Examinator, those 100 consultations with the indigenous people were NOT "consultations". They were meetings designed specifically to find the best ways implement decisions ALREADY MADE by the Queensland Govt.

There was NO "consultation".

Once again, the voice of indigenous people in Queensland was treated with contempt by those in power - - - - - this time under the "guise" of "so called" "consultation".

The Qld. governments historically, have shown scant respect for their indigenous population. The GOVERNMENT makes the decisions regarding indigenous people, and the indigenous people have close to ZERO say, except "sometimes" when they are needed for implementation of govt. policy (that will go ahead anyway whether or not the indigenous people approve). When they are not needed to assist with the implementation of govt. policy, THEY ARE IGNORED.

I agree with Master's comment.

examinator, what Tania Major said was that she and the people she represents were after consent not consultation. The idea being that after the consultation phase, a consensual outcome is arrived at after compromise or whatever. It appears that after the consultation phase in the Cape York case, the government just went off and did what it wanted and disregarded any view that didn't fit in with its own. That's pretty typical in my experience. Without being there, it's hard to know who's right and who's wrong. However, if the whole idea of development is based around the actions of individuals making the running on things via entrepreneurship, then consent or true agreement seems to make sense.

The other problem is that the people who tend to be the most affected are the little guy running a small enterprise and not the big miners who, when they get their foot in the door, do much more damage than the Aboriginals ever could. I didn't hear Bligh refuting that particular charge.

I agree with Master's comment.

examinator, what Tania Major said was that she and the people she represents were after consent not consultation. The idea being that after the consultation phase, a consensual outcome is arrived at after compromise or whatever. It appears that after the consultation phase in the Cape York case, the government just went off and did what it wanted and disregarded any view that didn't fit in with its own. That's pretty typical in my experience. Without being there, it's hard to know who's right and who's wrong. However, if the whole idea of development is based around the actions of individuals making the running on things via entrepreneurship, then consent or true agreement seems to make sense.

The other problem is that the people who tend to be the most affected are the little guy running a small enterprise and not the big miners who, when they get their foot in the door, do much more damage than the Aboriginals ever could. I didn't hear Bligh refuting that particular charge

Neither the noble savage myth or fire stick farming has anything to do with the issue. I do not give unqualified support to either notion. As a secular Humanist I support the indigenous people's CULTURE not necessarily all the practices.

I think Belly is on track.

The premise I offered was does support of land rights extend to their having unique DESTRUCTIVE rights.
or for them having privileged black version of whitey's excesses with total disregard for the environment and the rest of the country. With some getting rich while the bulk's health and welfare, life span etc. is third world levels. look at some of the Nth American Land.

(b) Conservation see my comment to are all religions wrong.

NB I am NOT a green as such just someone who logically knows that we can neither allow the appalling destitution and squalor that is often aboriginal camps or continue our profligate ways without shameful disastrous consequences.

It is the Govt responsibility to look after every one in the state even if that means questioning or forbidding whitey style developments.

Native advancement activities are NOT banned by wild rivers.

The ALP motives for the declaration are largely irrelevant the issue is about the Governments rights and the spirit of native title.

I can accept if all three parties agree on a project and if it meets environmental criteria and the indigenous gain advantage that lifts them out of the above mentioned squalor, good.

Given that the following.
a. That it took 3 years and we are speaking about a very few people.

b. There clearly have had time to to react etc.

c. The govt didn't discuss (ask) for the permission of wannabe millionaire land owners to cancel large portions of develop-able land for the good of all. They didn't get the same consideration It seems to me that to maintain the status quo by conserving land IS in their ambit by virtue of they won the majority at the ballot. No one else has unbridled control of their land or rivers.

Hasbeen,
Premier Bligh wasn't even remotely the issue.

thank you Master.
when Aborigines are needed
to ratify an equal rights republic
the rep from the cape york council
will be there.

The elders at a community are concerned. The doctors and nurses have been banging on about health care and the constant trips for specialist care in Cairns are becoming more frequent.

Fresh fruit and vegetables at the community-owned but whitey-run store are expensive.

The elders decide they need to operate their own market garden.

They apply for and receive a generous grant. A culturally sensitive whitey is employed to set up the project. He/she will also employ and train some of the local youth. Within three years the whitey can move on.

Its six months into the project. It’s a Friday night and there has been a lot of drinking. The locals employed on the project break into the now locked and fenced garden project. They take a number of items and smash the project to pieces.

There are no consequences. There is no accountability. The whitey is blamed for being too culturally insensitive and moves on. The elders blame a flawed consultation process.

The elders decide they need to operate their own fishing enterprise…….