While the right and left have argued over the nature of the punishment, what we have seen with the intervention is a denial of a basic right in front of the law to be judged whether to receive the punishment in the first place.
Drift is one thing, but loss of control over the state apparatus is something else.
Treasury’s unusual move in projecting growth at a higher trend and for a longer forward projection is necessary to provide a guide path out of the downturn that does not come from the economic programs of the political class.
Instead of making even more racially based sections of the constitution with a preamble, how about marking next Australia Day by getting rid of the ones we’ve got?
Greer seems to be demanding that a zany film director and a screen actress do what she can’t – make a coherent political point.
If apologies are so in vogue, maybe here’s a chance to apologise to all those living now who have had such a slur made against them …
… it seems the more the Liberals ditch what they stand for, the more they cling to Howard the man, rather than what he was supposed to stand for.
Over the last year there has been a subtle, and rather unpleasant, re-writing of what the intervention is about.
The republican side always contained an uneasy coalition between these two differing reasons for supporting the republican model – a national identity one and a broader democratic one. The two may want to get rid of the monarchy but there is a conflict between them over who was to have the final say.
If there is an iron law of Australian politics, it is that the fate of the political class and the indigenous issue are intimately intertwined.