I'm glad Mr Hyckman mentioned Indigenous education: in the first-half-year figures for 2014, Indigenous commencements rose a fairly healthy six per cent, but the number of continuations - a key factor in future graduation numbers - rose a whopping twelve per cent. My guess is that those continuation numbers were overwhelmingly in degree-level and post-graduate courses.

Total Indigenous university graduate numbers are now between thirty six, and forty, thousand. Fifty thousand graduates by 2020 is very likely, and so is one hundred thousand by the early 2030s. That's less than twenty years away.

The current number of Indigenous university graduates represents about one in eight or nine Indigenous adults. Two-thirds are women. So what impact might that be having on Indigenous society, and, with a fifth of each young age-group now graduating from university, what impact might all that have in the next ten or twenty years ?

How has this come about ? After all, in 1991, there were fewer than four thousand Indigenous university graduates. I would suggest that inter-marriage of working people, a generation and two generations ago, has transformed the situation. As Mr Hyckman suggests, yes, this does mean that 'Indigenous' youth are far more ethnically diverse than fifty years ago, and will be much more so in the next generation.

I've been keeping a database on Indigenous higher education for twenty years. Not one hotshot Indigenous 'leader' has ever got in touch with me about it, although I've been sending it around, up-dated every year in July (on my web-site: www.firstsources.info). Do they even believe it is possible ? Do they WANT it to be possible ? After all, a tiny elite gathers all the fruits to itself, but an 'elite' of forty thousand makes that task much harder. Or is it that they are so gormless, so self-absorbed, that they don't even notice ? The bottom line is that those young people are doing it without them, and owe them nothing.

So who should recognise what ? Indigenous 'leaders' should recognise what their own people are achieving ? I'd like to see that.

Joe

The Constitution is the most important document we have in this country. How can we make reference to race, any race, without a fool proof, watertight definition of that race? As things stand, anyone with the slightest hint of aboriginal blood qualifies as " aboriginal" for legal purposes. What happens in 50/100 years time when a citizen is 6 or 7 generations removed from an aboriginal ancestor? How are they classed as anything but Australian? Any proposed changes to the Constitution needs an infallible method of identifying who can claim aborignality.
Beyond that issue, I don't see how any constitutional change will change a single practical aspect of life for aboriginal people. A large proportion don't even know what it is, let alone its contents.
Inclusion in this document is not going to encourage people to improve their hygiene levels, or take their children to school, or motivate them to improve their environment so they feel energised and wanting to work.
It's an intangible, feel good gesture by people with no hands on experience in the field, looking for easy answers to incredibly complex problems.

Section 25 of the Constitution does not “give… States the right to ban people from voting on the basis of their race”. Section 25 combined with section 24, punishes any state that stops people voting on racial grounds by reducing that state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to the number of people excluded from voting. The removal of section 25 would not take away the capacity of states to enact racially discriminatory voting provisions, but it would remove the punishment they would face for doing so.

The myths around the Constitution and Aborigines are many in number.

The 1967 referendum did not give Aborigines the right to vote, something they had in the nineteenth century in Victoria and South Australia and which they kept in those states continuously at the state level and continuously at the federal level if they had voted in 1901. Federal voting rights were purportedly taken off Aborigines after the first federal election but the High Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to remove the right to vote from anyone who had held it in 1901, so Victorian and SA Aborigines who had voted then continued to vote in federal elections, but new Aboriginal voters could not enrol. The right to vote in federal elections was extended to all Aborigines in 1962, five years before the referendum.

The 1967 referendum did not overturn the ban on Aborigines being counted in the census because there has never been any such ban. Aborigines were counted in every Commonwealth census, since the first one in 1911 recorded 19,939 of them.

This myth about the census has arisen because prior to 1967 Aborigines were not counted for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives.

Nor did the 1967 referendum make Aborigines citizens, something they had been since 1949 when all Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, became citizens, as opposed to British subjects that they had been previously. There was no referendum on this topic. It was simple legislation by the Chifley Labor government.

Big Nana, I am glad that it is you you has brought up the subject of "who can legally claim aboriginal identity". If I had done it, I would have been accused of being racist. It is a very important question and should be addressed before it gets further out of hand. If you look at the increasing numbers of aboriginals as counted in the Australian census, by extrapolation, most Australians will be claiming aboriginality by the end of the century.

Joe, your figures may be technically correct, but the above comments also apply. This is not to denigrate those who are successful'

David

I think a long overdue and "POLITICALLY" resisted bill of irrevocable rights would do more for downtrodden people wherever they hail from; than changing a constitution none of us have read, and if we have don't understand it.

How can any ordinary person recognize anything in such a complex and wordy document?

Our first task surely before engaging in the merits of revising and or editing it/ruling parts in/ruling parts out, is to rewrite it in standard english, that the ordinary bloke on the street can read and understand.

And before we revise anything, surely there ought to be a discussion on the actual merits of change and whether they'd be better off if we just had a bill of rights that limited some authorities power, but particularly where it is currently and routinely abused, or subject to endless overreach?

As for aboriginality?

There is a definitive genetic test that can prove or disprove that; and no amount of feeling your supposed so called aboriginality; or roots, ought to be able to change that or open a door to special funding; or that reserved for genuinely disadvantaged ATIS.

Moreover, there are a number of precedents that allow racial claims to exhaust beyond a very generous 25%!

Even where it includes blue eyed honey blondes with milky white skin, like one of the Aunties.

It's not just racism we need to "recognize", but reverse racism/gender exclusiveness as well!

And how about we recognize Tasmanian aborigines as the very first of the first Australians, with the greatest decimation at the hands of other later indigenous arrivals; rather than the white settlers, who almost completed the job?

And should being first mean you are the only ones that have any legitimate claim to any land?

Or should those claims just exhaust after three generations of forced or self imposed exile?

Certainly an argument for new Israeli settlers, so why not here?
Rhrosty.

Such naivety on behalf of the author - does he truly believe that even in the case of war, government would follow the letter of the constitution?

As usual, those who have power will do whatever they want and those who have not will be left to sigh and die - the constitution is but a fig-leaf, not worth the paper it's written on.

(sorry, Rhrosty, same for your "bill of irrevocable rights" - just because a constitution will say they "cannot" be revoked doesn't mean that indeed they won't)

For the issue of "first peoples", what if we to find that Australia was colonized in multiple waves of migration, as some studies suggest. Do we then need to devalue those groups that arrived a few thousand years later? Am I less of an Australian than my mate because my parents migrated to Australia in the 80s, while his parents arrived on the first fleet (albeit against their will)?

What I have read in many of the proposed changes to the constitution, is either:

1. A statement so vague and meaningless that is would never have any impact on anyone living in the real world.

or

2. An attempt by some groups to entrench some sort of privilege for themselves through the legal separation of Australians based on race.

Due to the need for a referendum, approach #2 would never succeed. I truly think Australians are open to equal rights, but we do recognize that positive discrimination is still discrimination, and therefore not equal rights. Due to the fact that so many of us are recent immigrants (within a few generations), we don't accept the guilt that so many bleeding hearts want us to feel. Our families came to this country with very little, and often faced discrimination based on race, religion or culture too. Blaming of "white" people for any events in history not only ignores the fact that none of us were even here 200 years ago, but also that most non-aboriginal people are not even descendent from those you wish to blame.

I was born in Australia, and I will never accept that anyone is somehow a better or more important Australian than me due to their race.

Once people can get over this fact, we can start to move on as a country together.

I find the total lack of understanding of the need to, not just 'recognise' the first Australians ie the Aboriginal peoples, but to acknowledge that the whole English occupation of this continent was/is simply unlawful under the Law of Nations in force in 1770 and the more recent International Law, amazing.
That said, the only description that fits the actions of the English is theft and on a grand scale at that. That terminally taints the entire existence of the Australian Nation.
To put that into colloquial terms , if you steal a car and then claim it as your own, it remains stolen property, It really is that simple.
The title to that car remains with the legitimate owner.
The 'Title' to the Australian continent similarly remains with the Aboriginal peoples, putting the Aboriginal relationship with thier Country aside for moment, in European terms, the Aboriginal Peoples owned the land. It was never ceded, conquered by war, or sold.
The only way that that can be rectified would be for the International Court of Justice to hear the matter but the Australian Government would be required to agree for the matter to be heard and to accept the judgement. It is highly unlikely that any Australian Government will ever have the political courage to do what is morally appropriate.
Any restoritive action would produce a dollar amount beyond imagination.

Oh I don't know Growly?

Perhaps if the Constitution could be rewritten to recognize the very first of the first Australians as the original and only legitimate owners, and then only if more than 25% of the first of the first, offered a big parcel of money for a surrendered title and a treaty?

I mean, anybody who followed the first and dispossessed them are no different from the whites, who did the same!

And as some posting here have pointed out, there is no time limit on stolen land or title, which never ever exhausts?

If however, forced or voluntary exile allowed that title to exhaust after say, three generations, then perhaps all the people born here should count equally as Indigenous?

Perhaps what we should argue for is true equality before the law and in opportunity!?

As for granted irrevocable rights being withdrawn at some later date, at the whim and caprice of the power hungry?

Why not place them in the constitution, which would then require a referendum to exclude them? Now that's how you alter the constitution!
Rhrosty.

Hi Growly,

I suggest that the position is vastly more complicated than that. After all, not one Aboriginal person is currently living an entirely 'traditional' life, hunting, gathering, sheltering under a few branches, using stone tools, taking their chances with the widespread and frequent droughts that have always plagued Australia. And good on them for choosing a less traditional path, everywhere, in all groups.

Policies often have unintended and unexpected effects. Here in SA, from the outset of settlement, the rights of Aboriginal people to use the land - to 'occupy or enjoy' it, were recognised from the outset, BUT a ration system was also introduced within days of the 1836 Proclamation. What do you reckon happened ?

It took a while before a Governor, probably George Grey, barred able-bodied people from receiving rations, requiring them to go back out and hunt, fish and gather, or work for local white farmers. Since one could buy grog and tobacco and all manner of goods with money, what do you reckon happened ?

So, while the old, sick and infirm, nursing mothers and young children could get rations all the time - what effect do you think severe droughts might have had on the demographics, pre-Settlement ? - the able-bodied could only receive rations during droughts, i.e. when there was no hunting etc. to be done. What different impact would, say, a steady ration system during a five- or ten-year drought have had on cultural life ?

Within a couple of decades, once a drought hit, people would come in desperately seeking food and water, so the Protector, a one-man 'department' - would immediately send out rations, for the duration, and beyond.

Fairly quickly, people brought their children into towns like Adelaide and Port Lincoln where schooling was provided (and accommodation and food). By 1870 or so, Aboriginal children with access to schooling were more literate and numerate than the average white kid in SA.

[TBC]

[continued]

Yes, the One Big Crime was committed - settlement - and it's a bit late to undo everything, but I'd suggest that no Aboriginal people anywhere would want to do that. I remember, one bitter winter's day, a student I worked with complaining about her air-conditioning. And fair enough, she's in this world too, she's as much entitled to air-conditioning as anybody else.

All Aboriginal people are in this world, a hell of a lot has happened since the Crime, and although it can be convenient to take with both hands while bemoaning history, do we want to write that into a Constitution ?

Joe

Can we also recognise second Australians in the constitution, then first and second will be equal forever and always and we can all be awarded one of those purple ribbons bearing the word "participant" like they do for sports carnivals at the more PC primary schools.
Even though you fell over 50m from the finish and laid on the track having a tantrum you're still a winner!

Hi David,

"Joe, your figures may be technically correct, but the above comments also apply. This is not to denigrate those who are successful".

Yeah, you raise a very thorny issue, which has plagued all administrations in Australia almost from the outset: crudely put, if children have non-Aboriginal ancestry, to what extent are they Aboriginal ? And if their 'Aboriginal' parent is in that situation and has children by a non-Aboriginal person, to what extent, then, are those children Aboriginal ?

And so on, now for six or seven generations. Six generations back, we each have sixty four gr.-gr.-gr.-gr.-grandparents. If sixty three of those are not Aboriginal, to what extent can someone say they are Aboriginal ?

Of course, if children are raised by an Aboriginal mother, and never really know their non-Aboriginal parent, then socially they are embedded in an Aboriginal upbringing. And so on, 'all the way down'.

My kids had a very strongly Aboriginal mother, who in turn had a very strongly Aboriginal mother, who in turn .... going back to their gr.-gr.-great-grandparents. Their Aboriginal ancestry includes groups from the lower Murray, Yorke Peninsula and perhaps the upper Eyre Peninsula.. They also have Italian, Chinese, British (the lot) and perhaps some Jewish and African ancestry. In that sense, they are certainly Australian. But we are all usually raised by our mothers (and often by our grandmothers as well) and imbibe our culture at her breast, and throughout our lives.

On the other hand, there are many Aboriginal people who either have no - or no recent - non-Aboriginal ancestry, or know nothing of it, and have always, for their entire lives, taken for granted - from not just their mother but from all of their known relations - that they are Aboriginal. Andrew Bolt would suggest that most benefits and scholarships and other assistance intended for 'Aboriginal people' are intended for precisely this population, and not the one-sixty-fourth people, who may know how to get those benefits.

[TBC]

[continued]

On the latest figures, something like ninety per cent of Aboriginal people (however defined) in the big cities marry non-Aboriginal people. Often, of course, so did one of their parents, and perhaps one of their grandparents. Their children will most likely marry non-Aboriginal people.

At the 1967 conference of officers working in Aboriginal welfare, there was some wrinkling of brows over how to define, and therefore provide benefits for, Aboriginal people. But by then, the issue had probably got away from them: anybody with any Aboriginal ancestry (and many without) could claim to be Aboriginal and therefore entitled to any benefits that accrued.

Back in the 1970s, a good mate (now deceased), who had also married an Aboriginal woman, agonised over whether their kids, blonde and blue-eyed, living in the city with few Aboriginal relations, could really be entitled, as they grew up, to any benefits as Aboriginal people. Like us, they never claimed any benefits for themselves by virtue of one partner being Aboriginal, but their kids also came up against one huge obstacle:

To elucidate: Thirty-odd years ago, I had one Aboriginal student, studying Secondary sScience Teaching, and when she was finishing, I rang the Education Department about placing her: the bureaucrat was surprised and said, "I'm terribly sorry, but we don't have any Aboriginal secondary schools.' So she became a social worker.

[TBC]

[continued]

Often being Aboriginal can be a trap: once employers know it, one can be gradually channelled, bit by bit, into Aboriginal-only fields, regardless of what one may have graduated in. It's as if there is a paddock for Aboriginal horses, and another much larger one for non-Aboriginal horses, with one-way gates.

I long for the day when any Aboriginal graduate - and the vast majority are now coming through mainstream, non-Indigenous fields of study - can get any damn job they are qualified for, and to hell with their Aboriginality. The late, wonderful and loved, Faith Bandler lamented that, spending all her labours battling for Aboriginal rights precluded her from doing what she really would have liked to do. But she kept at it.

One day, people will, be valued, not by their ancestry, but by their skills and the content of their character.

But, David, as you point out, so many of those forty thousand Indigenous graduates are sort of 'Indigenous at a distance', not just in terms of ancestry but in terms of experience. After all, if, say, someone finds out in their forties that they have Indigenous ancestry, how 'Indigenous' are their kids ? To what extent can they put their hands up for any benefits which - let's be honest - have been initiated implicitly for people who have been embedded in Indigenous environments all their lives ? And for how many more generations will that go on ?

Yes, close to forty thousand people of Indigenous descent have now graduated from universities round Australia, but how does one differentiate between people ? Clearly, the vast majority of graduates have been urban, and nowadays from mixed-marriages of working people. The tyranny of averaging conceals the fact that very few Indigenous people from rural and remote settlements get to university: one could even say, at the risk of sounding racist, that the less Indigenous one's roots are, the more likely one can go to university, and vice versa. The task for hot-shot 'leaders' will be to turn that around. But don't hold your breath.

Joe

Thanks for that Joe. As you rightly point out, averages are not good things to rely on. It is often that one finds the right answers only by looking at individual cases in most fields of endeavour.

In the case of aboriginal education and jobs, one size definitely does not fit all any more than it doesn't work for the rest of the community.
David

You're onto something, David :)

To combine the above with the topic: On the whole, urban Indigenous people from working backgrounds are not doing too bad. Yes, they and their ancestors have probably experienced far, far more of colonisation, etc., over a much longer period, and they may have issues and causes quite different from rural and remote people, perhaps more to do with opportunity and status than with violence, addictions and chid abuse.

Genuine leaders seek out the most genuinely critical issues affecting their people and hammer away at them. BS 'leaders' will phart around about woolly, symbolic fripperies, Soy latte issues, in the company of their comfortable white acquaintances. They can be forgotten about.

Any genuine leader, in my opinion (after all, this is OLO), would be agonising over the viability of remote 'communities', and the issues which spring from that: child abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence, phenomenal wastage of resources. They would be, at this very moment, trying to nut out some of the ways of providing incentives for people to get off their backsides, in vocational education leading directly to employment, and in the massive development of women's education; they would be focussing on getting across the imperative that people everywhere have to work for a living, therefore their kids have to get a decent education, in order to get skills, in order to get employment, in order to provide for their families, like other human beings all over the world.

Clearly, the 'Recognise' campaign will contribute little or nothing to that herculean and sustained effort - if either effort ever gets going. But it will get a very strong vote, no matter how it is eventually framed, from the comfortable white intelligentsia, towards whom it is primarily directed by 'leaders', to their mutual gain.

Joe

I can't be bothered to read all the waffle on this thread.
At some time in the future the only way to determine if someone is
an aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander will be if they have a very
good genealogical record. Perhaps a DNA check.
Because the records are available I can prove my self to be a Somerset
man, but I would not dare to claim any form of assistance from the Bath council.

How ridiculous can it get ?

I find the article well written and certainly 'food for thought'. In a similar vein I question the abysmal lack of ANY response about an injustice to an Indigenous child that, as a child protection officer in the NT, I was involved in and tried to have rectified. Still trying . . . The underneath reproduced copies of recent email/s sent to Senator Nova Peris, the Shadow Min for Indigenous Affairs, the United Nations, all the Indigenous MPs in NT has not even produced an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of its receipt! Similarly with all the other 'notables' in Indigenous leadership roles - A big fat ZERO!

Prior email sent to:
Senator N. Peris
Senator for the Northern Territory
Dear Senator
It is with considerable sadness and angst that I forward for your
information and requested representation details of previously sent
emails to numerous NT Chief Ministers, including the present Indigenous
incumbent, concerning the travesty of justice against an Indigenous
female child and its extended family by a NT Magistrate.
I understand that you are reputed to be a fearless spoke person for your
own people and all Indigenous people in Australia representing the
Australian Labor Party.
Would you please seriously consider the facts clearly identified in this
sad debacle where a Magistrate of the Crown has apparently decided that
he can ignore affidavits presented in his court by the Department of
Children & Families (DCF) legal representative identifying that a person
claiming to be a "traditional grandmother" was in fact, nothing of the
sort. Post to be continued . . .

Continued 2. . .
I believe it is highly relevant to note that this Indigenous child
subject to this handed down order, which was and still is in complete
conflict with Section 12 of the NT Child Protection Act 2007, previously
had her elder sister treated similarly by the Magistrate who decided
then that she should be placed in the care of the same non-Indigenous
woman who has claimed for some time that she is a "traditional
grandmother" to both Indigenous children.
I understand that her claim centres solely on a previous relationship
she had with an Indigenous family member, which according to Remote
Indigenous DCF workers sent to Nkgurr Community, is entirely without
substance.
I have cc others into this email in the hope that they too may apply
pressure in the required quarters to get sensible, honest and
transparent responses to these identified travesties involving NT
Magistrate Smith, successive NT Chief Ministers, Ministers for DCF, and
DCF line and senior managers.
Would you please arrange for this email to be acknowledged and the
situation fully investigated and advise me of what action(s) you intend
to take to conclusively correct this sad imbroglio?
Thank you for your representation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous
families.
Yours faithfully
Peter J. Johnson (BA Social Sciences-Welfare Practice)
Director, Citizens Initiated Action

Shayne.Neumann.MP@aph.gov.au
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs
cc Warren.Snowdon.MP@aph.gov.au, senator.peris@aph.gov.au
Shayne Neumann MP
Labor Party Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs
Dear Shadow Minister
I write to you in your capacity as Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs requesting your attention and input into trying, after considerable efforts by myself, to obtain justice for this young indigenous female child unlawfully separated from her extended family by the actions of Magistrate Smith of Katherine Court, Northern Territory.

Post to be continued

Continued . . .
As under I indicate that approx 11 days ago I emailed Labor Party Senator N Peris about this sad imbroglio of injustice. I still have not had the courtesy of at least an acknowledgement receipt reply despite another follow up email requesting this.
As you have proclaimed on your website the following:
"I believe in social justice and equality of opportunity for all. I believe that how we treat the poor, the aged, the weak and the disadvantaged says much about us as a nation. I believe the Australian experience shows economic development and social progress come not just from individual liberty but by active participation of government also."
I trust that you will respond to this email in this spirit.
Previously, I have both emailed and posted a hard copy of my complaint to the United Nations regarding this injustice against an indigenous child [and I suspect it also previously occurred with her elder sister] some time ago. [refer to attachment]
Again I have not had any response.
Nor have I had any meaningful response from a host of other Northern Territory and Federal parliamentarians and their associated departments.
I find this a sad reflection on them and their claimed role in representing and serving the citizens of Australia including aggrieved Indigenous families.
I ask that you will arrange for questions to be asked in appropriate quarters to enable some respect to be given back to indigenous people who have had children unlawfully removed from the care of approved close family members by a flawed legal system that has resulted in Australia effectively ‘thumbing its nose’ at the UN Treaties to which it is a signatory.

Continued . . .

As under I received a pathetic stonewalling response from Ms Linda Heidstra, Personal Assistant to The Hon John Efferink, MLA NT Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Children and Families dated 20 January 2014 (over 12 months ago) stating:
Thank you for your email received today.

I make the strong point, that while it may be stated that as this matter concerns child protection matters heard in a closed court the whole matter cannot be commented upon, investigated nor corrected by anyone my complaint to successive NT Chief Ministers, the UN and others is not, per se, solely concerning this particular indigenous child, its elder sister nor their aggrieved extended family but rather that the rights of the child are being legally thwarted by a legal system that can be demonstrably manipulated.

Continued . . .

Rather it centrally concerns the errors made by both the magistrate and the court-appointed lawyer supposedly acting in the interests of the child[ren]. They did not raise any concerns that when it was later shown by sworn affidavits from NT Department of Children and Families (DCF) indigenous workers who spoke to the remote community family members that they both had previously been ‘conned’ by the woman who claimed she was a traditional grandmother to the first indigenous child placed in her care and then also duplicated with the second child.
Under cultural law or any other law the woman who claimed to be a traditional grandmother was in fact clearly not.
After the shocking decision of the second child also being handed over to her DCF could not be bothered to lodge an appeal so this ‘loophole’ effectively meant a magistrate and a ‘court-appointed’ lawyer could agree that the ‘unfortunate mistake made previously in this child’s elder sister’s case’ should NOT now be

To be continued . .

In order to prevent racism in Australia, we must change the constitution to make aborigines a special race. ?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?

If that is not Catch-22, I don't know what is.

Reality check. The push by aboriginal activists to change the Australian constitution came about because of the "Howard government "intervention" in aboriginal communities. The complete dysfunction in aboriginal communities seems to benefit a lot of senior aboriginal tribal leaders. Almost every week there seems to be yet another financial or sexual scandal involving aboriginal elders or aboriginal organisations.

ATSIC was disbanded because corruption was so entrenched that nothing less than the total abolishment of ATSIC could suffice to prevent it. The late Justics O'Keefe was quoted as saying that things were bad in aboriginal communities "because aboriginal leaders are ripping the communities off!"

It ws to get around the corrupt aboriginal leaders and deal directly with aboriginal communities that the "intervention" was enacted, and was supported by both the Liberals and Labor. This did not suite the aboriginal leaders who were now out in the cold and without any influence. They dreamed up this referenduma a way to line their pockets and get their power back, and of course, the inner city elites bought it, hook line and sinker. All the activists had to do was to portray the entrenchment of corruption as a fight against racism and the trendies would all over each other to be seen as noble social progressives fighting for a good cause.

Shades of Elmer Gantry. There is one born every minute.