Paul, every Austrlain has two things in common, that being not one of us asked to be born and, not one of us had any say in where we grew up, as both these choices were made by our parents.

So, if you or I decided to buy a small camper van and park it in some far away location and live off the land so as to say, would you expect the tax payer to support your life style choice. More importantly, would you expect to be able to live you life in such a way, get welfare assistance and not expect to be harassed to at least try to find a job.

Of cause the answer to both is clearly no. So why should these people be treated any different. Reconciliation is a two way street because in order to be treated equally, one must be willing to contribute equally, which is why I say by all means live the life you choose, but not at the expense of those who are working to pay the taxes.

Taxpayer supports our lifestyle wherever we live. Where is the evidence that more is being spent, than in crowded, traffic bounded suburbs of inner city regions.

Truth is, under this government there has been big money withdrawn from the regions. Money that kept many employed.

What real choice do they have in moving. Will they be better off. One suspects not.

Native title I believe is distinguish, if the lose contact with the land.

Let move all outlaying indigenous people to places in inner cities then they can live in slums,partake in crime drink lots and be generally like there poor white cousins.
The point is this kind of city life style isn't even working for us work work work in some dead end job until you die i am sure this is a really good way to live (NOT).
Let take an example of what indigenous do DECENTRALIZATION
Stop wasting money on more inner city roads units cramming people in like sardines, creating huge areas of slums and poverty
Start building up our towns and small cities and watch the quality of life and social issues disappear. The current system only helps the rich (minority)

"If, however, they wish to live a European lifestyle then they should be treated just the same as their fellow Australians and receive equal treatment"

They should receive equal money, wherever and however the choose to live.

Has anyone here found a way to reliably and economically supply all possible government services to communities of 10 and below in remote areas? There must be dozens of them.

In my travels I have seen homes with expensive facilities, obviously constructed for Aborigines who have used them for a time then moved on (leaving what they consider to be 'Whitey's' trash behind them).

What solutions does Shorten propose? -Because despite all advice from hundreds of highly paid indigenous experts no government before has found the answer and millions of taxpayers' $$ have been tipped into the 'problem' annually.

Just over 10 years ago a friend of mine was employed as a tradesman working on a "model" aboriginal village in northern NSW.

It was designed to house 27 families, with brick homes, it's own supermarket, sports centre/community hall, sports fields, water supply & sewerage treatment & disposal, roads & drainage.

The cost to cater to 27 families was a nice round $27 million. Remote settlements any one?

With in 2 years, 6 of the homes were unliveable, but that was no problem, 30% of the residents were living in some of the 72 old cars dumped around the sight.

One has to wonder where you people live, & on what basis you form tour opinions.