In a society we need people of different trades, being it plumbers, carpenters, farmers, etc.

While we could argue that farmers simply could move to the city as to get equality of access to basic services, then whom ever will be taking over the farm still would be robbed of equality.

Having resided in a country town for 15 years, and still having a property there, I know the difference in services.

Now, take for example people living in the country a bit out of a large town usually are incurring long distance charges (STD) charges to phone a doctor, hospital, etc.
Yet, the Framers of the Constitution specifically arranged for postal and telecommunications to be put in the hands of the Commonwealth of Australia so all people across the nation would be provided at the same charge the same service.
Meaning, no difference between local and STD charges, but all phone calls being at the same charge!
Selling Telstra is not only unconstitutional but also likely will further disadvantage people residing in outer area’s.
As the Framers made clear they didn’t want telecommunications to go into private ownership as in the USA, and as such the commonwealth of Australia lack any constitutional powers to sell of Telstra.
However, most people could not care less because it doesn’t affect them, and this is how gradually one undermines democracy, until one day, bit by bit your own constitutional rights are found to be lost!

You may argue; Who cares about farmers, we can always import. Just that if this is applied then once the farmers are gone, prices will rise steeply and it be too late. Then we end up paying a lot more for services and products then had we just looked in the first place at the rights of all people within our nation!

What we need to do is to apply a decentralization policy, as many would like to reside in the country (for whatever reason) and we then could in the overall reduce overhead cost!
It can be done, if just we have the right mentality!

Mollydukes – “People in the bush do not have equal access to communication technology.”

The people of the bush have the same right as people in the metro’s - to move to the metros.

As TUS stated living in the bush is a matter of choice and for him his choice is the bush for a host of reasons far more fundamental and important than “access to broadband”.

I would note “sugar farmers” are not subsidised because they are “white” – just as symphony orchestras are not subsidised on the basis of their ethnic origin either.

TUS –
“Most of the winners are the people who make the most of what they have.”
I would agree totally and add
“Most of the losers are the ones who demand the most of what other people have”.
We can and will only find self respect, esteem, fulfillment and value from the results of our own personal efforts. It has little to do with particular economic circumstance or relative government services.

I congratulate you on finding your “place and space”. I am about to move from a metro to a country location for similar reasons – in simple words “quality of life” – without it and the right to create it by making personal choices – life becomes a mere existence.

Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka – Decentralisation policy – I agree.
I thought we had one for a long time.
Maybe the issue is –
a decentralisation policy creates an “uneven playing field”.
Better the “market” determines the success of otherwise of centralised versus decentralised development, one thing is a certainty, the cost of future water resources and water supply reliability will play a heavier part in the equation of the future.

Col I am not suggesting that Indigenous people are specially funded on the basis of their ethnicity, but on the basis of 'need'. We need to have a decent society for all - not only the 'winners'. We need this just as much as we need symphony orchestra's.

I need to live in a society that makes the best of all of its resources and the Indigenous people should be a 'resourse' not a problem. It's all to do with quality of life.

You can't believe that 'the market' is an adequate way to determine economics. Surely not? That is as idealistic as believing that Socialism can work. The market is manipulated by powerful people, corporations and by governments.

Why not manipulate it some more to produce a better outcome for all of us by attempting to provide whatever it is that the Indigenous people need so that they can achieve something that makes us all proud to be Austalians?

What is it exactly that indigenous people need that is different to everybody else?

They need access to healthcare, education, food which are all available if they want to utilise them.

It seems, correct me if I am wrong, that you are saying aboriginals are not equal to us so they should be treated differently while at the same time talking about equality.

Which is it?

t.u.s.

What often or generally is overlooked is that we “DUMP” people who may have lived their whole life in small villages in large cities. Not only displacing them but also likely creating unemployment while farmers in the country have a problem to get workers.

If we used a DECENTRALIZATION policy, that would enable people to move to the right area in the first place, when settling, and others assisted to move to country area’s where they desire to do so then we are all better of.

For example, many elderly and self employed people who are not having any strict need to live in a city could more to the country, provided the public services were available.
As such, if we update our public services, we may resolve a lot of problems, and so unemployment also.
People moving into country area’s would create employment, while not needing themselves to have employment, or having their employment already.

During the 1999 Victorian State election, I pursued decentralization and the then Premier Jeff Kennett subsequently also began about the same, but he lost the election and got out.

We need State government to deal more with decentralization and we may resolve a lot of problems. After all, less pressure on housing in large cities, less pressure on rental properties. Meaning also less pressure on house prices to rise. Etc, etc.

We now have local schools closing in country towns, and slowly tons becoming ghost towns, whereas we can reverse the trend if we decentralized.

My wife, needing often to attend to doctors would not want to move to our country property, as there is basically no medical facilities she need.
Whereas it might not be worth to have a hospital in a small community, if we decentralize and a greater demand is created then we can provide in the process a better service for those living in small towns.

It is like the chicken and the egg, as to what goes first.
If we simply try to work on both then we may have a win-win situation

'The Usual Suspect' wrote:

"I am indigenous and I live in the bush, thank you very much."

Interesting that you haven't alluded to your Indigenous heritage before in these forums, despite having contributed to many debates in which an Indigenous perspective might have been informative.

So are you a particularly well-assimilated Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander, or just a mendacious correspondent trying to score a few points? The reason I ask this is that I live in the bush and know many Indigenous people, and have never heard any of them express the attitudes you have in these forums.

And in answer to your question "What is it exactly that indigenous people need that is different to everybody else?", my Indigenous friends and acquaintances might answer that an apology by the Prime Minister on behalf of the nation for their dispossession, two centuries of racist treatment, and the destruction of their cultures, would be a start.

Morgan