to keep overheads down and so on. After all, what’s good for big businees is good for the country.

However, the labour movement is often siting the increase in productivity of well treated workers. One element of treating your workers well is paying them well. So it could well be that this plan backfires somewhat and wages actually increase quite a bit because this is directly linked productivity. In the UK, wages increase quicker. I’m not sure why though and it could have more to do with minimum wage having been so low in the past and there being a need for it to catch up, not worker productivity issues. Of course it could also be linked to them becoming bigger consumers – I’m not sure.

Feds are siting the UK example to make its case for the panel but I think it is a safe bet that they are hoping that low-income wages will decrease. In fact, they technically have been for the last few years as the wage increases have been below inflation.

I guess the danger is that, firstly it takes power away from working people by excluding their representatives (Unions) from having a seat at the table and secondly, who will be on this panel and what is their agenda?

Does it humor anyone else that the next reigning monarch of Monaco’s name is Prince Albert?