Warren Mundine's brave face but gutted - our source correct about Senator Bob Carr!

Agree with you Noel

Mr Mundine publicly put on a brave face however it is understood he has said to some within his beloved ALP that the party had the chance to dedicate to affirmative action on Indigenous representation in parliament

Michael Anderson warns that if Warren Mundine were to replace Senator Mark Arbib, he could speak only for his Bundjarlung nation of the far north coast of NSW. “He does not have a mandate to speak for other Aboriginal people. Should he seek to do so, he will be breaking Aboriginal customary law.”
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/03/01/support-growing-for-national-unity-go...

So with Michael Anderson saying “He does not have a mandate to speak for other Aboriginal people".Looks Like Bob Carr was a good choice, all we need now is for him to roll Gillard and make Rudd deputy

Bob Carr more than able to fill his designated role as Foreign Affairs minister, and can only help improve brand Labor.

Both Warren Mundine and Bob Carr are terrible choices for the Australian Senate.
I'm not sure which would be worse.
Mundine would be such a bad choice - a "whiteised" Aborigine, and a Director of the Australian Uranium Association.
Bob Carr - not, admittedly, an "Uncle Tom" style Aborigine. But perhaps worse, a high profile, very experienced politician, who is one of the nuclear lobby's prime spokesmen. He was pushing for New South Wales to mine uranium, and supporting uranium exporting to India, and promoting nuclear power - well, everywhere.

The whole method of choosing a Senator is a shemozzle - I think Gerry's point was this in the end that Julia Gillard can pick who she wants, screw any reason like an Aboriginal Senator or an experienced choice from within the party and that she can pick somebody and screw the rank and file. I thought how it works was the branch preselects by voting within the branch members the House of reps candidate and again the party sends out a ballot to Labor members to vote for the Senate candidate - so Carr or Mundine or Keneally are not the choice of the members, the rank and file for their senator but autocracy at its stinking worst, an autocracy that saw as Gerry describes cabinet disregarded and the rank and file dismissed, that saw off cabinet consensus, ministers' dissent, that humiliated the seasoned members as Gerry writes, and what Gillard did was pull in one of her close confidantes and allies, her big supporter and let us get this right Bob Carr represents the right, actually the ultra right of the Labor party, represents what Gillard is about and the fact she needs more of the right not the left to take on the electorate that she has let Abbott and the right make more conservative in recent years and Bob Carr represents foreign interests, so makes sense he is foreign minister, represents screwing Palestine all together as Rudd was lurching to the left with his desire to see Palestine in UNESCO but this affected Michael Danby and his ultra wing Jewish side and Carr being Mr Pro-Uranium is perfect for Gillard who will sell uranium to anyone like India, Zimbabwe and Iran next we'd presume! but she couldn't have wrong here either with Mundine who is Mr Pro-Uranium's kindred spirit, Mr Pro-Uranium Jr.

The Labor party missed a great chance to pick a great candidate for senate and instead picked hasbeens that Gillard can use to brand conservative Labor ultra right.

Noel, sorry but you yourself are alluding to a 2 state system not Michael.
From what I have read from Micheal and "many" other Aboriginals is that your "beloved" political system is both corrupt and "illegal" as defined by the very statutes your "beloved" system is based on, English law.

Ever heard of South Africa ? New Guinea ? Fiji ? of course you have ! there they were fortunately not out-populated, out-voted and out-gunned as here.

Do you know how the Indonesians continue the control over Papua or the Chinese over Tibet ? of course you do !

You might enjoy living under the tyranny of a group of pollies you call "democracy" but I would rather people who are at least honest about the past, present and future like Michael,to be a part of the decision making process than any so-called christians who twist the facts and lie through their teeth.

"he felt no need to apologise for shooting off his mouth and playing along with the white racist game"

"White Racist"and your not racist are you?

The slagging is wrong and this is not Parliamentary Question Time - we should better than them!

The issues are:
Aboriginal peoples are the poorest in our country
What will be done, by whom and by when, to correct this?
Sovereignty as an answer and sovereignty does not mean a two nation state or separation of powers, as Gerry says it may mean rights, remedies and empowerment (self determination)

In terms of the Senate - the issues raised were powerbroking and autocracy instead of rank and file protocols
That there was dissent - Stephen Smith for instance
In some media it is said that Simon Crean also disagreed with Gillard pulling up Bob Carr but Gerry says in his article that Crean was afterall onside with Gillard, maybe the assertiveness thing, and other media says it was Gillard and Wayne Swan who like the oligarchy ruled in Bob Carr with many in the cabinet oblivious

The issue of people autocratically lobbying themselves to Gillard and the cabinet for the senate replacement was raised by inference rather than go to rank and file ballot democracy and for the case put
Mundine was raise in terms of his Aboriginality as affirmative action for the ALP but this was not considered significant for Gillard and her cabinet except for a few according to Gerry's article
Then there was the issues raised in the blog if Mundine is the right choice to represent Aboriginal people but is that a question Gerry put or was it a question others had - who is the right person to be Aboriginal in parliament - was it Liberal Neville Bonner, liberal Ken Wyatt, Democrat Aden Ridgeway or all the conservatives and semi conservatives in Labor and Liberal state and territory parliaments? I think the question by Gerry and a couple of cabinet members was the ALP's position to a chance on affirmative action on Aboriginal people into the parliament for Labor. Who we think is best to our represent our views on what we'd like to see from Aboriginal parliamentarians is an entirely different issue. Of course many of us would like to see Michael Anderson in parliament, so would Gerry that I know from him but that is not what the discoveries in the article are about.
The other question is it right for an outside without seasoning as a federal politician to be parachuted into government and undemocratically and what does this say about the state of the ALP and their parliamentarians? The media circus seems to have revelled in Bob Carr's vaudeville ability on the podium and cast him as some great intellect almost Lincolnesque but isn't Bob Carr ultra right wing with some branding in some green policy making but not at the expense of the ultra righ and isn't he Mr Pro-Uranium, Mr Pro-business, Mr Pro-spin, Mr Pro-conservative, Mr anti-Palestine to appease the ultra right and isn't his record as an apparatchik, party dues, party loyalty, and spin-king... The fact he is in the senate will allow him not to challenge Gillard for the leadership from a high profile position like the Foreign Minister, whereas Stephen Smith considered by some as a future leader and Gillard's big replacement threat could become leader from high profile Foreign Minister position because he is in the House of Representatives, and the added bonus for Gillard is she'll have Gillard supporter and spin king and quip master Bob Carr to shut down Senator Doug Cameron, anti-Gillard spokesperson.

Okay I indulged with the last bit but it seems the thread has a life of its own, which is great too but lets look at some of the issues too and not just go half cocked on who is Aboriginal and not and ridiculous two nation states concepts when all people are looking for was at the loss of democracy and transparency from Gillard in hijacking the vacant senate position, in the question of a lost opportunity for a democratically elected person who could have been an Aboriginal person, in the fact that the cabinet has been a place of silence and retribution and the self serving, and the threat posed by the ultra right in Australian politics making it ever so easier for Abbottesque-Howardesque politics, which is what we have at this time, let us not kid ourselves.

However at no time is there any place for slagging racism at others or things said in ways that are offensive and I think the Editor has made some valid comments - now that's being 'assertive' as Gillard would like to say and her silly minions like Crean!

Cheers, In the Know

Ray ? is that your real name ?
Con-way ? hee , can we read something in this ?
Promoting Leftist policy, please , no more left/right vaguries , it's starting to sound a little too much like the " two state solution" you mentioned before.

The institutions of government in this land are corrupt, that's obvious.

How we rid ourselves of them is another thing.
If the majority are content with this situation then get ready for the end because history shows us all tyrannies come to a nasty end.

Your false pastors won't tell you about the impending fate of this world, it's written, but they sure as hell will lead you into destruction.

Green Left Weekly decided to check Carr’s moral and intellectual calibre by checking out his blog. We found a stand-out post from January 27. Here, Carr commented on the protest against opposition leader Tony Abbott and Gillard on January 26 by members of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

Carr said: “I agree with Tony Abbott and think his remarks entirely sensible. The Tent Embassy in Canberra says nothing to anyone and should have been quietly packed up years ago.

"The 'activists' who run it would be better off investing time in youth programs in indigenous communities. Every government in Australia is aware of its responsibilities to Aboriginal Australians. The debate is how you narrow the gap not whether you should and the debate is as serious within the Aboriginal community as between it and the white.”

Now it would seem to me to be useful to look at how current strategies to “narrow the gap” were going and whether the current policy direction was working. A big part of the protest Carr said should be "quietly packed up" was saying that the NT intervention -- the current government policy framework for “narrowing the gap” -- was driving living standards backwards and damaging Aboriginal participation in society by depriving them of certain rights.

It seems to me that if you want to say a protest “says nothing to anyone” you might try to analyse what they were saying with some degree of depth. Carr dismisses the many issues that the Tent Embassy protesters have raised by saying: “Suddenly we are presented with a demand for “Aboriginal sovereignty” -- which can only mean separatism –- which nobody has defined and which, on principle, 99% of Australians would oppose and a majority of Aborigines oppose.”

But the issue of Aboriginal sovereignty has been debated and defined for some time, if you care to look. For example, Tasmanian Aboriginal lawyer and activists Michael Mansell has recently explored just this issue.

It’s quite a detailed piece that sums up some of the thinking behind calls for sovereignty.

I’ll summarise it further for intellectuals like Carr:

1. Aboriginal people have had their laws and culture taken away from them.

2. They want what was taken from them back or, at least, protection against their rights as citizens being stripped away by government .

3. It would be great if that could be codified in the Australian constitution.

Sovereignty becomes important when governments, such had taken place in the Northern Territory, decide that Aboriginal languages cannot be taught in classrooms except at the very end of the day. Or that Aboriginal communities can have their lands forcibly leased by the government at rates far below market value. Or that Aboriginal communities can be subject to police powers that mean people can be arrested for maintaining their right to silence.

All of these things are current policy under the NT intervention, which has the full support of the ALP. On March 13, the Senate will begin to debate legislation to entrench the NT intervention laws for the next 10 years. This was something that the Tent Embassy protest was trying to stop. This seems like a good motivation for protest to me, but then I’m no intellectual.

Carr said about Aboriginal land rights: “Aboriginal right to land –- which is what the embassy was established to promote –- has been recognized in several different forms. The real debate is why this recognition has failed to have any effect on outcomes in remote Australia.”

My answer to that would be that the form of recognition was very limited by the Mabo decision in the first case, then watered-down by the Paul Keating ALP government and then further weakened by amendments made by the John Howard government in 1998. Even Keating admitted in June last year that Aboriginal landholders had less rights than squatters and required a more onerous burden of proof to access land.

Of course, this is something that many in the Aboriginal Tent Embassy have pointed out for a long time, but I guess we can’t expect an intellectual like Carr to be aware of such comments, whether made by a former PM or an Aboriginal elder.

Great piece anon.
Seems like Carr likes to play the "separatist" card too.
They "he and his ilk" do not want to lose their power, position and comfortable pensions by transferring some authority to those who by all accounts could claim total authority.

Shock, horror if Aboriginals obtain what is morally theirs, the right to have authority.
How much ? that's up to them .
For starters those in need get help, those who are not ? well, they can help themselves ,then they would not need any would they !

Oh no, this is not about the 99 % versus the 1 % , this is about the interests of the wealthy both inside and outside this land, those who want the status quo to remain and their commodities kept safe for their markets.

carr and mundine both bad choices but in the end carr is the more dangerous one, he has too much power already, mundine is just a minion

http://indymedia.org.au/2012/03/06/how-australia%E2%80%99s-right-to-know...

Mundine's useless
Carr's a lackey because he's a powerbroker
Keneally would have been better
all of them suck, each and everyone
no calls a spade a spade, not in our parliaments, that's for sure

now if someone like Robbie Thorpe or even at least a Les Malezer was in hte Senate that be something... Mundine, ppfff!