Yuyutsu,
(cont.)
The second part of his plan is that when they gain political power the words "traditional ownership" will mean "landlords" and rent will be charged on every edifice and land usage in the country. Your home will no longer be yours.
Watch this space.

BP, you stated

“The deep division between north and south in the US at the time, on the question of slavery, was on a scale incomparable to our discussions here in Australia on the establishment of a Makarrata Commission to speak on behalf of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In modern democracies, social differences do not lead to social divisions, and even less to civil wars such as occurred in the US during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Democracy and diversity are no longer allowed to become antagonistic to such a large extent and on such a large scale.”

For your information, slavery was never a consideration, the entire premis of the war was in relation to taxes. Noting the inaccuracies stated above and your false assumptions, this obviously calls into question the accuracy and truth of your entire argument. Quoting a blatant false history in defence of your assumptions does nothing but call your “truth” into disrepute.

//Doesn't Australia need a privileged master race [1] selected on racial lines?//

As it turns out, no. We used to think that was the case until we repealed the White Australia policy and subsequently discovered that it wasn't actually necessary at all, and that brown people are just as capable as their melanin-deficient brothers (except at getting skin cancer. Us pale folk have 'em beat hands down in that area).

//It is with this in mind that I raise the possibility of accepting this idea: that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots establish a Makarrata Commission to participate in a process of agreement-making between our State and Federal governments, and the First Nations. In my view, it is important for its legitimacy that the Commission be constituted on a truly democratic basis, by the popular vote of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots, exclusively, with the election of a president, vice president and shadow government.

However, in view of the federal government's objection, the Makarrata Commission should not possess any legislative powers. It should have a purely consultative and advisory function.//

Well, I don't see what's stopping them. We have freedom of association in this country, and anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives. If Indigenous Australians want to get together and form an organisation for the purpose of advising Parliamentarians, can't they go right ahead and do that? Am I missing something here? Why would they need the blessing of the Government?

.

Dear Shadow Minister, Dear Loudmouth,

.

Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. I am sure you both know more about Aboriginal culture, frame of mind and behavioural patterns than I do. I am not surprised that they are vastly different from ours.

It all seems very logic to me. That is why our current procedure of simply forcing our culture on them has produced such mixed results – humanly, socially and financially. I think most of us would agree on that.

We have been employing basically the same method of assimilation for the past 230 years. Not because it has proven particularly efficient, but because we were convinced that our modern Western culture was far superior to theirs. Not only did we consider their traditional culture to be backward, uncivilised and not worth conserving, but even impossible to practice in today’s context, given the current state of the eco-system as a result of colonisation.

Forced assimilation has indubitably produced both positive and negative results. On the positive side, 2,190 Indigenous students graduated from university in 2015, nearly a third at post-graduate level. Two-thirds were women. 95+ % were enrolled in mainstream courses. I understand that graduate numbers are rising at a rate of about 5% p.a.

According to an Australian National University census in 2011, mixed marriages are on the rise: 56.5% of partnered Indigenous males had a non-Indigenous partner and 59.0% for Indigenous females. Also, the current, 45th Federal Parliament includes four indigenous parliamentarians - two senators and two members of the House of Representatives, one of whom, Ken Wyatt, was the first indigenous member of the House of Representatives, elected in 2010. He is also the first indigenous member of Parliament to hold a ministerial position as the Assistant Minister for Health (from 30 September 2015).

On the negative side, we are all aware of the havoc created by colonisation to the lifestyles of our First peoples and the eco-system which had been the source of their sustenance and well-being for over 60,000 years. The disruption this caused to their social structures has

.

(Continued)

.

.

(Continued)

.

... thrown much of their youth into prison, created dependence on drugs and alcohol, deprived large numbers of their autonomy and dignity and created widespread health problems. The disorientation and frustration this engendered has had a negative impact on the families where domestic violence has now become rife, to the extent that they no longer represent a safe haven for women and children. Self-sufficient for over 60,000 years, many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are now largely dependent on federal welfare and assistance for their upkeep and survival.

The overall outcome is far from satisfactory humanly, socially and financially. We have obviously got something wrong, somewhere along the line.

The fact that our Indigenous peoples wish to play a more active role in the management of their own affairs is extremely positive. For the first time in history, a cross section of 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from around Australia gathered together and adopted a series of measures they would like to see implemented.

We should seize this historic opportunity in order to associate them with the necessary reflection on the steps to be taken in order to improve the lives of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots.

This does not imply any change to our democracy, or to our parliamentary systems. The roles of the federal and state parliaments would remain intact. The only novelty would be that they would be obliged to :

« consult the democratically elected national organism of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and carefully consider its requests, proposals and comments on all and any matters concerning our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in a concerted effort of mutual agreement »

Failing the establishment of a “mutual agreement” on any matter, the parliaments would be free to take whatever steps they deemed appropriate in the general interest.

The “democratically elected national organism of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” would have no power to block or veto any legislation whatsoever. It would have a purely consultative and advisory function.

.

chrisgaff1000. For a long time , and for reasons which I will not reveal here, I have argued that while the Mado decision might have been right in his particular case, it should not have been applied to the Aboriginal poplation as a whole. The smart legal eagles and government of the day really dropped the ball.

David