If we ever needed evidence that a different approach is required, this years 'Closing The Gap' report once more speaks loud and clear as to the ongoing failures in so many areas affecting our Indigenous brothers and sister. All Australians should be ashamed of the findings in the report. There are 19 national socio-economic targets across areas that have an impact on life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Noble ambitions, but unfortunately too many with disgustingly failed outcomes, having not come anywhere near the desired targets.

http://www.closingthegap.gov.au/national-agreement/targets

The gap will never be closed for all sorts of reasons not the least being too many careers and salaries are based on it not closing. There's nothing quite so permanent as a temporary government programme.

The notion that people who want to live a semi-traditional lifestyle is some god-forsaken backwater in Arnhem can have the same health outcomes as someone living within a few kilometres of a modern first world hospital is just insane and inane. Yet this is what is being proposed.

The whole thing is just a cudgel to beat more funds out of the taxpayer for the benefit of the carpet-baggers.

mhaze, totally agree.
First world academia studies carried out on third world conditions and expect them to be raised to First World standards which they despise. They want a simple life of hunting and gathering - living off the environment.

I can only speak from my personal observations which indicate to me that there are too many on all sides who'd be required to vacate a lucrative bandwagon if this Gap were to be closed.
Bureaucracy & business & fence sitters do not want the Gap to get any narrower.
It's a true shame but that's how people are !
It is morally wrong to say that all Australians should be ashamed because most Australians actually want this opportunistic industry to end & create some harmony. It's the non-real indigenous & academic hangers-on who are the cause of the Gap not closing !
The average, ordinary Taxpayer is doing more for the cause to close the Gap than those for whom a closed gap is supposed to benefit !

Dear Paul,

Of course we shall continue to have an endless cycle
of failure if we continue to not have the input of
Aboriginal people. Meaningful progress is impossible
without their input. They know what will work back in
their communities. Their Voice is the missing ingredient.

Their Voice is the missing ingredient.
Foxy,
yes, tell the agitators for the Voice to let these people to be heard !

Dear Individual,

The people for the Voice are those that are
trying to close the gap. It's the anti-Voice
agitators that don't want this to happen
for a variety of reasons. As I keep telling
you - get your facts right!

Hi Paul,
I think it's honorable you brought this issue up, if anything, to show how unrealistic these targets (or timelines at least) really are.
- Lets so we hypothetically go to extremes, lets say we could house every aboriginal and torres straight islander in a Hilton hotel that was connected to a world class hospital and education facilities in the hotel lobby.

I ask, would even that change these peoples outcomes, when they are more or less born into a kind of PTSD and resentment of the other nations inhabitants - specifically white?

- And this is before we look into the reality of the situation we currently have. Look at the kids right now in Darwin and Alice Springs, you think they are ever going to stop stealing, drinking, or even have just a small amount of respect for authority, if only for their own best interests?

You are more or less expecting them to fully assimilate, in order to reach those goals, They don't seem to want to do that, just hate and blame for what is just as much their own choices in this day and age.

This whole rent and reparation thing just encourages them to keep doing what they're already doing, only everyone else must give them more.

It's going to take a long time and a hell of a lot of money, and even then no outcome is even assured when they choose to live differently than more civilized people (no offense to indigenous)

I do wish for better outcomes for them, but how is this going to happen, and in fairness - at what cost to everyone else?

Start by teaching them that there's a life you're given, and the one you make for yourself.
How are they even going to understand what that means (and their potential to live differently) when they live out in the bush?

I had a quick look at the figures on the page you referenced Paul and on the first 4 or so indicators there had been an improvement. Indeed on the education one it appeared Aborigines might actually be doing better than the rest.

Why is it that instead of celebrating that we are expected to flagellate ourselves because arbitrary deadlines are not being met. We should be adjusting the deadlines to something realistic. But like so much of government these days, the media department rules over all.

I also wonder why it is "we" who are guilty for progress not being faster. Don't aboriginal Australians bear any responsibility?

It's the same logic underlying The Voice - that the problem lies with us. I have a number of Aboriginal friends who are doing quite well because they, or a forebear, took hold of their own destiny rather than waiting for someone to do it for them.

Those who haven't made that same decision need to be encouraged to. Unfortunately, commentary like this on the Closing the Gap, or laying the blame on the many because they've "failed" to listen to Aboriginal voices detracts from real solutions. Indeed The Voice is just another iteration of current approaches, which are alleged to have "failed", and an assumption that there will always be a "them" and "us" and that there will always be a gap.

What was ATSIC, how much did it cost, did it do any good at all, why did it fail.

Thy would you expect the VOICE to do anything better? Or is it just a product of trying to harm the majority?

get your facts right!
Foxy,
I did & as an indigenous friend told me just hours ago, it's easy to tell them (ignorant do-gooders) anything !

Dear Individual,

That's the difference between us.

I prefer evidence-based facts found in libraries, museums,
and archival documents, just to list some.

You'd rather listen to opinions from people who
tell you what you want to hear.

All those voting Yes should adopt an aboriginal child from the bush and give them education and better standards of health care and see if it improves their life. I know of one family that tried this and gave him private education, however in his teenage years he reverted to join his tribe in the bush. Wandering is in their genes, and it is unlikely to change. The mob is the basic family unit, and those that work in Cattle stations support their Mob.

The WA government gave remote aboriginals the opportunity to move into towns so they could receive health, education, and better home services and they did not want to move. Their tribal lands are sacred, and they are attached to them.

I agree with the fact that our Indigenous people need to
take responsibility for their lives. That is what they
want to be given the chance to do. That is what The
Uluru Statement From The Heart is all about.

"In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard."

Indigenous leaders want to take responsibility. No one
knows their communities and the challenges they face
better than they do themselves. It is time the
Australian governments listen and follow their lead and
puts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at
the heart of their decision-making.

They can't take responsibility if they are not involved
in the decision-making processes of what affects them.
Therefore voting YES at the referendum, will give me
the responsibility they are asking and which most of us
agree needs to be done.

Please excuse my typos. But I think that the meaning
is clear.

By voting YES at the referendum - it will give THEM
the responsibility they are asking - and most of us
want them to have.

Foxy,
Ignorance on a monumental scale, better stop reading those novels !

Foxy,

Even if everything you say about the aboriginals needing a body to voice their views to government - actually most of it is wishy-washy drek but let's pretend for a moment that it holds water -...even if its true, why does this body need to be in the constitution.

The government can, and indeed will, set up a body legislatively to allow for this supposed voice to be filtered through to the various powers-that-be, constitution or no constitution.

As has been shown more times than needed, the reason is that giving it constitutional backing gives it prestige beyond mere a advisory body and protects it from being disbanded in the event it turns out to be something other than what its boosters assert.

So set it up legislatively and if its a wildly successful as you assert, then come back to the constitutional issue later.

The conservative belief that disadvantage is a free choice in life is untrue. The notion that a person would freely choose at a young age to make bad decisions which leads them into a life of social and economic disadvantage defies reality. The truth is the vast majority of society's disadvantaged are born into the trap and the majority never escape from it.

Paul1405,
Yes & No. Many unselfish become disadvantaged & many selfish become disadvantaged. One just has to look at the Australian culture of drug abuse when decent people try to help these morons who take drugs who then drag those around them down with them. Then you have the lazy ones who chose to be on unemployment benefits rather than go to work but bleat discrimination & disadvantage.
Yes there are genuine disadvantaged due to bureaudroids not doing their job but most bleaters of disadvantage are actually quite well off in comparison to the genuine. The guilt indudtry is a clear indicator of that.

Dear mhaze,

Many people can't understand that the Voice will be
constitutionally enshrined but legislatively controlled.
This establishes a balance between constitutional
protection of the Voice while allowing it to be
adapted to future circumstances.

The following link explains:

http://theconversation.com/an-indigenous-voice-must-be-enshrined-in-our-constitution-heres-why-153635

"Many people can't understand that the Voice will be
constitutionally enshrined but legislatively controlled."

And many people do understand that but ask why it needs to be constitutionally enshrined. Or in my case, ask others to ask themselves why it needs to be constitutionally enshrined/

Two reasons:
1. So that it can't be dissolved like ATSIC no matter how bad it became.
2. Because having it in the constitution would give it prestige and power beyond a mere advisory body. We are told to not fret because it will only advise government but being asked to give it theoretic prestige and constitutional backing that COULD in the future make it much more than a mere advisory body.

My response - yes to a legislated advisory body; no to a constitutional enhanced body.

So no to this referendum.

Each to their own.

A society takes responsibility to improve the standards of their community, they do not need Government Voice. Be a mature society, not a dependent society.

mhaze,

As some say, the Australian Constitution is our birth certificate, yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate. Legislative authority only so some Jack Boot Johnny like the racists Dutton can come along and dissolve it at his desecration. The Voice is not ATSIC, and by the will of the people through the Constitution, never will be. Aboriginal people don't want racists intervention laws without consultation, like Howard gave them.

The trouble with aboriginal welfare, & a lot of other problems such as drugs, follows the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

If what you lead them to is not what they want, you are wasting your time, no matter how much you spend. When that involves them getting off their backsides & doing what you think is good for them, perhaps you should leave them alone.

Now of course we have Gillard's revenge, the NDIS giving people a new way to bludge, once they find a compliant doctor.

" yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate."

So make that the referendum ie a clause added to the preamble saying that some folk have been here for a long time. Hurrah, recognition solved. Next problem please.

ATSIC was dissolved because it was hopelessly corrupt and inefficient. It's interesting that the yeah-sayers want to ensure even a corrupt Voice would survive. But you are wrong to say that a constitutional voice would be immune to legislative attack. It remains conceivable that a future government could change the legislation to neuter the Voice if that was their want. Of course, that would require both houses to agree which in turn would suggest general popular agreement.

" yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate."
Unfortunately, that took too long but they're recognised ! There are many non-indigenous who shouldn't be recognised !
Why is no-one saying what needs to be said, it's all about effort & responsibility & the recognition will automatically come, not the other way round !
Australians started in 1901, there were no Australians before that date !

Why the objections to the Voice being constitutionally
enshrined?

It makes sense so that successive governments cannot
overturn it. It will be established as a new
constitutional body. A new chapter (chapter 9) at the
end of the constitution. It will be protected - however
neither the government and parliament can't be compelled
(for example through litigation) to follow these representations.

As such this body will not have "veto" power and is not a
"third chamber."

So why the objections?

"Why the objections to the Voice being constitutionally enshrined?"

Asked and answered....see above.

"however neither the government and parliament can't be compelled (for example through litigation) to follow these representations.

As such this body will not have "veto" power and is not a "third chamber.""

Well that's not made explicit in the proposed changes. Its just something that the yeah-sayers assert without evidence.

Here is my grandson in 2050 arguing before the High Court....

"your honours, although the government argues that the Voice is a mere advisory body based upon a misreading of what a few people said in 2023, the fact is that the people then and the constitution now thought of it as much more than just another group that gave the government advise. The very fact that they put it in its own chapter in the constitution means that they then, and we now, thought of it as a special advisory body with powers beyond those of a mere chat room. Even in 2023 the PM of the day, speaking on behalf of the majority who voted yes, said that no government would or should ignore the advise from the Voice. As such, it is clear that the government's decision to act in any way contrary to the advise it receives from this august body is acting unconstitutionally."

Nowhere does the proposed amendment make it clear that this is just advise. There's a reason for that.

Foxy, the proposal you post is only what the radicals want the voting population to hear. They want their own National self-determination, their own flag, a return of their laws and customs, and be free from the colonizer's laws and white government controls. They cannot cope with our laws and expectations.

The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart originally proposed
the Voice through extensive consultation with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people.

Australia will have a lot of explaining to do
to the world if it votes no.

http://lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indigenous-voice-getting-ready-explain-world-if-australia-votes-no

http://lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indigenous-voice-getting-ready-explain-world-if-australia-votes-no
Foxy,
More self-serving academic hanger-on drivel !

FYI, A large majority of aboriginal people know absolutely nothing about this 'Voice' proposal.

Foxy "Australia will have a lot of explaining to do to the world if it votes no."

Why, because the world cares so much about about indigenous Australians?
- Or more likely because the Western world leaders pull their bumcheeks apart for UN and WEF agendas?

And to whom?
- The UN and WEF globalists.

Since when is what Australians democratically decide any of their business anyway?
Do they really support democracy, or just use democracy to attempt to impose their will?
- Like a bus that helps get them where they want to go?

The world is so full of crap.
You all need to take the blinkers off.
- Especially you Foxy.

You are very right Josephus they cannot cope with our laws and expectations, well some don't want to, others are doing very well. Those who don't want to cope with our laws & expectations, can very well; cope with our money, & lots of it, provided they don't have to work for it.

Hey Paul,

Interesting fact and off topic I know...

RFK Jr. says he will pardon Julian Assange on Day 1 if he becomes President.
http://www.youtube.com/live/8tIs-JBOdQc?feature=share&t=1276

Hi AC,

I've always maintained America is not a democratic country, and Julian Assange committed the greatest of crimes, he went against the established order.

You might like this; In a pub over a few beers in the 1970's, I once asked one of Australia's leading Communist's of the time; "What's the difference between the Soviet Union and America" .....I thought he would go into some flowery philosophical spiel, about the virtues of Soviet communism, and the evils of American capitalism. But no, his answer was simple; "Son, the Soviets are full of BS, and they know it, The Americans are full of BS, but they don't know it." Seemed true then, as it does today.

I saw this yesterday and thought it rather well encapsulated the views of the competing sides.....

"The believer is happy. the doubter is wise".
Edgar Allan Poe.

It is a very naive person who never questions anything.
Hence to doubt is to question which leads to wisdom by
getting the facts right. (smile).

Foxy,
And, to believe only hoodwinking antics is irreputably ignorant !

Oops ! that should be an f instead of a p !

The most recent chaos has come from an Aboriginal corporation citing the laws to demand $2.5 million for approval of two major tree-planting events.

Just saw the above on Facebook,
Any facts on this ?

Hmmh, almost 24 hrs & still no Flak, must be true !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304769/Perth-tree-planting-event-axed-Aboriginal-corp-demands-2-5M-approval.html

"Two major tree-planting events have been cancelled following a demand by an Aboriginal corporation for a payment of $2.5 million in exchange for their approval.

LandCare volunteers were meant to roll up their sleeves to plant 5500 seedlings along Perth's Canning River on the weekend.

But the events never went ahead following a $2.5m demand from the newly formed Whadjuk Aboriginal Corporation, sparking confusion about Western Australia's new Aboriginal heritage laws.

Its chief executive David Collard told land care groups that the plantings couldn't proceed due to the Indigenous group's ongoing dispute with the WA government over funding.

The decision has bewildered conservation groups and community leaders, including four local mayors."

The Landcare Volunteer group was given $12,000,000 from the Government for the plantings and the aboriginal group wanted a $2.500,000 share of these funds.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/technology/environment/aboriginal-elder-says-tree-planting-event-was-shut-down-because-it-honoured-queen-elizabeth/news-story/e33739e1116d4a55cc7c30bc4afe0ff1
Quote:
"An Aboriginal elder from Western Australia has revealed that her family stepped in to shut down a community tree planting event over the weekend because it honoured the late Queen Elizabeth II, denying the state’s controversial new cultural heritage laws were to blame.

City of Greater Geraldton Mayor Shane Van Styn claimed in a Facebook post on Sunday that the tree planting event at Wonthella Bushland Reserve had been called off after a “respected local knowledge holder shut down proceedings on the basis of ground disturbance and the new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and the ‘significance’ of the site to the family”.

Speaking to the ABC on Monday, Nhanhagardi and Wajarri woman Donna Ronan said her family were disappointed they had not been consulted about the decision to honour the late monarch on what is a significant aboriginal site to them.

The council had installed a plaque honouring Queen Elizabeth II’s Jubilee at the reserve, where around 25 community volunteers gathered to plant trees as part of restoration efforts after a deliberately lit fire last year “ravaged” the area."

Imagine if the Voice is in the Constitution and there is a dispute about tree planting honouring a royal person or our diggers and it must go to the high Court for decision.
VOTE "NO" TO AVOID CONFLICT.
It is all about the money!

Misleading information and false social media commentary
that claims that the Voice to Parliament could overturn any
decisions of government via the High Court have NO
legal basis.

The separation of powers prevent the High Court from
forcing Parliament to enact its advice.

Some people are determined and
have chosen to weaponise their stance against
the Voice by propagating false and misleading
information online.

The facts are that the Voice
is designed NOT to have legal power, NOT to have
a program delivery function, and NOT to have veto power.
The Voice WILL NOT give the Voice a veto or law making power
nor the power to issue commands to Parliament.

Anybody trying to say otherwise - should not be taken seriously.

Foxy, stop posting misinformation that is not what Makarrata is proposed to achieve.

On the AEC website I note "The AEC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and recognises their continuing connection to land, waters, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging.

© AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION 2023"

This indicates where the AEC stands, rather than being neutral on political issues.

Hi Paul and Foxy

What we've all been waiting for:

Here are the Voice Yes and No cases just published on the Australian Electoral Commission site today. These are the:

- "Yes" case in 13 unfortunately, poorly formatted (by Labor) pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

and

- the sound "No" case in 7 pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

Cheers Mavs

Torres Strait Islanders were handed Sea Rights by High Court Judge Debra Mortimer.
According to an indigenous friend of a mate of mine, the Aboriginals wanted some of the area claimed by the islanders on traditional grounds of roaming the sea in bark canoes but the islanders won. Their "Brothers & Sisters" from the mainland apparently made it clear to them that "when your islands go under, don't come here looking for a place to live".
According to the Judge everything is just so wonderful now !

WHOOPSY CORRECTION! HAD YOUSE GOING THERE ;)

Hi Paul and Foxy

What we've all been waiting for:

Here are the Voice Yes and No cases just published on the Australian Electoral Commission site today. These are the:

- "Yes" case in 13 unfortunately, poorly formatted (by Labor) pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0

and

- the sound "No" case in 7 pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

Cheers Mavs

Indy,

Another one of your good old disparaging anecdotes about Aboriginal people, its always a black fella with the story, and its always a friend of friend of yours. yuda,yuda,yuda.

Paul1405,
Not having any friends or Mates will never make you understand ! If an Aboriginal said what I was quoted, what is so yuda yuda about it ? What am I supposed say, a Transgender Mongolian said it ?
At times you are beyond a normal person hence the only way you can make a living is by being a Token bureaudroid !

Indy,

How strange all these little stories of yours are always negative, you and Jose' must put your heads together to come up with them all. When was the last time on this forum you put up anything that painted Aboriginal people in a good light? NEVER!

p/s, You have always been careful never to name the country you came from all those years ago. Why? You might get seen for what you are. How about you name your country of birth, your heritage, instead of bagging others for theirs.

put up anything that painted Aboriginal people in a good light?
Paul1405,
Do you want me to make things up like you et al do just to sound nice ? I live what you're only guessing about. I have indigenous friends, do you ?
The above story was provided by an indigenous who's a switched on chap who can see the nonsense being peddled by the pseudo-indigenous & how they're ruining the communities not the average taxpayer as you constantly suggest.
You haven't a clue about life in the North & the exploitation enabled by the southern do-gooders.
Instead of your tiresome ridiculing, may I suggest you talk to real Indigenous & listen to what they think not those token half-baked intellectual mutts in Uni campuses !
You'll agree with me in three months flat !

Indy,

You have shown yourself to be an out and out racists, racial abuse of others, running down Australians at every opportunity, so don't come with the sanctimonious clap-trap. What did you bring, and what have you contributed to this country? The short answer, Nothing!

Nothing!
Paul1405,
Simple solution, provide positive people, positive, outcomes, positive etc etc & you'll find my posts to become positive also !
The ball's in your court ! Stop being so antagonistic & racist for which you have no reason whatsoever & you'll get replies in kind. Your accusation of Nothing is baseless as you expect kind comments re unkind & opportunistic people. When did you ever hear me state anything unkind about real & decent Indigenous ? The reason I remark on the people who aren't kind & decent is counter your insidious attempts to portray opportunistic characters as decent & decent people as opportunistic. I talk about people I know, you remark on people you don't know ! Also, many of the Indigenous you defend aren't indigenous anyway !

Indy,

You attack people who are trying to make a difference for our indigenous brothers and sisters and for others. You paint them as "Go Getters" with ulterior motives, incompetents out for their own ends, the 'gravy train' syndrome, you are so cynical of all those "not like YOU". You want others punished for their crime of being different to YOU, with boot camps for the young, and sackings for the unworthy etc. I might be wrong, but you think you have a mortgage on being right, but YOU are defiantly wrong in your assessment and attitude towards so many other Australians. Australians young and old, black and white, male and female, gay and straight, conservative and progressive, by and large are decent people, they don't need an old bloke like you condemning them at very turn. Can you say anything positive about anyone except yourself?

Paul1405,
Easy solution, prove me wrong !

Paul1405,
Tell us, do you think it is right that people of Malay, Chinese, Irish, Solomon Island, New Caledonia, Samoa etc first heritage brought here by British manipulators can suddenly claim to be indigenous yet Caucasians born here fourth & more generations are deemed non-Australian ?
There were no Australians before the British grabbed this continent, the indigenous inhabitants were made up of many clans, they weren't Nations ! Even today they can't understand each others language. You'll of course say this is racist but I'm saying this is what is going on but you et al are desperately trying to portray a picture or situation that isn't & never was ! Because it doesn't sit well with your opportunistic racist bleating all you have to fall back on is racist bleating. get out out there & experience for yourself. There are many decent people out there of varied heritage who don't bleat racism because they're of better mentality & character than you !

Paul1405,
Even the so-called civilizations from around the Globe weren't Nations, they were Kingdoms & Empires before they became Nations as we understand nowadays.
The Aborigines were family groups who roamed the country with the seasons on which they were totally dependent. This was a system that worked quite well for most but it was a long way short of falling into the category of Nations. It was a basic day by day existence. Many accept that except the activists who try to change history either bad or good, as long as it gives them power they can't handle & utterly undeserved money taken from those who need it !.

The Yes case is all motherhood statements that should be happening NOW. It will not change by putting it in the Constitution, it demonstrates how poorly aboriginal Affairs Ministers are performing in their roles.

The yes case claim it is up to us to make the changes for aboriginal welfare, when we are not responsible for anything more than we already do for everyone. They have as much personal responsibility for their lives as any of us; and many aboriginals have grasped personal responsibility and have achieved equal to any in society. It indicates a failure of Governments to take responsibility for poor outcomes.

The NO case.
http://www.facebook.com/stephen.chavura/videos/580020441002121/

I'd have thought that the Constitution would already have the requirement for decency enshrined alas, not for Bureadroids & other failures denying basic standards to the needy !
Yes will increase the imbalance !

http://www.abc.net.au/qanda/tom-calma/13744268

"Professor Tom Calma AO an Aboriginal elder of the Kungarakan tribal group, member of the Iwaidja tribal group and a tireless champion for the rights, responsibilities and welfare of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. He is the first Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander man to hold the position of Chancellor of any Australian university.

In October 2019 Professor Calma was appointed by Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt as Co-Chair of Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group.

He has been involved in and with the tertiary education sector since 1980 as an academic, in representing Australia’s interest in all education sectors internationally, on research grants, in reviewing administrative and academic structures and on advisory boards and committees at eight universities. He has been a member of the University of Canberra Council since 2008 and was appointed as Chancellor by Council, commencing on 1 January 2014. He was reappointed to the role in 2017 and 2019 and will continue in the role until December 2022. Tom is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Queensland and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Australian National University.

Between 1995 and 2002, Tom represented Australia’s education and training interests as a senior diplomat in India and Vietnam; and in 2003, he served as Senior Adviser for Indigenous Affairs to the Honourable Philip Ruddock MP in his capacity as the Minister of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. He served as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission from 2004 to 2010 and as the Race Discrimination Commissioner from 2004 until 2009.

His 2005 Social Justice Report – focusing on Indigenous health equality – was the catalyst for the Close the Gap campaign. The report called on Australian governments to commit to achieving equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the areas of health and life-expectancy within a generation and advocated embedding a social determinants philosophy into public policy around health, education, employment, housing, and behaviours to address Indigenous inequality gaps.'

IS HE SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSING THE GAP?