I haven't read all the remarks, but of those I have read, I wonder if any have really been in contact with any of the indigenous people they are talking about. Sure we have seen some people in the community who are surviving very well, and some who are not, but I believe we are talking more about those in the areas where they are really fenced in under white man laws, by people who presume to know what is best for them. We had Whitlam building good homes for them to live in back 30 or 40 years ago. They had never lived in anything like that, and they were being taught into an era of we'll look after you, just leave everything up to us. Some of the houses were vandalised, a number of families – probably a tribe, would all move into the one house. Nobody considered that they should be allowed to join the main community at their own pace and learn the ways in their own time, but there are all those people who want to go there and take over the areas for their own prosperity, and as far as they are concerned, kick the indigenous people out without any conscience.

Cornflower!..... spot on.

//indigenous activists and social scientists led the public and politicians to believe that self managing communities would be the solution.//

What ideology was driving those 'activists'?

Outcome?

1/For decades millions of dollars of taxpayers money were tipped into 'indigenous affairs'

2/ The demand was for a never-emptying trough of public money and self-management.

Indeed.

Now..connect this to the more generalized problem of progressive/left wing exploitation of social issues for:

a)Their own enrichment
b)The promotion of valueless,failed,Socialism to impose it on us all.

Gary Foley is a classic.

Wiki
Foley is currently completing a doctorate at the University of Melbourne, where until 2008 he was also a lecturer and tutor before resigning in protest at the University's apparent lack of commitment to Indigenous education. Foley also maintains the Kooriweb site on Aboriginal history and was formerly a senior lecturer at Swinburne University. Foley is currently lecturing and tutoring at Victoria University.

Which of course....raises the issue of "If HE can make it in the white mans world..what is stopping others?"

What will ever be 'enough' committment to indigenous issues?

Dare one suggest Aboriginal sovereignty the dismantling of so called "White power structures"?

PINNED LIKE A BUTTERFLY: WHITENESS AND RACIAL HATRED LAWS
http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournalFiles/Volume%204,%20Number%202,%202008/O%27Connell%20Pinned%20Like%20a%20Butterfly%20FINAL.pdf

Make sure you read page 6-7

//Being ‘white’ per se is not in my view descriptive of any particular ethnic, national or racial group. Nor is it of
itself a term of abuse.// (Magistrate Brown FM)

So, (this might be a surprise your honour) but SO IS "BLACK" not a particular ethnic group!

Patrick Dodson refers to the 1967 referendum result as a 'resounding demand of that earlier generation “for a just relationship between our peoples”'. That's not exactly how I remember it.

The bipartisanly supported case put to the public was essentially one of simply 'giving aboriginal people the vote', a case presented to a public that was largely incredulous as to aboriginals not having had that right all along. The Constitutional alterations were presented (like, 'trust us, we're politicians') as being simply requirements necessary for that to be able to happen. 'Just relationships' and 'land rights' weren't even on the horizon, let alone on the public agenda, at that time.



It turns out the gut feeling of the Australian public was pretty accurate. No wonder the 1967 referendum, in Patrick's words, "turned out not to be much of a step forward at all". Its promotion had been based upon a lie. All Aboriginal Australians had had the vote since 1962!



It is to Patrick's great credit, if the words of the opening sentence of the article are truly his own rather than those of an editor, that he has been completely up-front about the intended effect of the proposed referendum meddling with the preamble to the Constitution. That intention is to subordinate the Australian Constitution, and thereby all Australians and the laws under which they live, to an external, unaccountable, unelected overlordship of elitist bureaucrats working for that parasite upon the bodies politic of functional states, the all-too-clearly dis-United Nations.

I think ordinary Australians are increasingly coming to the view that the aggregate effect, across the political spectrum, of the political 'work' of Australian politicians is increasingly the effective representation and advancement of the interests of other than Australians.

I wonder whether the claim of 'Terra Nullius' was made more to pre-empt any residual claims arising out of the Treaty of Tordesillas, than to any intent to disinherit Aboriginal Australians?

Some interests wishing, perhaps, to re-write history by altering the historical record of transfer of authority that is the Preamble?

After reading Pat Dodson's article I am still unsure how we can 'close the gap' for indigenous people in remote communities where there are limited resources. Changes to the Constitution will enshrine rights (on paper in any case) but it is not real action on the ground nor does it dictate positive change.

What would it take to close the gap? That is at the heart of this issue. I have always thought we should have more of Australia's first peoples involved in parliament with representatives from some of those remote communities speaking on behalf of, and in consultation with, Aborigines.

This can be achieved without a government within a government approach which in the long term would be more divisive and would not in itself, limit dependency on 'white man's' government nor necessarily improve the lot of remote communities. Aboriginal people have to become part of government and take a different approach ie. away from simply taking welfare handouts (that don't produce any change to long term living conditions) to self-sufficiency where this is possible in remote regions.

Much has already been achieved by Indigenous Australians as regards to education and participation in the teaching and medical professions. Much of the problems that I can glean stem from bureaucratic processes.

Forrest's quote about representation sums up the current approach Australian governments and is so good it is worth repeating.

"I think ordinary Australians are increasingly coming to the view that the aggregate effect, across the political spectrum, of the political 'work' of Australian politicians is increasingly the effective representation and advancement of the interests of other(s) than Australians."

Well there are a lot of factors inhibiting Aboriginal integration:
Near history- perhaps even as close as the 80s, where experiences of staunch discrimination reduces willingness for many Indigienous persons who experienced it themselves, or raised by them, to engage the same system being one- growing up in a community that is generally stigmatized by the surrounding population (regardless of who is at fault initially) ensures few would want to ditch their families and friends to fit into the other society, and becomes a vicious cycle (this predominantly applies to urban communities).

Rural communities are obvious- isolation from medical and tertiary sources, unwillingness to abandon their homes and lifestyle to work jobs in the city under circumstances, and people, that I listed above;
Possible inhibitions on access to traditional farming ground granted through native title (but whatever property they managed to buy initially- but given the long-standing poor integration in urban environments, that takes us back to square one).

In short, with a long lingering reputation of bad integration with Australian city environments- the ability and willingness to embrace (our) system isn't quite getting a good start.

King Hazza,

Seems to be a self-fulfilling prophesy at work in there.

To apply Occam's razor and a little change theory, maybe some see more rewards in not changing. Unfreezing is always difficult, but as long as there are rewards and excuses for not changing why take the risk?

Should they choose, many migrants could blame all sorts of influences too. Some have endured the most awful lives before choosing Australia as their new home. Yet many first generation non-English speaking migrants are now employers in their own right and the numbers are even higher for second generation.

Everybody has been affected by globalisation, especially people in country areas and not just the indigenous people living there.
Shouldn't we be talking about the empowerment that comes from casting away the baggage of past wrongs, real and imagined, and getting on with life?

Employment (in real jobs!) is the missing element. Breaking out of the unemployment poverty trap is difficult without a decent education (and support at home).