The statement "Since when did the kooris want to be farmers and entrepreneurs anyway. Land rights was supposed to be about cultural integrity and not losing their heritage. Not becoming the newest breed of property developers and exploiters." says it all. Part of the reason we set up land rights with special rights was to satisfy the needs of white man's dreaming. We needed to "preserve Aboriginal culture" so we could sit in comfort and believe that out there somewhere there was a better way of life. (A big part of it was also driven by people who believed what we were doing was best for Aborigines as well.)

In retrospect I think it would have been better if "Land Rights" had been set up as land grants with the same rights and responsibilities as those applying to non-aboriginal land owners. More Aborigines would have got to own some land and, in reality, they, both as individuals and communities would have had more control over their future.

Even if Major's performance wasn't so good, she's been backed up by Noel Pearson who's made the point that Aboriginals have been custodians of the land for a long time and the wild rivers are still pristine precisely because of that. The inferred question is that why should Aboriginal agricultural activities - the only development opportunity that is open to them? - be potentially stifled because of the threat posed to the Cape by the abstracted notion of development in general?

Pearson’s seems like a fair enough question/argument on the surface but as other posters have suggested, these advocates might just be being used as cover by the unscrupulous or uber-capitalist types who will grab the booty after all the hard legwork has been done in relaxing the legislation. Once that happens, government might well play the if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them game and the little guy ends up with even less than he started with. Actually, I think that’s a fair summary of what already happens everywhere, pretty much.

Dear RobP,

I'm leaning more towards your argument
that there's more to all this then meets
the eye. I personally wouldn't brush
Tania Major and her objections aside
so easily. She's always impressed me as
being a sincere advocate of her people -
and definitely not a 'user,' or an
opportunist out for herself. So what
if she didn't impress on a TV show -
this time around - big deal. I'd
sooner listen to her than a politician
any day of the week. Sorry, Examinator -
but I agree with RobP, there's more to
this than meets the eye - and Tania's
not alone - Fitzgerald, QC - is another
one backing her. Let's wait and see what
develops before we make judgements on this.
sooner or later the truth will out.

Whilst all these "well intentioned" and "sympathetic" people permit and encourage government to continue playing the race card all involved shall continue manipulatively playing the race card game whilst all resultant disadvantages continue to fester.

Eventually "Land Rights" shall be extinguished, then with all these land titles converted into conventional alienable land titles with same rights, same responsibilities, and same risks, as apply now to other land owners then the changes shall occur.

When land title is at risk, exists need to manage better, even if just to retain title, then individuals, corporate land trusts and communities will really exercise, and discover, far more control over their futures than can see today.

Until then accountability shall remain little more than a rhetorical slogan tossed out every know and then to obtain knee-jerk reactions...

.

CJ
My point exactly what is their objections in detail

All
Like CJ and I agree what are their objections exactly...details... all the information thus far doesn't add to the logic of a pile of possum poo.

I have no problems with the lady in question just that having had so much contact with pollies etc I have a very sensitive spin (bull) meter. When one side simply rants and resorts to emotionally based rabble rousing I get suspicious. Bugger the money show me the SUBSTANCE. So far there hasn't been any outside some vague "potential" stifling or potential opportunities (?) (what opportunities? where?).

As for maintaining Koories being a paramount conservation expertise resource. Rationally even that has a sunset clause if not the proverbial Diprotodon in the humpy... The Global warming thingy... circumstances and criteria are changing.

While I might be relatively happy to have the Koorie maintain status quo neither they or short focus gun ho developers really have a handle on the ramifications of the approaching climatic and potentially catestrophic changes. It's all new beyond any ancient ways. Hence I have real reservations with the concept of Coconut (brown on the outside but whitey on the inside) developers with limited appropriate knowledge having unconditional approval over government(presumably scientifically based conservation decisions) to develop.
One is largely benign and the other is fraught with demons we don't yet know

Hey Examinator,

A bit off subject here - so forgive me - but have
you read Houellebecq's thread on - "Middle-aged men
in cheap suits?"

Fractelle sure could use
any input from you dear heart (pretty please?).
I've tried to do my bit - but any additional
input from a kindred spirit would be a good
thing at this time. 'Cause they're ganging
up on her again and it's just not fair! Help?