People often cite Canada, New Zealand and USA as examples of a treaty between their indigenous people and the ruling government.
What is never mentioned are some unpalatable facts.
For instance, there is a definition of the term indigenous based on blood quotum to be eligible.
In Canada, the treaty with indigenous deals only with full bloods. Part Indians are not recognised as needing extra benefits.
In the USA, the blood quotum is set by each tribal nation. Some as low as 15%, others as much as 50%.
Even using the less stringent method in the USA, this would rule out the vast majority of Australian indigenous from being involved in any treaty.
And in the end, the final irony. These indigenous groups with treaties have the same problems as the indigenous in this country. High unemployment, high substance abuse, worse health, high imprisonment rate.
Seems to me we should be talking more about solving those problems rather than wasting time and a lot of money trying to work out how aboriginal people can dictate to government.

@ Foxy:

You said: All that is being asked is that the problems that the
indigenous people still face not be brushed aside.

I think you need to qualify your point. For instance, there is no indigenous people facing problems.

Out of the 600,000 or so who register as indigenous there are a tiny minority still struggling. Most are doing fine. Most are in mixed marriages and a part of the broader community, holding down jobs and families like anyone else. Some, much more successfully than many non-indigenous.

To seek to push all Indigenous under the umbrella over a few is as ridiculous as saying all Australians are in the same condition as the most dysfunctional.

The problems of that small minority are not brushed aside but perhaps they should be. The billions of dollars poured into trying to help them clearly fails so perhaps it is time for them to grow up and sort themselves out, as others have to do.

The dysfunction is self-inflicted and blaming it on wrongs done centuries ago is dishonest and delusional.

@leoj,

I don't think people hate science but increasingly I believe many mistrust and question science as a system of enquiry because while it is good at nuts and bolts and man-made stuff it is pretty useless at the rest.

Science in its modern form is distorted by its beliefs and dogma that all can be reduced to the material and the mechanical. That needs to be questioned.

Hating things is a waste of time and energy.

@ Foxy.

Q&A is politically correct propaganda. It is a travesty of real journalism.

@ Paul,

There is no generic Aboriginal people. They were of mixed race in 1788 and divided by language, culture, tribe, and they are of even more mixed race today and even more divided.

Someone in a Far north Queensland remote community has nothing in common with someone who had a part-Aboriginal great-great grandparent and who is descended from urban, middle class, Anglo/Europeans for generations.

Fact is, someone in a remote community in WA has nothing in common with someone in a remote community in SA, or FNQ, beyond perhaps some shared Aboriginal ancestry, the experience of living remotely and all too often, dysfunction.

There was no Aboriginal people per se: when the English arrived and there certainly is not now.

@IsMise,

Indigenous should be treated as equals. End positive discrimination now. No extra rights, no extra benefits, no leg's up for jobs, sports, arts, academia - all benefits needs-based not race-based, absolutely.

End the aid. Cut off the money tap and let them look after themselves.

@Big Nana,

Your comment is worth repeating and repeating and repeating in the face of the lies, distortion and propaganda surrounding Aboriginal history and issues. Those indigenous who had Treaties also have high suicide rates. In fact the situations of the dysfunctional is exactly the same, whether a Treaty was signed centuries ago or not.

Quote: What is never mentioned are some unpalatable facts.
For instance, there is a definition of the term indigenous based on blood quotum to be eligible.

In Canada, the treaty with indigenous deals only with full bloods. Part Indians are not recognised as needing extra benefits.
In the USA, the blood quotum is set by each tribal nation. Some as low as 15%, others as much as 50%.

Even using the less stringent method in the USA, this would rule out the vast majority of Australian indigenous from being involved in any treaty.

And in the end, the final irony. These indigenous groups with treaties have the same problems as the indigenous in this country. High unemployment, high substance abuse, worse health, high imprisonment rate.

Seems to me we should be talking more about solving those problems rather than wasting time and a lot of money trying to work out how aboriginal people can dictate to government.