Warren Mundine’s motivation
Paul Schacht writes: Re. “Rundle: Warren Mundine’s individual treaty idea a confused Farrago” (Friday). The piece on Mundine is interesting and makes many excellent points. However I think there may be method in Mundine’s madness. I suspect he is having fantasies that his version of recognition will weaken claims to Aboriginality. There would be something in this for him. He is advising mining interests about matters Aboriginal. I suspect he is thinking that if he could weaken ties to country things might be easier for the mining industry to negotiate with Aborigines. Imagine the money Mundine could earn as a go-between between weakened Aboriginal groupings and mining interests. Of course in any final wash-up it would not be that easy or simple given existing legislation and court decisions. But I think this stuff is in the theatre of his mind. He works for Tony, advises mining interests and is married to Liberal Party royalty… Gerard Henderson’s daughter.
John Strain writes: What an appalling and ignorant article. Aboriginals were hunter/ gatherers? Please read Dark Emu, Bruce Pascoe’s carefully researched book using European sources showing many tribes/ nations (no word exists in English to describe Aboriginal entities) revealing agriculture, aquaculture, towns and settlements, storage and preservation of food, use of fire, religion, language and law.
If each entity has its own law, leadership and language maybe a prime cause of our failure to address the problems we caused and continue to cause is our failure to recognise these differences. Maybe Europe should no longer be Scottish, Welsh, English, Castillian, Catalonian, Basque, French (province), French Belgian, Dutch Belgian, Dutch, German (German states), Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc by outsiders and they should all be treated with the same contempt as we treat our indigenous peoples. After all these entities have been invaded and suppressed too.
Did not the indigenous peoples in the area surrounding and including Melbourne speak related dialects and see themselves as part of the Kulin people? Guy states of Gary Johns, “one of the most damaging things of the destructive ignorance of people like Gary Johns is their simple disdain for this history”, but then proceeds to reveal his own destructive ignorance.
Could a Nick Xenophon-led party be successful?
Vincent Burke writes: Re. “Party time: will Xenophon be able to launch a national brand?” (Friday). As a South Australian, I believe Nick Xenophon’s appeal within the electorate has been based largely on the public’s perception that he was neither Labor nor Liberal, and his profile has been greatly enhanced by his ability to grab media attention through clever stunts. He is the ultimate media tart. He is like a political ambulance chaser, who latches on to any cause which ensures yet more media attention. He will invariably pontificate on the latest problem of the day, but rarely produces results. There are so many examples of him standing up on certain issues, ensuring the media carry his political “selfie”, but somehow he’s never there when the outcome is negative. He has moved on to the next issue. I challenged him on this on talk-back radio, and his instant response was to quote something he did in 2009 — five years ago.
The worst media offender in terms of providing him constant uncritical exposure is the local ABC. He appears on the Matt and Dave Breakfast Show at least twice a week, and is rarely subjected to the aggressive scrutiny these presenters apply to government spokespersons. Someone needs to examine carefully his track record, not his media scrapbook which no doubt he maintains to peruse in his retirement. Unlike Clive Palmer, Xenophon has earned his political stripes through genuine commitment to his task of self-promotion, but ultimately NXT will fizzle just like PUP.