Thanks Victor. Your contribution to this debate is valuable, but why lead off with such a predictable and unnecessary whinge? It does your credibility no good.

ANTaR, the AMA, NACCHO, Oxfam, GetUp et al organise a 12 month campaign to get political parties to commit to increased spending on Indigenous health and education, and when the ALP commits itself your response is to damn them for their imperfections.

Far from being 'opportunism', this strikes me as being the real deal, as have been a lot of the Howard Government's long-term Indigenous health initiatives under Wooldridge and Abbott.

The work (as displayed in the Indigenous platform developed at the Labor National Conference last month) of recent ALP shadow ministers (such as McMullan, Evans and Macklin) does show commitment to 'a sustainable, longitudinal approach to Indigenous affairs and wellbeing.' Are you aware of the detail of their work?

The Labor platform includes a clear pledge to create an independent national auditing mechanism so Indigenous people can begin to hold governments, departments and ministers accountable for meeting agreed goals and measurable outcomes.

The ALP shadow ministers have also been suggesting a non-partisan commitment to basic goals by all parties.

As for the proposed new national body, Labor's platform is clearly committed to a process of consultation and participation with Indigenous leaders over its design and functions. It is absolutely clear that it will be elected by Indigenous people, not appointed by the Government.

Your call for some statements by a united national Indigenous leadership are fair enough, but please give at least some credit where credit is due to people like McMullan, Evans, Macklin, Abbott and Wooldridge.

patriarchal oversight is better than brutal neglect, but self determination is generally better for human beings. can aboriginal communities manage their own lands, and make a living from grazing, mining, and tourism?

or do we have to support another government department?

Dan, you are obviously a member of the glorious Labor party.

and how many Indigenous people/ communities know of these so called bi-partisan approaches?

What are these other than service delivery models and fiscal commitments that any government should be delivering in the first instance. To sing them up as though they are somehow 'revolutionary' is BS.

And so as the author of this piece is asking - If Labor has a model what is it? Or is the democratic engagement of Indigenous people not something Labor thinks is vital? Isn't this the same party that engineered the White Australian policy?

Yes holding governments to account is one thing, but if this means beating them over the head with a feather duster it can hardly be considered as 'holding them to account'.

And lastly, I must just add that McMullin has long been a cynical and worthless advocate for Indigenous people. In fact it was him who described Indigenous affairs as the basket case of portfolios a few years back. The only thing that distinguishes him from the Right are Labor party hacks like you who want to believe otherwise.
Look at him for what he is, a big fat dud.

Victor

With rocks like you around on that footy paddock a few of those pollies are likely to stubb their bloody toes.

Yep it's the political season and bidding wars will take precedence. I think your call for details opportune and realistic. I'd also like to see an improvement on Howards schemes and efforts.

Dan

Yes there have been some good efforts but nothing extraordinary and many of the same old problems thrive. Not a great deal has changed although as Vic pointed out probably the most significant movement has been the change in our attitudes. I like to think we are at least starting, like Reynolds, to 'get it'.

Demos my old mate, you are a sillybilly. We don't 'have to support another government department', because we already have the Commonwealth Office of Indigenous Policy Co-ordination (OIPC) & Indigenous Co-ordinating Centres (ICCs) doing this work.

As for your question about whether 'aboriginal communities [can] manage their own lands, and make a living from grazing, mining, and tourism?' some are already involved in these things, but you must have missed the fact that the vast majority of Aboriginal people don't have grazing land or live in grazing areas (they live predominantly in the major cities and towns); some (but not many) live near mines & some of these work in them; some are involved in tourism, and more could be. However most Aboriginal people live in towns and cities and work in (or aspire to work in) a vast range of conventional occupations, much like the rest of the population.

danf- if they live in towns, assimilated, speaking english, let them be treated as garden variety ozzies. they might need social services as do many disadvantaged communities, but it's not uniquely an aboriginal characteristic, it's because they are poorly educated, and in poverty.

but, if still on ancestral lands, preserving language and culture- give them control of their land.