Minor Party Alliance/Coalition/Amalgamation

Iain Dooley, you said:

“…The goal is to try and get consensus as you say amongst minor parties and NGOs on economic reform and a job guarantee…”

You have misunderstood what I said, I said:

“…Might I suggest another strategy, rather than formal alignment, approach all parties to agree to support just one simple non-partisan universally socially acceptable policy in return for the AEP acknowledging that party for their support?...That policy is full employment…”

I think the consensus approach is making a rod for the AEP’s back. To achieve a consensus on economic reform and a job guarantee increases the level of difficulty to a level that points of difference can be argued making consensus impossible.

I would argue that the only consensus the AEP should attempt to obtain is agreement and support for full employment, full stop, the end, no more.

Many that would support the concept of full employment may have issues or a difference of opinion on economic reform and a job guarantee and it would be counterproductive with regard to achieving any consensus. If the AEP is able to get consensus on full employment without getting tied up with the mechanics of getting to that point, it must work in its favour.

This approach would not alienate another policy platform or organisation who may have a different philosophical path to the concept of full employment.

What attracted me to the AEP was the simplicity of its message. What put me off other parties were the layers of complexity.

In addition to the above I believe that some mainstream rhetoric has crept in to the AEP preamble, For example:

“…The main goal for formation of the National Executive and election of office bearers is to ensure that we maintain ethnic and gender diversity, and diversity of sexual orientation…”

I would say:

“The main goal for formation of the National Executive and election of office bearers is to ensure that the AEP is representative of Australian society.”

By singling out “maintain ethnic and gender diversity, and diversity of sexual orientation” it comes across as apologetic and singles out three conditions at the expense of many others.

AEP draft constitution states:

“…Free universal healthcare (including dental) and education (including tertiary)…”

I would say:

“…Publically funded universal healthcare (including dental) and education (including tertiary)…”

The word “free” misrepresents, as there is a cost to healthcare and education.

AEP draft constitution states:

“…Negative gearing changes to improve housing affordability…”

I would say:

“Eliminate homelessness and ensure housing affordability for all.”

Negative gearing although a legitimate factor with regard to housing affordability; is one of many. It buy’s the AEP into the contemporary rhetoric and can and will be used to distract and confuse.

AEP draft constitution states:

“…Improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians…”

I would say:

“Improved outcomes for all disadvantaged and marginalised Australians”

The original statement brings in race therefore even though it is positive is racist. It has the effect of elevating the plight of Indigenous Australians over all other disadvantaged and marginalised Australians. I can say from personal experience the majority of aboriginal people wish to be included, not be treated as a special case. The indigenous issue is more to do with location, dispossession, lack of self-determination than race, and a history of political and social meddling.

AEP draft constitution states:

“…Supporting same sex marriage…”

I would say:

“Proactively support Social and legal equity.”

Again if the AEP buy’s into the contemporary rhetoric it can and will be used to distract and confuse.

That is enough for now, but I think the above gives you a feel as to how my head works.

Ian Dooley, I take on board all the points you make and accept that the AEP is work in progress and there is still much to do before matters can move forward.

I am happy to work with others to achieve what I truly believe has the potential to be a game changer. I would however like to at this point discuss the desire to make indigenous affairs a special case for state support.

Is it not the case that indigenous Australians have been the subject of special state support for a very long time and yet I would venture to say the problem has not improved, indeed I would suggest it has got worse. One could draw the conclusion that special state support, has failed, therefore will continue to fail.

Many indigenous Australians do require assistance because of their dire circumstance which has largely been driven by many decades of racism, abuse, and exploitation. Historically they have been disenfranchised, murdered, and marginalised.

Below are two sound cloud links to recordings made by the late Noel Fullerton who was close and personal with aboriginal people. These recordings were made in the late 70’s yet many of the issues he describes are as relevant today as they were then. I do not agree with everything Noel has to say, but it does serve to illustrate that some fifty years down the track, making indigenous affairs separate from mainstream has not worked and I would venture to say, will not work.

soundcloud.com/michael-sanderson-291849230/aboriginal-australians-by-noel-fullerton

soundcloud.com/michael-sanderson-291849230/noel-fullerton-camels-and-aboriginal-massacres

Then there is the definition of who is an indigenous Australian. Is it defined by your past, your current situation, and the percentage of indigenous DNA you have inherited, the culture that is lived, your location, or your social economic status. I put it to you that the reasons are wide and varied as are the perceptions and attitudes of the broader population. The perception of who is truly indigenous is questioned by indigenous individuals as well, with the remote full blood individuals referring to the gentrified mixed blood as “yella fella’s”. Andrew Bolt got his wrist slapped when he ventured into the area of definition and Noel refers to the issue in his narrative as well.

There is so much more that I could go on about, but the point I am trying to make is that the AEP is ignoring history if it attempts to make indigenous affairs a special case. I am not saying that the situation that has existed and continues to exist in some areas are disproportionately worse than main stream society and as such will require an approach that is proportionate with that situation. I still maintain that indigenous affairs can and should be addressed within the same policy that applies to all Australians, which I believe should be “Improved outcomes for all disadvantaged and marginalised Australians”.

The original statement in the draft constitution “…Improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians…” brings in race therefore even though it is positive is racist. It has the effect of elevating the plight of Indigenous Australians over all other disadvantaged and marginalised Australians. I can say from personal experience the majority of aboriginal people wish to be included, not be treated as a special case. The indigenous issue is more to do with location, substance abuse, dispossession, lack of self-determination than race, and a history of political and social meddling. There are a lot of individuals, businesses, and organisations that have an interest in maintaining and milking the indigenous affairs cash cow.

I contend that if the AEP promotes a range of specific platforms such as indigenous affairs, it will distract from the core platform “full employment”, a job for all who want a job, which pays a living income. I am not saying that diverse policy and party specific answers to questions be developed, but non-core policy must be in the background, not publically stated core policy.

I hope this explains my position on indigenous affairs.