What would you do if you were PM?

Improve education and hospitals.

Other than handing the job over to someone who knows what they're doing? :P

But in all seriousness, I would put a ton more focus on the environment and technology to help preserve it. For example, putting more money into electric cars and forcing a "cut down one, plant two" law with forests. Well, that and a limit on logging.

Of course if it were that simple, they would have already done it. I'd hate being PM. No matter what you do everyone just bitches and moans.

Say "Sorry"

First thing on my agenda would be to end the live animal trade and enforce measures to make sure all animals that are bound for the dinner plate will be treated humanely. Actually, I'd put an end to the entire meat industry. I'd also agree to the Kyoto protocol and try to protect our forests. I'd also implement a zero popluation growth policy.

Although I think it's safe to say I wouldn't be voted into power and time soon ;)

I'd consider it an insult if someone who had nothing to do with that particular time period apologised. I think that John Howard is an absolute legend for refusing to apologise.

They pretty much already have that, the problem is what they cut and what they plant. At the moment they're cutting down Tuart forests in South-West Australia and replacing it with ugly pine trees that destroy the ecosystem.

If I were PM... christ. I say these things assuming I could do them, I'm not entirely sure what the capabilities of a single Prime Minister is. These would be my goals... I say these things knowing that I know very little about exactly how political channels change these things.

- Improve Trade with South-East Asia.
- Reduce economic dependency in the United States.
- Reduce the # of full-fee places at University.
- Reduce HECS fees.
- Create more scholarship programs.
- Fund schools in low socioeconomic areas (be they private or public). Also reduce funding in high socioeconomic areas.
- Offer free political end economic education 'crash courses' so that the voting population is better informed in future elections.
- Put in place some rules and regulations regarding how the media covers politics.

Oh yeah:

- Gradually reduce funding to churches and religious instutitions.

That's about it?

I agree completely with that.

If I was PM my major goals would to improve Education, Health systems (as already mentioned).

Out of curiosity, why do it gradually? I mean, If you believe they shouldn't be funded, why do it slowly? Also, why do it at all? I fail to understand why you've actually implement a negative action into that list (and by negative I mean plan to take money away from a group that does such good in the community).

Gradually, so as they can become self-dependent? Hell I ain't touching the other part of your comment. I don't feel like getting into a religion fight. I'm too tired. And it's 10pm. On a Saturday night!

I agree with all of these points except for the last one. I agree with film guru here, I am far from a religious person, but why take money away from an organisation that does some good in the community?
Maybe instead of reducing funds, spread the wealth over a wider variety of charity type organisations instead of a heavy focus on religion.

It's a community that helps a small minority of the population. I htink the money can be better spent elsewhere.

I totally agree, as pointed out in the highlighted section. Why give a lot of money to an organisation that only helps a small percentage of the community? Spread the money over a few more charity type organisations that have a bigger impact on society and are less religious in there methods. But that doesn't mean you should stop all funding to the churches all together, even if it is gradually.

I was actually referring to the work they do with the homeless and helping with unemployment. Are you aware of the huge amount of work they do there? Pulling their funding would massively cripple the work they do in those areas.

I'd go further into how many people they bring out of depression, but the last thing we want is this to become a religious debate thread.

I'd drive around the streets all day, hanging out the side of my limo with a cigar in my mouth and a tommy gun in my hand.

I'd set up a round table & get some knights going, then we'd all go on expeditions...then I'd insult the queen on national TV.

Implement the Region Free Televison Act so videogame releases would be worldwide all the time :D

Woah, that's a really good one! But would being PM really allow you to do that?

The Prime Minister is the representative of the Australian People and the Australian Government. It's not about John Howard saying sorry - it's about him saying sorry in the context of his job as that representative. That's why we have democracy and elections rather than some kind of test to see who is the most qualified person for the job.

As Maverick said, I'd do it slowly so that churches should become independent of the Government. Church is not a necessity to life, so I don't see why the government should subsidise it to make it exempt from the forces of supply and demand.

Not all money that goes to Religious institutions is spent on helping the community. In terms of helping the community, what is the church if not an inconvenient go-between? The government could help the community directly instead, and without attaching religious stigma. Basically, '$ -> Government -> Church -> Community' would be streamlined to '$ -> Government -> Community'.

I also think that a better future is one without religion. I wouldn't reccommend arguing against this last point, as it's very firmly rooted into my belief system. This is probably the fundamental basis for my policy change.

That's just it though, there's thousands (ont going to pull a random number here, but it's a lot) of people still alive who were directly affected by the stolen generation and the white australia policy. This isn't like America where it "officially ended" over 100 years ago. All this bullshit only stopped in the mid 60s.

Like who, Howard?

HAH!




.... couldn't help myself :P

Interestingly, Sir Guy Green, Tasmania's former Governor (the one before Richard Butler) was the recipient of a "stolent generation" child. And he only retired from office last year.

Well in the Australian Constituition, I believe that there are certain responsibilties the government has over television and radio, I'm not sure what this exactly consists of but I think it has stuff to do with broadcasting.

On the other hand, in order to make any changes in the Constituition it needs to be voted in by a majority of people and in a majority of states, which isnt easy, I dont know if the govt would need to change the Constituition to implement such an act, but it's just a thing worth note.

It has the head of power, under s51 of the Constitution to make legislation concerning 'postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services' (including television). As well as that, they could probably do it under the corporations head of power or the interstate commerce head of power.

Or they could just propose a statute law that gets passed along to the senate and they can vote on it....

On the stolen generation: I don't see why John Howard should feel morally obligated to apologise for something he had no direct influence, nor part of. Saying sorry would be like transferring the blame to him which I think is unfair. You might say blame won't be passed to him, but if he apologises people will think that.

I say good on him for not apologising, he should feel no moral obligation to, nor cave into pressure from Aboriginal (I refuse to call them Indigenous, simply because political correctness has gone too far) groups to apologise...

Spot on, that's it!

So I guess the govt could implement such an act mentioned above :) .

He WAS a part of it though, he was alive during a good part of it.

Didn't see him in many protests about it though.

Wait, I don't think you understand. It wouldn't be John Howard saying "I'm sorry for the way I behaved," it would be The Prime Minister of the Commowealth of Australia apoligising for the way The Commomwealth of Australia treated the original people of Australia.

Yeah I know that, but I was just countering people's arguments that Howard wasn't part of the stolen generation, when technically, he was :P

But yes, that's the kind of apology I think of too.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there another huge aspect to this apology that everyone is missing?

Isn't it true that if Howard does make on official apology, suddenly any Aboriginal who was affected in some way by the stolen generation can sue for damages or compensation? Considering there was a very public apology by the nation's leader, that kinda makes for a strong case.

I got the impression that by apologising, the government is putting themselves in a very bad financial situation.

I've heard several stories relating to that too Guru. ;)

I believe that is one of the major arguments aganist the apology Guru, and as such no PM really wants to be resposible for it and rather they have decided to forget it happened.

It's been tried, and failed. In Gunner v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Cubillo v. The Commonwealth of Australia, the High Court rejected their attempt to get compensation for being part of the stolen generation, on the grounds that too much time had passed since it occurred. The only grounds they had which would have been able to stand up at all was the breach of a duty of care.

I don't think that a formal apology would alter that much. The same facts - the time since the actions occurred and the subsequent deaths of so many people involved in the actions would still mean that it is difficult (if not impossible) to mount an action for compensation.

Actually, I remember some newspaper articles after Cubillo and Gunner that said that there would be a rush of stolen generation cases hitting the courts. Since that time (it was in 2001 and the actions were commenced in 1999) I don't think there's been a single additional case being brought.

There's always some comparisons with Canadian cases in which indigenous people did get compensation for past abuses, but there's a couple of differences...

- the government settled with the plaintiffs. We don't know what would have happened if the cases had gone to the courts.
- they were over incidences such as sexual and physical abuse which occurred in custody rather than simply loss of culture and the pain that stemmed from that.

Having said that, I really don't see how compensation for these people is much different to compensation for victims of sexual abuse that occurred 30-50 years ago. If we're worried that Aboriginals might get compensation for the stolen generation, then perhaps we should be asking the question of whether they deserve it.

Well gee, it would be so awful to want compensation for such an atrocity now wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

No one has given me a decent, plausible reason as to why John Howard personally should apologise on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. Give me that reason and then we can go from there...

wtf?

seriously dude, wtf?

Our government had instutionalised racism and took children away from their parents for decades and you're asking why we should apologise?

Because he is the current elected figurehead of a government that is supposedly meant to represent the people of this country and their interests. The majority of reputable polls have shown that the general public wants an official apology to be made.

John Howard apologising, in my opinion, gives all Aboriginals scope to push the blame onto Howard. He wasn't in power, he wasn't directly involved with it, therefore no apology needed from him

Say your brother did something bad and your parents find out 5 years later. Do you apologise on behalf of your brother because now he is either out of the picture or overseas or whatever. Look bad example, but seriously, why John Howard should apologise for something he had no direct links to is beyond me.

It's going straight over your head isn't it?

There is a big difference between saying:

"I'm sorry that I gave you cancer" and "I'm sorry you have cancer"

Perhaps one day that will be clear to some people here...

You can only be responsible for your own actions. If Howard apologises on behalf of the government that implemented the stolen generation and some of the Aboriginals (or anyone else) take it to mean that he deserves the blame - that's not Howard's fault - it's their fault and their responsibility.