Dear Mr Rudd,
It is with extreme alarm that I heard you express support for Prime Minister [John] Howard's proposals to take over Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory [NT], in his averred concern over Indigenous child sexual abuse.
First, the issue has been around for decades; and people such as I warned about it at least 20 years ago. At the time when I stated it at a public meeting in Sydney, I was vilified by the media and politicians as alarmist, and being hyperbolic; others were simply ignored.
For Howard to now characterize this issue as a "national emergency" is nothing more than a political stunt, just at the time when he is facing an uncomfortable election. He needs to divert attention from some of the problems that are raising their very ugly heads within the Liberal Party, not to mention his poverty of thinking on any social issue whatsoever.
But apart from that, the real test of his concerns about Indigenous (or any other) kids being subject to abuse at all and any levels can be more accurately assessed by his previous political stunts, the Tampa affair, Children Overboard, the deportation of children born of refugees in Australian Detention Centres. The man is not only a hypocrite, he is evil (by their deeds shall we know them -- as you would know, Mr Rudd, from your Bible).
I would have expected that you'd note it was Howard, who shortly after assuming the office of prime minister, embarked on a protracted vicious propaganda program of demonising Indigenous Australians, which enabled him to put a fire bomb through Indigenous programs, pretty much with impunity, and cut $400 million [US$339 million] from Indigenous Health -- never to be restored (by him, at least). This is the prime minister who is responsible for the virtual demolition of programs which were designed to overcome the very problems which breed child sexual abuse, which cannot be crudely reduced to a law-and-order issue.
I would also have expected you to note Howard's agenda to push the development of the nuclear industry to which uranium is fundamental. And guess what? Uranium just happens to be present throughout the NT, and especially in Aboriginal Lands -- just waiting for Howard's mates to exploit it, as soon as he gets rid of the permit system, takes control of the communities, and cuts more moneys from them, thus ensuring their inability to mount any sort of resistance to any nefarious activities he might wish to get up in their homelands.
Far from Howard attempting to institute measures to ensure that Indigenous Australians will indeed get to share a place in the sun with the likes of Howard's wealthy, privileged mates, he, like so many of his ultra-conservative think-alikes, is once again engaging in the blame game. And he's about to fix it jackboot fashion by cutting services in savagely punitive fashion, and metaphorically sending these wrongdoers (Indigenous parents) to ... well ... Hell, really -- compounding the present sufferings of the little children, along with all other members of their communities.
Anyone who ever thought that we'd build a Civil Society in this country must surely have had the blinkers blasted off their faces by this week's pronouncements by this vicious overlord.
That you, Mr Rudd, would put your name to Howard's proposals is a serious indictment of your leadership, not to mention that it signifies an alarming lack of judgement.
While it is expected that you would agree that Indigenous child sex abuse is shocking (by the way, is it any worse than child sex abuse which is endemic in Western society?), it is quite another thing for you to agree to Howard's raft of proposals for dealing with the issue in NT Indigenous Communities, which are punitive, destructive, and frankly racist.
In order to distinguish yourself as a true alternative Leader of the people of Australia (that is, including Indigenous Australians) you need to clarify issues for action, such as:
■ Differentiating between Howard's land grab of Indigenous communities and the issue of child abuse;
■ Making a distinction between Howard's political and economic agenda, and the real crisis of child abuse in communities;
■ Removal of permits and the [Australian] Commonwealth's control of the territory would enable Howard to place control of the mineral resources on Aboriginal lands into private hands;
■ That solutions to the crisis of child abuse have been highlighted in a raft of domestic and international texts which do not promote deployment of police and the military as the frontline response: It requires a health, education, human services and housing response; and
■ That the Commonwealth has had the ability for decades to address this issue and has not had the political will. Let us be clear that Howard and [indigenous affairs minister Mal] Brough (not to mention [Aboriginal identities] Noel Pearson and Sue Gordon) are not the "Great White Hopes" for Aboriginal Communities.
Mr Rudd, you can have access to any number of people within the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities who would be more than willing to assist you in establishing a distinguishing platform with the aim of building a Civil Society, which would include happy, healthy Indigenous communities.
There are professional Aboriginal women who have dedicated themselves to this field for some 40 years. It is not the moral outrage of one Aboriginal male such as Noel Pearson. I refer you to Naomi Mayers at the Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service [in Sydney], Gracelyn Smallwood from Queensland who has worked with the World Health Organization and has been vocal on this a issue for years, and Boni Robertson. These women are your reference points. In fact you have within the Labor party Ms Linda Burney who can clarify for you what and who needs to be considered in your response, so that your leadership position reflects integrity.
I look forward to hearing you outline a more considered policy response to the NT situation, and particularly to John Howard's promotion of further violence and disempowerment in Indigenous communities, and his continuing demonisation of the people.
Pat O'Shane
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS