I disagree entirely with this article, the writer sounds unreachable.

In the first paragraph, isn't the problem that the communities aren't banning suspicious characters from entering their land, they are swapping children for petrol?

Isn't that why the government wants to take control of the land?

Attacking 'whites' (what an outrageous racist attack - don't you mean the whites who stole their land, why should I be included in that derogatory statement?) is a pastime for some isn't it?

To claim that Aboriginies have a 'right' to not allow security forces onto their land is the most outrageous statement one could make, and a human rights lawyer at that!

What part of 'children are being abused' don't you understand?

The first thing that needs to occur is that security needs to be restored, and yes, 'white man's' security if you want to call it that.

For all your concern about indigenous people you failed to mention that their culture included the arranged marriages of children to elders, violent attacks on women and an almost constant state of warfare with other tribes.

It is such an ethics system that allows for children to be traded for petrol in the first place, as even the lowest class of whites would never do that.

One only hears about such outrageous depravity among non-western cultures. My uncle on a recent trip to the U.S, visited Mexico for one day, he said it was a hellhole but he would never go back because some man actually offered his 8yr old daughter for his leather jacket.

And he said they weren't dirt poor either, the man just really liked the jacket, but even if they were it wouldn't excuse it.

The writer sounds bitter.

Those like you ought to acknowledge that in many ways, Aboriginies couldn't have been luckier than to have the British come here - given the others around who were looking to build empires.

Haven't you ever wondered why it's only the 'evil white' nations that have indigenous people?

...I mean, others do have them, like Japan, yet one wouldn't know it as they aren't even recognised, they have no ATSIC or ABSTUDY or special funding on top of everyone else.

And the writer is wrong about that, too. On health for example, they have indigenous health money on top of what is allocated to the general public (which they can also use).

And how's this for them being treated worse. Some are so arrogant now, my mother told me that when she took me to hospital in 1983 when I was about 3, there was a 4hr wait, yet some Aboriginal lady burst in the emergency section with her kid saying she had a 'right' to go first because she was black.

Of course she was refused and had to wait like us white people thankfully. And that was 1983. Now, when they ask you for money and you refuse, they call you a white c...

Talk about racism.

One day there will be another 'sorry' book, sorry we blamed all 'white fella's' for what a few centuries ago did, and a 'thank-you' book, for not only bringing them out of prehistoric times but for getting here before, say, the Japanese.

Does anyone doubt Aboriginies would be in museums only if it were them that got here first?

Benjamin. When I lived in Tennant Creek in the late 60's it was blacks first, public servants next and the rest of us last. It is still almost the same down here if you want to do a course at the local TAFE. If you are black you pay a very nominal fee, if you are white you pay the full amount.

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt's article is entirely valid.

Delivering government reports, (once upon a time) in a remote Warlpiri community, my indigenous companion directed me to drive alongside a dwelling to access the next section of the settlement.

I protested that it would constitute a trespass, but he assured me that it was alright.

"What if it was a kardiaya's (non-aboriginal) home?" I inquired.

"GET OUT OF MY YARD!" he spat, in reply.

It didn't matter that is was (supposedly) inalienable aboriginal land, that it was merely bordered by a fence and occupied by a non-indigenous occupant, made it sacrosanct.

Australia's unresolved racial conflict largely reflects the differences in the nature of relations with our land.

Freehold title infers an undisputed right to exclude trespass, but aboriginal freehold title, as the author rightly identifies, is stripped of similar entitlements.

While billions of dollars are being spent on global sustainability, the most sustainable culture in the history of humankind is being made the subject of popularist vivisection.

I take it that the author has yet to go to Hall's Creek or Dinner Camp. Who knows about the dreadful conditions in some communities until a journalist gets wind of it?

The government's reasons for removing the permit system are reasonable
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1755111.htm

Relatively small areas are covered by the permit system. As anyone who has ever applied for a permit or has transversed aboriginal land would testify, it is difficult to plan trips because applications can take months to process if at all. From what I have read, many grey nomads were shocked by what they have seen and this was a stimulus for the seniors association to come forward to offer their voluntary labour and skills for free. But of course their offer was rudely rejected by indigenous advocates and representatives. However I guess the children were not consulted when their 'representatives' rejected the seniors' offer on their behalf.

The author is in danger in assuming that a 'white' man's home is his castle, because even the water inspectors can walk through one's house and yard at will, having far greater powers than the police.

The permit system does not prevent porn or grog. Anyhow, if anyone wants to do something about porn for example, why not protest about the ACT and territories (NT!) that are flooded with X rated porn - which is prevented in every State.

There is such a thing as out of sight, out of mind.

This gibberish is about what one expects from a human rights lawyer. Only people they select are deemed to have rights.

The permit system discriminates against the majority of Australians, no matter what ratbag lawyers say.