The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Enough to make Mabo turn in his grave > Comments

Enough to make Mabo turn in his grave : Comments

By Stephen Hagan, published 23/10/2009

The government and industry don't bother to engage with the Indigenous community when in pursuit of their 'economic interests'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
1."....some Indigenous people, in impoverished circumstances created by the government, do fight between themselves over money offered by third party interests."
2."Bergmann said: “These are multi-billion-dollar projects and traditional owners should expect no less than a multi-billion-dollar deal. Our people are living in absolute poverty and crisis. We can't turn our back on that. We have a responsibility to try and change that.”"
3."The Bardi elder Frank Davey, who opposed the LNG hub site, told the same program: “Money is not really important to us. Our culture is more important. It's a very hard thing for us to sell. We never ever sold any of our culture. And we are there to protect it.”"
4."My old mate Eddie Mabo, who attended James Cook University in 1979 at the same time as me, would turn in his grave today if he knew how dismissive governments of all persuasions were of Indigenous people’s traditional land-use aspirations"
Has Native Tile been determined in the Goldfields Area? If so which groups have Native Title and to what areas?
How did the government impoverish some indigenous people? If you are referring to equal wages for indigenous stockmen I agree.
Are indigenous Australian NOT subject to all social welfare payments available to non-indigenous Australians? If money is not important why complain about being impoverished?
Finally just what traditional land-use aspirations are you referring to? A return to pre Colonial times with the "noble savage" living in Eden? hardly.
Posted by blairbar, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:48:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I must confess, I didn't get through the first page, let alone the rest of this 'here we go again' stuff.

You got your native title, even though it is thought that your ancestors took the land from others before you.

You got your apology, even though no one alive today had anything to do with what went on during that time. Sure, I, like many others are very sorry, but hey! We didn't do it!

So, while you continue to whinge and moan what about the wasted millions us lot have seen pissed away when your lot burn down their houses or trash the cars provided by the tax payers.

When are we, the taxpayers, ever going to see an apology for these acts of wilful damage? Hey?

If I had my way I would tax any land that you had claims to and give you all the money to do with what you like. After all, I would rather see my taxes going to better causes like health, education or a decent retirement plan for our taxpayers. But as if that's ever going to happen.

Meanwhile, we simply have to keep forking out the bucks, while watching you lot trash your surroundings and continue to bitch about everything.

Perhaps your efforts would be better served cleaning up your own back yard!
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 25 October 2009 10:00:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Stephen,

You mentioned the myth of terra nullius and it may have been more of a myth than most people think.

In pastoral lease documents in all states of Australia from way back in the nineteenth century, and in environmental acts well into the late twentieth (1989 in SA), this clause was required to be inserted:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

It applied to the NT too, except for a period from 1911 to about 1924 when the Federal law caught up. So no, there wasn't an assumption of terra nullius in Australian law. What puzzles me is that last phrase; "as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made." Doesn't that mean all Crown Land ? Why weren't the hotshot native title lawyers and legal rights movements aware of this, or if they were, why didn't they try to build on it ? Why were ILUAs negotiated on the basis of zero when people already had substantial rights in law ?

Just asking.

Joe Lane
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 9:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee rehctub, did you think up all that by yourself or did someone help you?
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 1 November 2009 10:20:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy