Noel Pearson is to be highly congratulated for this intelligent and potentially productive essay in which he continues his long time objective of furthering the best interests of his people, our indigenous people.

How remarkably different are his proposals, compared to the past, and failed, policies of the loony left, with their paternalistic notions of 'welfare' and 'say sorry'.
Indeed, past policies implemented by various governments under pressure from the loony left have not only deprived the aboriginal people of an ability to become equals, but have created an elite class of aboriginal/anglo/celtic opportunists who milk the system for their personal gain.

For the record, where I refer to aboriginal people becoming 'equals'
I am not suggesting that 'equality' means divesting of their cultural inheritance.

( Further, but outside this thread, I suggest that Noel Pearson's proposals should apply to all disadvantaged people in our society irrespective of ethnic origin).

I've always found grivence with the idea of extended leases, its not real property rights, is it?

I came up with a little idea a long while ago which I think would work quite well. Basically, each area which landrights cover is held by a corporations made up of all the members of the commune with a board elected by them. The corporation could elect to sell off land or lease it at prices it selects. Members of the commune who hold part ownership may even wish to sell that ownership if they think it in their best interest.

They could even decide to float them selves on the stock exchange if they, again thought it in their best interest.

For a very informative contribution to the 'Indigenous home ownership' discussion I would recommend the report entitled 'Land rights and development reform in remote Australia' available from the Oxfam Australia website at:
http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/indigenous/index.html

First, let me say that I support Noel Pearson's approach of trying to build self respect within indigenous communities as a basis for resolving the social ills which afflict these communities and the people who live in them.
Second, let me say that I agree with Noel's strategy in recent years of cajoling those in power rather than directly attacking them. Noel has apparently learned from being repeatedly knocked over and flung aside by the sails of the windmill of power. Cajoling the powerful with their own rhetoric is a much cannier approach, and allows an ever growing pile of hypocritic inaction to accumulate and, perhaps, become too shameful to continue to ignore.
Third, I have to disagree with Noel's first sentence: “In mainstream Australia, we have a strong and enviable set of institutions that includes a representative political process, a sound judicial system and a set of national social norms that are egalitarian and encourage innovation and dynamism.”
Each of the assertions in this sentence is a myth. I want to specifically disagree with the first assertion: that Australia has “a representative political process”. If this were true, then every ethnic indigenous group would be directly represented in the representative assemblies appropriate to them. But this is not so for any ethnic indigenous group anywhere in Australia – never has been – and never can be without fundamental electoral reforms.
Neither Neville Bonner nor Aden Ridgeway were exceptions. Bonner was selected by the Liberal Party, elected by the general population, and eventually rejected by the Liberal Party. Ridgeway was selected by the Australian Democrats, and elected by the general population. Neither directly represented ethnic indigenous communities.
Perhaps direct representation of ethnic indigenous communities in the representative assemblies appropriate to them would significantly enhance their progress toward self respect.
Why isn't the issue of whether indigenous ethnic groups should have the right to direct political representation ever raised and put on the agenda?

We have too many one size fits all economic rules. When sizing the minimum wage for people in Sydney we look at rental costs and job opportunities. If we then apply such rules to a place like Cape York we easily dettach people from the practical economic opportunities that may exist.

Welfare should be defederalised and moved to the states or local government level. Along with minimum wage regulations and th bulk of the taxation powers.

Power should be kept close to the people not centralised in Canberra. Peope should think globally but rules, actions and initiatives should be decided locally

Thanks Ernest for your honesty.

It’s good to see that you have not accepted what the lionized Pearson contends to be 'truth' in regards to representation and law for Indigenous people in politics as somehow exemplarary - and you have raised questions that Pearson himself has abandoned in his neo-conservative love affair with himself or with those neoconservative American writers he never references in his speeches - and in his horribly written sociological polemics he shamelessly publishes. Don Watson has said he writes like a clerk from an accounting firm and I tend to agree.

Graham Ring: Thanks for the Oxfam link mate! It’s pertinent to real discussions about home ownership, land tenure and political decisions and representation by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people. You won't hear TO’s giving hysterical and moralizing speeches in Right Wing think tanks about what other TO’s should or should not do.

This passage from the Oxfam report is worth citing here:

"Any changes to land rights or native title legislation must be directed toward the development goals articulated by Indigenous Australians, must be undertaken with appropriate accountability to Indigenous landowners and native title holders, and must respect their rights as Indigenous Peoples – rights to land, culture and identity."

Pearson's evangelical black bashing pontifications now have the unwavering support of those wanting absolution and silver bullet solutions about ‘problem blacks'. It’s provided them with a neatly packaged and convenient discourse that absolves them from knowing the issues in greater historical and political depth.

In closing:

-Rights to identity also mean how we are represented in public discourse. I hope Lachlan Murdoch and those Think tanks that invite Pearson to speak at their cheese and wine night functions - and on our behalf - are reading this!

-Pearson provides no evidence that the imposition of obligations makes people better citizens and helps them escape poverty or provides any beneficial outcomes.

-Pearson provides no evidence that privatizing Aboriginal land will automatically propel Aboriginal people into a real economy. Pearson’s Gordon Geckoist “greed is good’ logic doesn't fool me or other Aboriginal people for a minute.