Kevin should apologise...

...for not having a better speech writer. My lack of enthusiasm has not exactly been changed by soaring oratory.

The worst line:

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

Embracing possibilities of new solutions? How bland. I would have thought "prospects" would be the better word.

On the other hand, "mutual responsibility" gets a tick.

But on the third hand, a blanket statement of apology for separating children from parents, their community and "country" sits uncomfortably with the current situation in Cape York, where safeguarding children still often leaves no choice other than trying foster care hundreds of kilometres from the community.

One other point: I reckon the media coverage (and Labor politicians) have vastly overestimated public excitement and interest in this. Richard Flanagan wrote in The Guardian:

The national excitement around the event is palpable, with thousands heading to Canberra for it, and public screens being erected in most major cities for the live, national broadcast of the event.

All depends what circles you move in, I suppose, but I would say there is a much more palpable degree of cynicism about the hyping of the apology in any suburb that is not inner city.

UPDATE: when I referred to needing a better speech writer, I was actually only referring to the apology, not Rudd's supporting speech. Now that I've read it, I would grade it as "mostly harmless."

However, I expect he has set himself up for failure with his musings about what should be achieved next. In particular, this line had a definite touch of Hawke's "no child will live in poverty":

Let us resolve over the next five years to have every Indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled in and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs.

I predict it will take some very heavy handed, paternalistic tactics, exactly of the kind Labor is less inclined to take than the Liberals, to get anywhere near achieving that goal.

Also, isn't it peculiar that the first "joint policy commission" is to look at aboriginal housing? Hasn't this been looked at many times already?

Anyone who has worked on aboriginal communities complains that the issue is not simply a question of providing the houses; it involves the more difficult issue of how to get the residents to look after them. Surely drug and alcohol abuse is a large part of that problem. It's all rather a chicken and egg dilemma, isn't it?

(For anyone interested, see my previous musings about a possible, somewhat counter-intuitive, housing approach.)