The polls have the seven Teal seats voting NO.

Meanwhile, the director of the Yes campaign is against the proposed audit of the aboriginal industry following allegations of fraud. As the Yes campaign gets more strident and panicky, the suspicion rises.

NO is the only way to go for the sake of all Australians, particularly aboriginal Australians, who are being used in a very sinister plot by Albanese and his goons.

Over the years so many reports, reviews and inquiries
have stressed the need for an overhaul of the system
dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people and stressing the need to respect their rights.

These have been documented by royal commissions, parliamentary
committees, government agencies, human rights and equal
opportunity committees, respected United Nations bodies, and
even by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.
Successive governments have consistently ignored these reports
and recommendations have not been implemented or only parts
have been implemented.

That's why we need an official Indigenous body that can't be
brushed aside - to have a seat at the table. Otherwise nothing
will change.

Dear Foxy,

"That's why we need an official Indigenous body that can't be
brushed aside - to have a seat at the table. Otherwise nothing
will change."

We have had half a century of indigenous Australians trying to solve the problems of indigenous Australians (which is ironic considering pre-1788 Australia was not a nation and it wasn't all peace and love on the occasions when the inhabitants met one another). There have been a number of indigenous bodies because of repeated failures and the realisation that things needed to change. In light of this, establishing a body that would be harder to change, perhaps impossible because of its constitutional status, does not seem wise.

As Warren Mundine pointed out, with educational parity of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, there is no gap to close.

Fester,

There's a huge gap to close.
Successive governments have not listened
to our First Nations people who've tried
for decades to tell them what should be
done. Governments have simply ignored them.

A formal body enshrined in the Constitution
may force governments to not only listen
but act.

At the principle - the very fact that Indigenous
people will now be a formal body and would be
providing advice that could ultimately
see better policy and therefore better outcomes
in health, education, housing, employment, and
child welfare, youth justice, that in itself is
surely worth giving this a go.

"Business-as-usual," is not a good option.

Hi Fester,

"We have had half a century of indigenous Australians trying to solve the problems of indigenous Australians"

I don't agree with that statement, we've had 50 years of a well intended paternalistic approach to Aboriginal affairs by white Australia. Staring with Whitlam and continuing to the present, successive governments have taken a negative approach to the problems confronting the First Australian's, from an Aboriginal perspective. We as a nation become extremely patronising; "Oh dear the poor black fella, these child like folk must be cared for, and only us white people are capable of knowing what's best for those poor unfortunates, they are incapable of exercising their own judgement, we must decide for them". The fact is that approach has not worked satisfactorily and we have 50 years of evidence to back it up. Now we as a nation have the opportunity to try something different.

Hi Paul,

Warren Mundine's remark on educational parity being a means of closing the gap is indisputable, and as long as the education of indigenous Australians is a priority, whatever body pursues it is not of my concern. Determining who gets the task of closing the gap is the choice of all Australians in the coming referendum.

I agree with you that is wrong to have the minutiae of your life controlled as happened to indigenous people in the past, but I don't agree that you can conflate this with the decisions of a democracy in defining the laws we all abide by. Democracies should be about what the majority thinks best for "us", not "them and us".