Has anyone ever estimated whether there is a correlation between the frequency of writers’ use of the word “ideologue” as a term of abuse, and their own propensity to assert absolute political truths without reference to reason or relevant evidence? I’d hazard a guess the relationship is both strong and positive.

If this is the way forward for aboriginal communities then it is painfully clear and obvious that we need more people to get educated and to raise greater awareness, now, about the pitfalls of this new way using png as a primary example.

another thing that springs to mind is that this new way will open yet another can of worms for communities too. being the deciding about who gets title lands and who doesn't, afterall it will come back to the community to make those kinds of decisions. and is there enough land there for everyone in the clan to have their own private peice? somehow i dont think so. all it will do is create the same kinds of overcrowded housing and social justice issues as now but without govt obligation coz its private.

the only way to work around it is to be informed and educated in order to make good decisions. otherwise those sharks will have a frenzy.

Firstly, there is no such thing as an “Aboriginal Australian”, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear they were “Aboriginals” and “native Australians”. Regardless what some scholars seek to make out of it, the Framers did not discriminate against Aboriginals, rather held that they were equal as any other Australian. It was for this also that originally Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution protected Aboriginals.
However, in a 1967 con-job referendum people were conned to vote for equality for Aboriginals, where in fact the opposite resulted.

With the land right issue, I understood that the real issue was that Aboriginals had their traditional heritage in the land they pursued to get back. It was their “DREAM TIME” associate with the land, etc. If Aboriginals were to sell the land, then why in the first place argue about their right because of ancestral connections?

If then Aboriginals were to sell the land, then we as the general community were conned in the first place about their ancestor’s connection with the land.

I was neither pro or anti land rights, albeit consider it better if traditional values with the land was recognized without transfer of land ownership, that now could be undermined by a sell of to multi national companies.

PNG example ought to be a warning to us.

And, as I see it, why should Aboriginal resting place remain undisturbed while other Australian resting place are of next to no value and destroyed for road widening, etc?

Lets get real, and have equality on the right of the dead to rest in peace, no matter where they are, not just that of Aboriginal remains, and if land is so special to Aboriginals then do not allow it to be sold.

People in financial need, for whatever reason, not necessarily being normal social issues, might be willing to sell land for a few dollars, irrespective of its heritage. Lets make sure that if they get the land, they keep it.

There are more appropriate ways to utilize the land for Aboriginals and have a better financial return then just selling off.