My Wife and I watched that particular Q & A show and the performance of Mz Bishop was spoilt by her off guard "death stare" to some young woman in the audience.  Pity, because she did talk some sense when the issue was regarding evolution and religion.

Mz Bishop is obviously an intelligent person but seems to have a "born to rule" attitude which will not allow anyone, not even the Queen of England, to interrupt her opinion speech.  It was a sad picture that she made when everything went quiet while only the young lady (who interceded) had a giggle.

Mz Bishop should remember the old adage that "there is no better mask for an evil heart than a pretty face" and TV is the enemy of expression.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

I cannot be unbiased in the two party situation of today in our Parliamentary process.

I keep harping on the abused existence of a multi-confused Senate who are elected on the basis of their State representation but - damnwell vote for the entire nation!

As a simple Australian, I cannot understand why, when I voted with a majority of Australians, for Kevin Rudd's Labor government to accept the responsibility of governing our country - by democratic vote - only to be snookered by the possibility of a F.F.F. (Fielding) having a vote which would effect the entire population of our nation.

Sure that is making my point but, it did happen.

As I understand Federation, we as a nation functioned on the basis that (in those days) the state and territory situation was in its childhood. The wisdom of the founding fathers was demonstrated by their Senate protection for the smaller states and territories to vote, according to the people of their state who had elected them to do so, FOR their state or territory and may the majority decide.

Ask yourself, was it the stupid intention of these emminent people to create a situation where the Parliament - voted by the people - could be overturned by the state-elected party hacks that we are now burdened with?

How can a soveriegn country exist under those circumstance?

What purpose is there in electing nationally, a group of politicians who we have decided, right or wrong, should have the governance of our national and international affairs when a state or territorial Senate individual can overturn their decisions? Mandate shmandate.

This is not Westminster as it was considered by the founding fathers. 

I believe that Kevin Rudd could have called double dissolution election when his populaity was at its peek. He did not. 

This young man has the ability to increase our influence in the South East Pacific region. He has done so much to improve the lives of the working class that the WorkChoices advocate, the Mad Monk, has been constrained to lie just a little more than normal. 

God Bless Australia. NE OUBLIE.

G'day John,

In this day of enlightened non-discriminatary governance, I feel that the apology of a generation which was not even thought of during the years of Koorie regulation, is merely a symbolic gesture.

I joined the Navy with a fantastic man and boxer whose Mother was of the Warramunga tribe and whose father was a Scot.  A great mate even when he tried to "punch down" the Shanghai and Hongkong bank building in 1949.

I have lost my contact with "smokey" but I can clearly understand why the tribal leaders in early days made the women who fell pregnant to a "whitey" to either kill the child with a rock to the temple or be banished from the tribe.  Fair dinkum and true.

So, with that principle, the original Tribal elders were trying to keep their race - and even their tribe - as "true bloods" and if you like - thorougbreds. 

I believe that our original "protectors" of the indigenous people were religiously based and with good intentions.  The school marches into class was for them no different than it was for us.  Discipline may have been harder for them to accept than it was for us.

Currently we have a politically exploited situation where anything that happens to a Koorie person against their welfare - not their sacred sites - but any law that is in contrast to ancient laws of that of their tribal elders.

If this is accepted by the Koorie people of many, many various tribes, and if their Elders have demanded racial perfection - why do we consider people who are only vaguely blood relatives to some well passed generation?

It seems to me that if the Aboriginal people deserve compensation from our nation - we -as descendants of the British occupation - and we have spoilt their tribal blood - why don't we genuinely accept their demands and pay compensation to those who can clearly prove that their blood is totally Koorie?

Why do we treat them as political items?  What I am saying is of course contrary to the shameless political attitude of our many previous governments but as I see it, the consistent attempt to blend the Koories into our society of people, under current standards, will NEVER cease.

We, as a nation are accused by the UN (WHO?) of treating our indigenous people with disrespect - or something similar.  They classify us with the Americans who, even in th 19th century were murdering anyone who opposed their expansionist plans.

In finality, I would like to suggest that IF the RACE issue is sacrosanct for the Apology to the Koorie people - then it should be appropriately applied only to those who are genuinely true bloods.

If you are still alive "smokey" I know because of your pride that you will at least consider my post.

God Bless Australia - our original inhabitants and those of us who have had the pleasure of learning from them.  Smokey, even the demand of special treatment declares that you are different.  Why?