There is a huge disconnect between Canberra’s political elite and the larger percentile of people who make up our population. Canberra understands some of the demarcation that divides society, but it seems as though it stops at the Harbour Bridge, or similarly demographically landmarked icons. There are two Sydneys, there are two Melbournes.
Decisions seem to be made on the fly from the cabinet room without even taking a look or a walk outside. A fact-finding tour would reveal more if politicians got off their arses and walked the streets, sans minders, and asked for opinions. This only happens at the lowest level. Once having canvassed enough votes, the nascent incumbent then feels free to live the life of Riley in the rarified atmosphere enjoyed by his older peers.
All paid for on the government’s teat.
Enough of this, enough of guilding the lily. Over the last twenty, almost thirty years, successive governments have grabbed at immigration. Perhaps they want to emulate the long-term successes of the 50s and 60s immigration programmes. These programmes worked due to much forethought, they were difficult for all involved, nevertheless, being of similar religious belief, similar geographical origin, it was possible to integrate these new societal groups with our existing society.
It took a lot of years. Now, however, we are being forced to integrate vastly contrasting cultures into our suburbs. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except that the powers that be, the ivory towers, that privileged few, never get to experience the reality of their policies, and as a result, when questioned as to the efficacy of such policies, cry, ‘racist’ or ‘discriminatory’. This isn’t a satisfactory answer. Multi-cultural, multi-racial populating of the Western suburbs of Sydney is succeeding beyond all hopes and dreams. This is however due more to the inherant good nature of the migrants and the local residents. The Australian laissez-faire attitude is well at work here. It hasn’t been the same in Europe. Open slather immigratory policies there have introduced, and are creating, massive social problems. We are indeed the lucky country in this respect.
Have they, the politicians, as Anglo or European descendents, ever visited Bankstown, Lakemba, Harris Park, Wentworthville or neighbouring suburbs? Great suburbs, except why do I feel, and am treated, like a stranger when I go there? Do the pollies even get this? This is the country they are making.
It started with foul-mouthed Keating, a barely high school literate man who became PM. A wonderful achievement, yet he was thrown out after one term. His potty-mouthed declarations were always anathema to much of the population. That he continues today with his vitriol is mind-numbing. Keating aped previous immigration policies by inviting people from war-torn Lebanon, without either consultation with the electorate or heeding advice from sociologists as to the veracity of such a policy. That he is today silent on the efficacy of his policies is testament to his capacity for ideologically based ideas in favour of practical solutions.
Nonetheless, the former Minister for Antique Clocks continues to confound with his bully-boy tactics. That he is even given a voice today is damning enough to our current leaders.
Having moved on from immigration policy, Keating is now in the town planning business, another field that he has little or no expertise in. And far from redesigning his old stamping ground, Bankstown Square, he prefers these days to take on the redevelopment of Sydney Harbour. While a suburban shopping centre can be refurbished over time, there is little chance mistakes made with the development of Sydney Harbour can be rectified as easily.
Wake up Australia. We don’t want increased immigration without consultation, and equally, we don’t want increased development on the harbour without referendum.
Keating has bequeathed one on us, and is attempting to lumber us with the other. His visions are myopic and should be relegated to his former classroom at Bankstown High.
Maybe she was annoyed by the media attention to her Amy Winehouse get-up. Perhaps she was channelling Amy Winehouse a bit too much. It really doesn’t matter. Had she complained to the media directly, as Katherine Keating, rather than running to her father to fix things, this all would have been a paragraph in the social columns.
In SMH articles he is happy to attack all and sundry, employing near libelous comments filled with vitriol and gutter-sniping, yet now is unable to accept that the worm may have turned. His own daughter is on the receiving end, and ex-PM Keating is demanding a rewrite of the law.
