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.

Not one person, tribe,church, mosque ,synagogue should be above or beyond reach of the Australian law.The law that was put in place by our society to keep our society,all of us,as safe as possible.
This country has become a hodge podge of different tribes from all places yet the ONE law must work for all of us or we descend into anarchy.
No one must be allowed to claim immunity from that law for whatever reason.
Black or white-our homes are our castles and our law must protect us all.

Thanks OLO for providing space that even the most intellectually challenged can have a say without being personally identified or even feel compelled to show evidence that they have some personal or professional capacity and history to engage in the subject matter with informed reading or scholarship - that in any other serious forum would be considered embarrassing.

Better here than in the real world.

And No. I'm not talking about this article or its author.

I would add to Rainier's point that just because people are not intellectual or "well-read" in their expressing of a situation, does not disqualify them from rightfully having an opinion on a topic that can often be very difficult for them to describe. There's a stigma attached to not being intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that - everyone brings something different to the table that collectively adds to the final picture.

It's up to those who do have the learning and intellectualism on a particular subject to bring that to bear. The ones who can't are usually expressing a dissatisfaction with, or insight into, a situation that they can sense but often can't explain very well. Pauline Hanson was a classic example. Despite the disdain of the polical elites even she was useful because she acted as the conduit for what many people wanted to say (about the flooding and dilution of Australia's Anglo culture) but couldn't because of the politically correct mood of the times.

i rest my case!

Rainier,

Maybe I'm wrong, but I detect some haughtiness in your post.

While having an intellectual knowledge of the ins and outs of Indigenous Affairs is no bad thing per se, it's still not the be all and end all. In the final analysis, all scholars are doing is studying the past history of events and trying to find patterns in it that can inform them of what might be coming. However, the world is sufficiently unpredictable that knowing all about specific case histories, for example, probably won't prepare you for the next big event. So even accurate scholarship is limited in its usefulness. Sometimes you can get more out of standing back and seeing the big picture than painstakingly going through all the detail.

RobP, Knowledge is experience, everything else is information and from your comments it seems you don't even have the right information.

What is it that makes you feel so morally entitled to then declare a stokehold in discussing an area that you have no expertise in?

Or is it because its 'aboriginal people' as 'topic' for which you understand to be something you innately possess, (but can't explain why)which nonetheless in your mind rationalises your sense of entitlement to assert, declare, no matter how inaccurate your position. (ie. simply because you are white?).

Your stake hold resides in your privileged to decide not to engage at all. Ie. Standing on the sidelines making lots of guttural noises about what you 'think'.

This ontological phenomenon that asserts proprietary interests in Aboriginal people and things (from the fringes) is not unknown to me or to many white folk I work with in indigenous affairs (broadly speaking).

We just shake our heads to each other and move on.

Is that enough haughtiness for you?

Please let me know, I don’t like to disappoint.

><((((º> ><((((º>

Rainer, I have just been going through the last dozen or so of your postings on OLO.

How is it that without exception there is nothing constructive therein. All you have to contribute is a seemingly endless diatribe against those who make suggestions for the betterment of the race to which you claim to belong. All you seem to have is an excellent command of the English language which unfortunately seems to be the only thing that I can say in your favour.

Get the rest of your brain into gear mate and come up with some constructive solutions and then people will start to listen to you and perhaps take heed of what you might have to say.

David

Rainier,

I do not have an opinion on the state of rugby league in Australia, except that Matthew Bowen rules in genius stakes; but then again, I'm prejudiced.

I do not necessarily have an opinion on who would make the better PM, but you can be assured that my bias will most certainly be exacted at the pooling booth, come election day.

A great many Australian's have opinions on the outstanding matter of indigenous affairs, without a skerrick of involvement beyond the currency of public opinion.

Obviously, this a compounding difficulty, just as surely as it is a frustration, particularly for persons such as yourself.

The challenge, as I see it, is to turn this national propensity for opinion introspectively and to the extent that the individual might ask of themselves, "what would I hope for if freehold title was made redundant and 'unindigenousness' was relegated to the bottom rung of the social order?"

Neil

The challenge, as I see it, is to ask ourselves what we would do if 95% of us were told that, because we are living in houses on land that has long been the domain of the other 5%, that we can't start a business, buy the house we live in, talk to the media about the state of the roads, or invite the visitors of our choice to come and stay with us, without unreasonable delays, arbitrary decisions, and /or exorbitant fees before we get permission of the other 5% to go ahead.

This was the flaw in the Aboriginal Lands Right Act (NT) 1976: no provision for the common good or democracy prevailing in the towns on the inalienable freehold land.

Neil,

Agree with some points you raise there.
My previous post identified those who feel they have a right to have an opinion over and above both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who have dedicated their lives to the cause.
The 67 referendum was unanimous not because of intimate knowledge of Aboriginal people, quite the opposite really. Many didn't think people lived here before white people. they still don't. It was a formal equality, not substantive.

VKU3,

I thought you knew everything and what solutions we should adopt?

Rainier,

The world is full of people who've dedicated themselves to causes. As far as I'm concerned they're entitled to do that. Everyone has experiences and the point I've made is that everyone is therefore entitled to a view however "off topic" it may seem to you. You are not the wellspring of all wisdom - no one is.

Your attitude reminds me of the disdainful way truckies in the 1970s used to look down on the rest of the population because they "didn't run the country".

Rainier, very few of us here profess to be as superior, intellectual,brilliant as you seemingly regard yourself. But we live in a democracy where we are entitled to express our views-whether they get up your nose or not.
Forums like this are popular because we can read what others are thinking, if you feel that any forum caters to the dumb or dumber, feel free to exercise your mind elsewhere. We won't mind.

I have visited some of the Aboriginal communities in North Queensland.
I have also spent some time in Tonga. There I lived in a hut made from woven coconut leaves. I was told that it cost $10 to build about twenty years ago. It was pretty rainy during the six weeks that I spent in that hut, and I get aches and pains in wet weather, but I didn't in that hut. The wind blew through the leaves and it kept the hut dry and cool. It was a really nice place to live. There was a separate block for showers and toilets and another one for cooking and eating.
To me it seems ridiculous to spend $400,000 of taxpayers money to build a horrible ticky-tacky house in the middle of nowhere. Then to demand more money to maintain the ticky-tacky. And to demand that a doctor and other professionals come and live with you in the middle of nowhere and look after you.
I think we should finance a group of Aboriginal people to travel around the Pacific looking at different ways of building houses. Then, if a Aboriginal people want to follow a more traditional lifestyle, I think we should accept that choice and not try to provide a city lifestyle in the middle of the bush.
I would really like to see decent breakfasts and lunches provided for all children at schools. In Aboriginal communities the fruit and vegetables available are often limited in range and poor in quality.
Then again, I once travelled to Normanton with an Indonesian teacher and he asked me in a puzzled way, "Don't Australians like mangoes?" because he could not understand why so many mangoes were lying on the ground, rotting. Indonesians would have turned them into jam and sold them to raise money.
We need to encourage people to demonstrate a little of that sort of independence and creativity.

Dealing with the mob. I thought that we had been doing that for the past 40 years, and it seems to have worked OK in some areas, but sadly it has had absolutely no effect in others. Perhaps we should send Rainier and some of his mates out to see what they can do to start the wheels turning again. How about it Rainier? Come back in six months time and let us know how you have got on.

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt I read your article with great interest, and as like myself you too are in Melbourne, but we seem to be worlds apart, so to say.
If you are a barrister, which I am not I am a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” then why on earth is your argument so floored?

Surely, they ought to have taught lawyers that they need to present a case upon proper legal foundations?

By the time, if you would bother to do so, read every page on my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH you may just discover that you could present your argument in a far better manner on constitutional grounds.
Why seek to rely upon emotional issues, many generally do disregard when you can base the argument upon proper legal foundations?

Whatever the Federal Government may desire to do and whatever may or may not have worked for 40 years or so really isn’t relevant if it isn’t within the constitutional framework! That is my point!
Why not, as a barrister, take the matter to a court on constitutional grounds and you may just achieve what you seek to achieve and stop the rot rather then to await if you can get enough people waking up from their trance that seems to be that the Federal Government is above the law?

And, if you happen to log onto my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com you might discover that as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I have published many books about certain constitutional and other legal issues and they are at times used in evidence in the Courts also!

For the record, on 19-7-2006, after a 5-year protracted litigation, I defeated the federal government lawyers on all constitutional issues raised UNCHALLENGED! Including as to how European Human Rights Provisions apply in the Commonwealth of Australia. See my blog.