It is rather ironic that the Liberals have chosen to reheat the alleged links between Kevin Rudd and Brian Burke to assail the character of the PM. After much morning media theatre, Rudd's office released the full exchange. The worst one can say about it is that Rudd considered Burke's proposal for a dinner in his honour and then recanted on further reflection. This blog suspects that Rudd may have canvassed the idea of using Burke's influence among the Western Australian Labor party to turn members against Beazley. Beazley has spoken out strongly against Burke and hence those still aligned to Burke would naturally be less sympathetic to the former leader. Better judgment ultimately prevailed and Rudd cancelled the dinner. In contrast to former PM John Howard's dealings with the Exclusive Brethren and the government's general approach to such matters as the AWB affair, the degree of candour Rudd has demonstrated is quite extraordinary. Rudd is not, in his own words, 'Captain Perfect', but he does seem to acknowledge his mistakes and considers his actions before he behaves in a manner which may compromise his integrity.
Unfortunately, this blog has doubts the same words could be applied to his opposite number. Brendan Nelson was always going to be on the back foot in responding to Rudd's sorry speech. If he had demonstrated a tin ear by both apologising (thus alienating some in his party) and sounding churlish with his dirge of a sermon on Australia's history since white settlement (thus causing the indigenous viewers and their supporters considerable insult), he compounded this by his appalling misappropriation of the words of Faye Lyman. Ms Lyman is a Victorian woman whom Nelson claimed to be quoting in his speech.
The text of the speech includes this excerpt from Ms Lyman's story, credited as part of the Many Voices project at the National Library:
“Personally I don’t want people to say, ‘I’m sorry Faye’, I just want them to understand.
It was very hurtful to leave Dad. Oh it broke my heart. Dad said to me, ‘It’s hard for daddy and the authorities won’t let you stay with me in a tent on the riverbank. You’re a little girl and you need someone to look after you.’ I remember him telling us that, and I cried. I said, ‘No, but Dad, you look after us’ … But they kept telling us it wasn’t the right thing. I don’t want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they’ve done….You don’t belong in either world. I can’t explain it. It hurts so much.”
The words were followed in Dr Nelson's speech by the phrase 'there is no compensation fund. Nor should there be'. Ms Lyman now feels 'stolen all over again'. Not only had Nelson used her words without consulting her, he had implied her father had approved of her removal. Dr Nelson rang her to apologise, which Ms Lyman recounted as him saying 'I just wanted them to know your story', When Ms Lyman asked why did he not call her first, he could not answer.
Dr Nelson may have been attempting to bridge the gaping chasm between the progressive and ultra-conservative wings of his fracturing party. He may have been trying to bring some belated understanding to the feelings of indigenous people. However, by treating the speech as just another departmental research exercise, amiable to anonymous googling, he revealed a lack of grasp of moment and the sensibilities of the vulnerable. Whereas Rudd reconsidered meeting Burke once he realised it was the wrong thing to do, Nelson did not even think to contact Ms Lyman, let alone advise her that he would use her words in contravention of her own suffering. To use a person's words without permission is unwise, to use them out of context, and in such an emotionally charged situation, shows a fault of character and bad judgment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment