'Recognition' has gone quiet; Pat Dodson thinks that it “will die on the vine”, but that comment could come from a juvenile hankering for instant gratification. Recognition has still been playing in the background until today, when a story in the 'Courier Mail' headed, “Turnbull rejects 'radical' indigenous blueprint” appeared.

It seems that even the PM regards the desire to create a Voice to the Parliament, which would have parliament being advised (dictated to?) by selected people of aboriginal background as “too ambitious”. He probably knows that Australian voters would not wear it, unlike the white enablers pushing the whole thing. He also thinks that a rejection at a referendum would mean recognition would be “lost for decades”, which of course, would be a huge blow for the political elite in Australia, who kicked off the idea with a proposal 'merely' recognising the original settlement of certain people on the continent.

Even this 'simple recognition' is poison for the country: our activist High Court has proved it is capable of 'discovering' all sorts of mischief in the simplest of language.

Australia does not need separate development (apartheid), and the whole nonsense should be allowed to 'wither on the vine'. Better still, knocked on the head.

Apartheid was a realistic strategy for the minority rule to retain power. That was actually the minority with all the money. Why wouldn't they have the expectation of control?

Maybe parts of the apartheid policy could be included into identifying true Aboriginals from imposters sponging on the system?

Identifying blacks from coloured included the "pencil test".
The applicant attended the local police station where after an interview process, was seated in a chair to have a pencil inserted into his hair, usually above the ear, where gravity could work it's identifying magic. If the pencil dropped out onto the floor, the applicant would be confirmed as couloured, and thus be entitled to the extra priveledge that came with the rank of coloured.

The scientific nature of this test, proved one way or the other, if any soft hair genetic trace lingered from distant European ancestry.

In animal farm the domination of one group over another led to the the statement in their constitution "everyone is equal" to be amended with "but some are more equal than others"

The problem with the constitution is precisely that one race is not treated equally and the majority of people are happy to have this removed, and to include recognition of the original peoples. The Referendum council was formed to determine the exact wording of this.

However, the referendum council appears to have expanded its mandate to try and include additional rights for one race over another in the constitution and in doing so has produced a "take it or leave it" proposal that has no chance of success.

Dodson had a one in a lifetime chance to make a difference but it has now sunk in an ocean of hubris and entitlement.

SM,

A good summing up. The 'broadening' of the original proposal clearly shows that activists and the gimme, gimme brigades in society will never be satisfied - give them an inch, and they want a yard. This applies not only to aboriginal activists (the average aboriginal-identifier - and those who just identify as Australian - are not into this identity politics nonsense), but also to Muslim activists, homosexual activists, and feminists activists, as well as anyone other groups of malcontents and trouble-makers you can think of. Too many Australians these days think that there is something different or special about them.

The Courier Mail tells us that -

"All the government wanted was a modest plan to pursue
a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the
Constitution that could be put to Australian people
and succeed."

"Instead what it got was recommendations that were too
radical and called for a 'Voice to Parliament' ".

It seems that Labor, as Mr Shorten revealed, would
support the "Voice to Parliament".

Cabinet has rejected the plan - which means that the
government will now need a new plan.

It does seem a pity that after so much talk, so many
meetings, a compromise by government and the indigenous
groups could not be reached.

Indigenous were recognised in 1788 as part of the people of Australia (New Holland as it was known then) and became Citizens along with the rest of us in 1949.

I am so pleased that changing the Constitution to have a separate page for the Indigenous - or - how many treaties - how many tribes?.....has been rejected.

United we stand.
One people.
One country.
One Nation.

Now to make welfare 'needs' based for ALL Australians.
Not separate race based welfare and other 'extras' that the rest of Australians don't get!!

Unfortunately, Narelle, we don't know that changes to the Constitution have been rejected. Turnbull is a weak, self-serving man who could still buckle to pressure; and the agitators might settle for something less. The best thing for Australia, if and when a referendum is called, is a NO vote.

"Deep anger" over Turnbull's reaction according to the ABC. The best they could come up with was a silly comment from the increasingly aggressive Noel Pearson who claimed that Tony Abbott had driven Turnbull "further and further to the right". Really? The last time I looked, Abbott was still a powerless back bencher, and the last person on Earth Turnbull would listen to; and Turnbull moves further and further to the left the more desperate he gets. Also, Abbott was one of the prime movers of the stupid idea of recognition. Pearson is off the planet, and another reason to vote NO, if the ridiculous referendum ever gets of the ground in any form. Following the High Court decision today, the government has much more to work on than recognition and SSM. Time to get back to reality.

With the High Court booting out Barnyard Joyce as a legitimate member of the House of Representatives, and with Turnbull having no majority, 'Its Time' for a general election. Turnballs likes to get the peoples opinion on recognition and SSM, why not ask their opinion on whom they would live to govern them.

Any Ministerial decisions that have been made by Barnyard can now be contested in court, as to their validity. Where is SM aka Rumpole of the Bailey, who was crowing that Barney had nothing to worry about. Wrong again.

Paul,

Agreed. An election is the only way to clear the air; the current situation is unacceptable, and the people really should be given a chance to decide. Lord knows what the result would, but Turnbull's imitation of a blowfly buzzing around in a bottle has gone on far too long.

Tony Windsor has announced that he will not be standing out of 'respect for his wife'. As if!

Paul,

It appears that you can't stop lying to the point that it is becoming pathological. I never said that Joyce had nothing to worry about, in fact, I said that his chances were slim, but that he had a case to make, unlike SL and LW. Your modus operandi appears to be to falsely claim that someone said something and then attack them for it, unfortunately for you I will call you out each time.

As ruled previously by the high court, decisions made by ministers prior to being disqualified by the high court stand, but this was discussed before and your comment to the contrary I guess you will ascribe to your selective amnesia.

As Tony Whinger has indicated that he won't run again, BJ seems to have a clear run, and while Labor promises to try and cause chaos, the coalition still has 75 MPs (74 votes with the speakers casting vote) with supply guarantees from 2 independents.

Sorry,

I posted this on the wrong thread.

Under a photo of a glum-looking Turnbull, Larry Pickering yesterday opined that "this bloke is a joke" who should "piss off and take the treacherous Stick Insect with him.

That says it all, really.

Dear Paul,

It's a pity that Tony Windsor won't be running for
office again but as he explained - due to the
attacks that were made not only on him but his
family the last time, understandably he does not
want to put them through that again. Also as he
explained in his interview on television - he will
be kept busy with investigations into the water
problems and the corruption involved in the region.
He'll probably achieve much more out of Parliament
than in it for the people in the electorate.

As far as the proposal for a Voice to Parliament is concerned
well this emerged from a year long national consultation
process with Indigenous Communities and a summit of 300
leaders at Uluru in May, which emphatically rejected
recognition in the Constitution that was merely symbolic.
They called for an advisory body only. A body without veto
power over legislation. And frankly I can't see the problem
with that.

But as Mr Noel Pearson stated - "There's no reconciliation and
recognition under this Prime Minister."

What with leadership tensions in the government - we are
living in a reform inert era.

Foxy, in my honest opinion, reconciliation has absolutely nothing to do with government. Reconciliation is about respect. Respect for the rights of another person, respect for the beliefs of another person and the respect we should all automatically show towards each other, unless they show themselves undeserving of respect.
Government cannot force respect, it's a personal view that develops over time, fed by frequent contact and familiarity with another person. It should be easily achieved in urban areas because indigenous people lead almost identical lives to everyone else and in many causes are indistinguishable from ordinary Australians.
Only in remote areas do indigenous people have lives that are culturally different to mainstream but even this is no barrier to respect and reconciliation because long term non indigenous residents in remote areas learn to understand these differences and come to accept them, apart from the morally wrong aspects of culture, such as wife beating.
From where I sit, what is preventing reconciliation is the relentless barrage of accusations, claims of victimisation and downright racist lies presented by a small group of bitter activists who seem bent on anything but reconciliation. All they are achieving is resentment and an increasing loss of goodwill from non indigenous Australians and this is what will prevent any constitutional changes ever being accepted.

Dear Big Nana,

Thank You for your opinion, it is as always appreciated.
I admit that I have to do much more research on this
complex issue. The history of our Indigenous people
is something that needs to be taken into account and
their treatment to this very day examined objectively.
What I don't understand is - if all they are asking for
is simply an advisory body only without veto power
over legislation in matters concerning Indigenous issues
then why is the government so reluctant to give it to them?
Apparently, there are so many inequaties that currently
exist towards our Indigenous people in our Constitution -
surely that needs to be fixed. They're not asking for very
much it seems.

Foxy, I don't know of any inequalities for aboriginal people in this country. Certainly there are disadvantages that come from living very remote but those disadvantages equally apply to non indigenous people.
As you know, I live fairly remote and most people here have no interest in rehashing the past, accepting that all cultures have lived through traumatic times, frequently far worse than happened here.
The indigenous community have some major problems to address and frankly, worrying about what happened before thy were born simply detracts from these very real, and very urgent problems.

Dearest Foxy,

Ah, so young, so naive ;). Do you really think that a ginger group outside of the circles of power and responsibility, but with the 'power' to snipe at every piece proposed legislation, won't use that 'power' ? Sometimes I think that the 'powerless' can often be in the cat-bird seat, all 'voice' and no responsibility.

But I had to laugh at Noel's suggestion in today's Australian, that any new 'voice', in his words, "would be an advisory body like the one that exists now, except constitutionally guaranteed in terms of existence and hopefully more effective."

Well, ....... if there is already such a body, why not work to make it more effective ? Why this straining at gnats ?

Meanwhile:

1. Out in remote 'communities', life expectancy is probably half as long as that for other Australians, and for urban working Indigenous people;

and

2. With the Census figures out this week, nearly 49,000 [forty nine thousand, yes, that's right] Indigenous people had tertiary qualifications, diplomas and above, at the end of 2015. Add in last year's and this year's graduates, and you get a total of around 56-57,000. In the cities, about one in four or five Indigenous adults is a graduate. In remote communities, some - and quite decent-sized - have none at all. Doesn't self-determination require a broad range of highly qualified people to work ? Or are 'communities' relying on white fellas to do all that stuff ?

Noel lamented that the recognition agenda would be put back many years, perhaps decades. I suspect that it's dead and buried, permanently - and that this focus on a phantom misses the crucial point that enormous efforts will have to be made to merely keep the Indigenous population together as a coherent, if very loose, united body.

With urban people going off in one direction and getting on with life, and 'community' people, on the whole, content to sit and inexorably move backwards, the unity, such as it is, of the Indigenous population is in dire jeopardy.

Joe

Dear Big Nana and Joe,

I really don't have the energy or the wish to argue
with you. We;ve covered much of this in past
discussions. My personal view is that I don't see
the harm in granting the Indigenous people what they
ask. A Voice to Parliament on Indigenous issues (without
veto power over legislation). The things that the
governments have tried in the past haven't worked - I don't
see the harm in giving this a go. We just may achieve
something.

Dear Foxy,

For God's sake, there are Indigenous representatives in almost all legislatures across Australia, and ministers in many, if not most governments: SA, NT, WA, Qld, as well as in both Houses of the national Parliament. i.e. 'Voice'. AND there is still a federal Advisory Committee. AND every one of the five thousand or so Indigenous organisations is completely free to comment on any matter proposed by any relevant government which relates their fields. AND Indigenous people are as free as anybody else to phone or visit their local parliamentarians on any issue.

I look forward to the day, hopefully in my lifetime, when Indigenous organisations actually do the jobs that they are being paid for. But I suspect that, for many Indigenous people and organisations and 'communities', 'self-determination' means getting more power to tell white fellas what to do for them. Yes, yes, I know, usually self-determination - for most people - means that people have power to do whatever is required for themselves, to make the decisions required to do whatever is needed for themselves, to need outsiders less and less.

IF Indigenous people across the country genuinely wanted this sort of self-determination, then they would have welcomed some of those fifty-odd thousand graduates to make their expert contributions. I think that many graduates have indeed tried to go to remote communities in order to help their people, only to cop a boot up their arses as know-alls, do-gooders, strangers, interfering in the running of communities, as the big-frogs in little communities quickly realise that they represent threat to their pissy bit of power. So those urban graduates say 'Good-bye' and never come back. Fair enough. So it will be, and the two populations will move ever further apart.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I can see that you're getting upset.

That was not my intention. I am merely trying to figure
out how this complex situation could be resolved and
when people of the stature of Noel Pearson speak out
against the current government decision -I tend to take
notice. Anyway Thank You for your opinion.

Fingers-crossed that this will not set back the
Reconciliation process with our Indigenous
people in this country. I wonder what our problem is
exactly concerning our Indigenous people. Why are
other countries able to let them have a say and are able
to work together - while we can't. We must be doing
something wrong. How influential are the Maoris in
New Zealand. Perhaps we could learn something from our
neighbour?

Foxy, you seem to be under theimpression that aboriginal people live different lives that need some special conditions applied, thus they need " a voice".
In reality, aboriginal people have the freedom to live exactly the way they want now. They can become brain surgeons, check out chicks or run naked in the bush with boomerang and spear if they so wish.
As Joe states, there is already an overwhelming number of agencies employing thousands of aboriginal people who exist merely to serve aboriginal people, with regards housing, legal issues, health, education, culture, language etc.
They receive extra help financing education for kids and extra help to get them to medical services, which are free.
Perhaps you could give me some idea of any issues where they would need any more special consideration than they get now, and woukd require guaranteed access to government,

Big Nana,

I don't know why you bother arguing with Foxy: she is a Left wing ideologue, which means she incapable of, or refuses to, think before she sprays. You, on the other hand appear to have actual experience of indigenous matters, like Joe, and you really don't have to get down and dirty with the loony Left. I enjoy your posts and respect your knowledge.

There needs to be study of narrative (and counter-narrative in rhetoric), particularly the personal storytelling that it appears even the users of social media, this site too, are now employing. Identity politics is linked with it.

None of these is always a blight on public discourse. But it may be very difficult to accept that, where the discoveries of social psychologists about what makes us human are constantly being used against us. Positioning and nudges are used more often than not for instances.

Joe (Loudmouth) and Big Nana are a breath of fresh air, bringing facts and experience to these discussions. I believe that they bring something even more important to the table by modelling what we should all be doing instead of letting others make decisions for us, which is insisting on evidence and not being bluffed, or coerced by the prevailing political correctness.

Dear Big Nana,

In answer to your question as to why the Indigenous
People should get a Voice to Parliament - the following
link written by an Indigenous person explains far better
than I ever could:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/why-blackfellas-need-a-voice-in-parliament/news-story/e71dc2eac072722d9aecc4cc72f4c6c1

I also need to again correct a false assertion made about me
by ttbn.

I do not support any particular political group. I choose the
parties that I support by their policies.
I do not believe
in labelling people. Labels belong on clothes not on people.
And most people I know tend to change their minds on
various issues anyway. So to label someone you don't really
know on this Forum is purely intellectual laziness. Of course
they are entitled to their negative opinions. But I wish
that they would pick on someone else for a change. I only have
two middle fingers to go around. (smile).

Hi Ttbn,

I hasten to assert that I have nowhere near the length and depth of experience, or the richness of her current relations with Indigenous people, that Big Nana has.

Foxy,

I was yarning to my daughter this morning to the effect that, the stronger, and the more passionately and virtuously, one believes in a particular Narrative, whether it's Christianity, Islam, socialism, fascism, or the Black-Arm-Band version of Indigenous history, the more one discounts the need for evidence, proof, corroboration - it's as if the more one 'feels', the less one needs back-up.

But surely every genuine truth has some evidentiary support ? Every massacre can be forensically examined ? Every 'stolen child' has a file that they can easily find, and present to a Court ? So why isn't any of that being done, if only to give one in the eye for white fellas ?

I used to believe what I was told by my mum, that a farmer's wife out near Dubbo had poisoned four thousand Aboriginal people with arsenic in the flour, some time around the 1880s. For forty or fifty years I believed that. Then I thought, just a few years ago, hang on, that's a lot of people to get rid of - well, it's a lot of people just to feed, that would make days, so that some people would be dying in agony before half of them had been given their flour; then what to do with four thousand bodies ? Would that many bring the crows, kites, eagles, etc., from hundreds of miles around ? And leave a bit of a bone-field ? Or did she bury them all ? By shovel ? A dirty big hole ? Or did she burn the bodies ? At a tonne of wood each ? Busy lady.

Or is it all bullshirt ? Without evidence, one must surely suspend judgment, at least ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Today, it is now possible to explore the past by means of
a large number of books, articles, and many other sources.
We can find out about the past. There are many historians
who have provided us with documented evidence.

But knowing brings burdens which can be shirked by those
living in ignorance. With knowledge the question is no
longer what we know but what we are now to do, and that is
a much harder matter to deal with. It probably will
continue to perplex us for many years to come.

Foxy,

I think you're proving my point: evidence is not just a lot of books, it's actual investigation and corroboration, not just what might be asserted in print. Can you tell the difference ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, as a researcher I certainly can tell the difference.
And I certainly agree that it is actual investigation
and corroboration not just what might be asserted in
print. And there are quite a few historians who are
highly respected for their investigation and corroboration
that we can rely on. One of the most highly acclaimed
and highly respected names is that of Prof. Bain Attwood.
I can thoroughly recommend his "Telling the Truth about
Aboriginal History". See the book review:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/telling-the-truth-about-aboriginal-history/2005/12/23/1135032164127.html

In any case I don't care to re-hash all this with you again.
Been there done that. You are entitled to your opinion
But on this one we shall have to agree to disagree.

No, Foxy, it's not just 'opinion': it's belief versus evidence. Whoever asserts, must provide evidence, corroboration, back-up for their assertions. Has there been any investigation of a single supposed massacre site in Australia ? It seems not. This is very frustrating because I, for one, do suspect that there have been massacres, in most States. But the lack of any investigation means that my suspicions can't be either confirmed or denied. They can only be asserted, which is empty and worthless.

The definition of a bigot is twofold: one who either -

*. refuses to believe, in spite of evidence; and

*. one who believes his (or her) prejudices) without any evidence.

Without evidence, the only principled position on any issue is to suspend belief UNTIL evidence is provided. If books simply regurgitate secondhand sources, rumour and hearsay, without any actual evidence, then I don't care who they are written by, that really is merely an appeal to authority, which, for someone on the Left, is anathema to me, as it should be to you.

Joe

Dear Joe,

May I politely suggest that you actually read
Prof. Bain Attwood's "Telling the Truth about
Aboriginal History."

Foxy,

Nice of you to set some reading for Loudmouth, instead of addressing what he and Big Nana have raised.

While you declare that you are a 'researcher', that word can cover a multitude of unscientific shortcuts and sloppy science,

http://theconversation.com/when-good-intentions-arent-supported-by-social-science-evidence-diversity-research-and-policy-54875

Thanks, Leoj, I liked that conclusion:

"Most advocates, policymakers and social scientists may not be aware of sharp divergence in their claims about diversity. Yet, policy based on sound social science should be a shared goal. Without understanding the causal relations in society that this research helps identify, policymakers lower the odds they’ll reach their targets. Policy based on myths and hunches has little chance of success. To achieve evidence-based policy, all parties should take a close look at what diversity research has produced so far. Rather than selectively featuring congenial results, they should work together to untangle diversity’s complex effects on group and organizational performance."

If a cause is just - as I have always believed the Indigenous cause is, on the whole - then it must be able stand up to robust - and evidence-based - discussion. Otherwise, we will keep barking up the wrong tree.

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

Yes, I agree.

To add, IMHO, everyone to watch very carefully how the 'Mythbusters' go about their testing. Then be assured by what Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman say, that everyone can be a scientist and they show how it is done.

Leaving history to one side for the moment: I'm sure the Government spent taxpayer money to ask Aboriginal people what form they thought recognition should take, and when they offered up their views - which they were asked for - the Government just turned around said 'thanks, but we know best'.

Which seems like a lot of expense just to be patronising. Surely they could have just said 'well clearly we know what is best for you darkies, so we'll save ourselves the bother of pretending to be interested' at the outset, and saved the taxpayer a few bucks?

Dear Toni,

You've summed it up rather nicely.

Thank You.

“The current push for recognition of indigenous Australians in the Commonwealth Constitution is unrealistic and therefore unwise”. (Nicholas Hasluck addressing the Samuel Griffith Society).

Points made:

1. There has been a paucity of consultation with the the general public.
2. There is the prospect of disharmony if any 'special entitlement' BASED ON RACE is entrenched in the Constitution.
3. The process has not captured the imagination of the Australian community.
4. The current inability for governments to govern decisively, thanks to the Senate, would put the public against another interfering advisory body.
5. There is, and would be, an increased propensity for people to identify with an indigenous background.
6. Treaties suggest separate development.

Toni,

Yes, I suspect that governments always liaise with the Indigenous population only through the self-appointed 'leadership' of Indigenous organisations, and self-appointed spokespeople - but there isn't much interaction between many urban Indigenous people and the organisations which purport to represent them. Perhaps, what is needed before any national referendum is a sort of Indigenous-only plebiscite about what people rally think and want.

I recall that elections were often won during the days of ATSIC with only twenty votes cast for a successful candidate, and that total participation in such elections was pitifully low, perhaps 10%. Urban people thought that ATSIC focussed on remote populations, and remote populations thought that it focussed on urban populations - i.e. somewhere else but not here.

Of curse, the elites, the organisational 'leaders' differ, since any push for things like an advisory council would mean the massive multiplication of local, regional and state advisory bodies, and therefore sitting fees. Meanwhile, how many Indigenous parliamentary representatives are there already ? I don't know, but twenty or thirty ? Ministers in governments ? i.e. in WA (Treasurer), in SA, Qld, the NT at least, and in the national parliament. That's called 'voice'.

So why isn't the current Indigenous Advisory Council more active ? Why isn't it doing its job ?

Joe

Foxy,

I liked this quote from that book of Attwood's:

"“… many Aboriginal people believe that ‘genocide’ is an appropriate word for remembering their historical experience. It amounts to a truthful myth, and they tell the story in this manner.”

Attwood italicises the words ' experience' and 'myth' in that passage. I'm not sure how people can 'experience' something which is supposed to have happened long before they were born, but there you go. And what is a 'truthful myth' ? Does Attwood mean a 'convenient myth' ? A 'myth which backs up what I am asserting, without the need for pesky 'evidence' ?

A courtroom with only defence lawyers, or only prosecution lawyers, is not a court. One needs a judge and maybe a jury. That's us, Foxy, the people who need to see the evidence for any accusation before we weigh up the evidence for and against, to test what is fabricated and what is genuine and fairly conclusive. Otherwise we have the old Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven'. Narrative alone won't cut it. No Narrative should, without back-up evidence. Passion and belief isn't enough - surely enough witches were drowned or burnt during the Middle Ages on those grounds alone ? Evidence, corroboration, is what we desperately need.

We're not living in the Middle Ages any more - we need more than 'truthful myths'.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Let me make sure that I understand you.

I take it that you are against an Indigenous Voice
to Parliament because you believe that there is
insufficient evidence for their historical claims
(aka Keith Windschuttle).

Then there's nothing more to discuss.

Cheers.

If Foxy is to be believed there is something going very wrong with the representatives elected for the three levels of government and federally two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. They must not be doing the job they were elected to do.

At State level, taking Qld as an example we find,
'Everyone's Parliament'

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/education/factsheets/Factsheet_3.17_RoleOfMemberParliament.pdf

and federal,
'Infosheet 15 - The work of a Member of Parliament'

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_15_-_The_work_of_a_Member_of_Parliament

Those are the available standards in layman's terms.

So Foxy, where exactly are all of those hundreds of elected representatives who are responsible to the Parliament and to the electorate falling down and are there any already available avenues to advise them of that and seek correction?

Foxy, i read that link and as much as I admire Pearsons zeal and passion for his cause, in this case he hasn't made a convincing argument. Even he, with all his experience and education has only been able to use the issue of land rights in relation to the need for an indigenous voice. And I agree, this is an area that needs some decisive action taken, with advice from indigenous people. But we already have an advisory indigenous council and once the land rights issue is finally resolved, what need is there for any constitutional change?
He mentions the gap that still exists in education and health but part of that gap actually exists because of wrong decisions made by indigenous people. The focus on special education programs for indigenous kids has not led to any major improvements in rural areas but I guarantee an all out focus on actually getting kids to school every day and requiring aboriginal teachers to have the same educational qualifications as white teachers would have made a huge difference, and at one tenth the cost.
Health would be far better served by requiring all aboriginal health workers to have the same qualifications as registered nurses as opposed to the very basic one year course done by sometimes barely literate indigenous people who are then placed in positions of authority in remote communities, diagnosing and treating diseases they have no proper uunderstanding of. It's downright scary when you think of it and no surprise at all that remote health is stagnating. Aboriginal people deserve the same quality of workers as everyone else but that was a decision made by aboriginal people so now they have to live with the outcomes.
Aboriginal people have been dictating educational and health policies for several decades now, with poor results in rural areas yet somehow, it's still the governments fault and giving aboriginal people even more say would somehow lead to a miraculous result. Based on current results, I think not.

Dear Big Nana,

Obviously I am out of my depth in this discussion.
I do not possess your knowledge or experience
so I guess the best thing for me to do is to
keep quiet on the subject and wait and see what
develops next. I find it very difficult to get
my head around why we are not allowing our
Indigenous people to have a voice in parliament
on issues and laws that will affect them. But
as I've said I am not an expert on the subject by
any means. Thanks for your patience.

Bit of a long bow, Foxy, from Bain Attwood to Noel Parson. You're conflating two issues, corroboration of asserted past events and representation. And I think you know it.

You can appeal o the authority of books if you like. I'll keep appealing to the authority of whatever evidence may be available.

Joe

leoj,

"If Foxy is to be believed"? You know that she is not to be believed. All her dogma comes from their ABC and Google. She even has the temerity to argue the toss with Loudmouth and Big Nana on indigenous matters, embarrassing herself. I used to be embarrassed for her, but she has gone too far with her obsessions lately. She just has to be right, no matter what.

Foxy,

Oy. There have been representative bodies ever since the National Aboriginal Conference back in 1973, if you don't count FCAATSI which went back ten years or so before that. The NAC (or was it the NACC?) was headed for a time by my wife's uncle/cousin, Garnet Wilson, and some of her cousins were representatives of various bodies, State and Federal, set up since then.

Currently, there seems to be a very quiet body called something like the First Nations Congress, the national Indigenous Advisory Council, and various bodies in all the States. Five thousand Indigenous organisations also have voices. Every Indigenous person has a voice like any other Australian, in relation to all levels of government. There are members of parliament and ministers. Put all those voices together and surely it would be deafening ?

Perhaps what people like me are suspicious of is that any body enshrined in the Constitution would quickly become a ginger group, commenting on pretty much every piece of proposed legislation, all power and no responsibility. Some of us remember ATSIC.

I would respectfully suggest to Indigenous 'leaders' that they get on with business, and try to understand that 'self-determination' doesn't mean that they or the Indigenous people can dictate that more and more should be done for them, but that they use the five thousand organisations, etc., etc. to do what they are set up to do, and that they realise that 'self-determination', in the real world, means that they have the responsibility to translate their mandated powers into decision-making and do what they are supposed to do with their inflated budgets. Surely thirty billion a year ought to produce results ?

[FOXY exits, Left, in a huff, declaring 'There is no more to discuss.']

Joe

Foxy, thank you for the polite exchange, it's refreshing for me, as I'm usually abused for telling it as it is. ( not on this forum )
In answer to your comment about why aboriginal people shouldn't have a say in laws that are going to affect them, I have a question for you.
Are you proposing we have different laws based on race?
Do you honestly believe we shouldn't have the same laws for everyone in this country?
If the government has a law requiring the age of sexual consent to be 16 but aboriginal people wish to retain aboriginal cultural practise that allows 10 year olds to be married, should we allow that for them?
Should aboriginal people not be required to abide by the speed laws on the road? What about rules governing number of people in a vehicle. Up here, until a law came in, aboriginal people would cram 15/20 people into a troop carrier, including some on the roof, with resultant massive casualties at times. If allowed, some would return to that practise. Do you think they should?
I cannot think of any area of everyday living that would require indigenous people needing separate laws.
I would really love your answer on this.

Foxy, "I find it very difficult to get my head around why we are not allowing our Indigenous people to have a voice in parliament on issues and laws that will affect them"

Your assumption is false. It is akin to the dilemma, 'Why don't you stop beating your wife?'.

Specifically, what difference is there between the representation you expect and get from your local, State and federal representatives and that available and being delivered to the aboriginals in your community and elsewhere?

What is being attempted by embedded interests is a thinly veiled grab for the control of millions of taxpayer dollars and without accountability of course.

It is the gravy train that the Whitlam government set in motion. It will be on steroids if this lot get their way. How many ANAO reports have there been that have found serious inadequacies in governance where aboriginal bodies are concerned? All were tabled in the federal parliament with recommendations, but of course to very little, if any, effect.

Dear Big Nana,

What has confused me somewhat are the links that
I've read put out by institutions like the
Australian Museum, Creative Spirits, and others,
giving - "Indigenous - Australia -
timelines" from 1901 to the present, that clearly
show that our Indigenous people have been treated
"differently" to the rest of us. Therefore their request
to have this situation corrected does make
sense to me.

However, I accept the fact that both yourself and Joe
appear to know more about this subject than I do.
Therefore I am in no position to argue with either
of you.

Dear Joe,

No. Foxy does not leave discussions "in a huff".
She simply leaves when she doesn't see the point
in continuing. BTW: She doesn't believe in always
being right - on the contrary - she loves to learn
and be proven wrong. But as you've stated - evidence
is the key and it speaks volumes. Of course it
does depend on what evidence and by whom it is
being presented (or omitted - in certain cases).

I've stated in the past the moment a historian begins
to look critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
or any other considerations, the product becomes
unacceptable for one or another camp of readers.

As far as our discussions on these issues go - we have
found over time ourselves reluctant to modify our
judgements - and this can often lead to a complete
breakdown in communication.

I don't want this to happen, so I prefer to actually leave
this discussion (not in a huff) but with good thoughts.

Cheers.

Foxy, you are correct that until the 60s aboriginal people who were more than half caste came under the jurisdiction of the Anoriginal Protection Act, which was enacted in all states to protect the more traditional people from being exploited.
It only applied to full blood and half caste people and even they could gain exemption from the Act if they could prove they were educated and aware enough to protect themselves in areas like employment, housing etc.
Disregard much of what you read because much is emotive and wrong, for instance, it's not true aboriginal people were counted under the Flora and Fauna Act lol.
It's also not true aboriginal people werent legally allowed to move around the country, nor is it true they weren't allowed to marry white people.
However, since the 60s aboriginal people have lived under the same laws as everyone else, and in certain cases, get extra benefits not available to others.
As I have said in previous posts, I cannot see any area apart from land rights, that would be applicable to different laws.

Dear Big Nana,

There are links available on the web
giving the timeline histories of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people from 1901 to
1969, then from 1970 to 1999 then from 1999 to
the present. They are given by sources such as
Human Rights Commission, Australian Museum,
and others. It makes for interesting reading.

However, Thank You for your contributions to
this discussion. It is greatly appreciated.
And has encouraged me to delve even deeper into
this subject.

For me this one has now run its course.

Hi Big Nana,

I suspect that the goal of genuine reconciliation has been seen as too difficult, and in any case moving in the direction of integration (and/or the despised 'assimilation'). So the goals of 'Recognition' has been proposed, in essence for the last forty or fifty years, instead. But they inevitably trended towards separatism, separation, segregation and a resurrection of the carcass of Apartheid. Clearly, to put this into words, or even to think it all through until that inevitable conclusion, would have been intolerable for most Australians, even if many of the Indigenous elites and 'leadership' were - let's be honest - too naive to understand how evil such an end may be. So all of the huffing and puffing over ten years was reduced to a grandiose reiteration of the forms of organisation and consultation that have been around for fifty-odd years.

But the task of genuine reconciliation - based on truth, which in turn has to be based on evidence - is still there, a huge mountain to climb, a huge task to bring about. But social realities across the Indigenous population suggest that, on the one hand, in urban areas, work and education are embedding Indigenous people more and more securely in productive and comfortable lives; while, on the other hand, (and perhaps this is stereotyping outrageously) out in rural towns and isolated communities (and an urban population in outer suburbs), welfare and lifelong unemployment (and short lives at that) is more and more the rule. In other words, the Indigenous population, never all that united, not in sixty thousand years, is rapidly evolving towards two starkly different trajectories.

The urban working population is hardly likely to give it all away and go bush. But currently, the welfare-oriented population doesn't seem to want to tackle its problems, and they have the backing of the elites in this huge mistake. 'Self-determination' to this population means

[TBC]

[continued]

something very different to what it means for the working population: for a plethora of spurious reasons, they seem to believe that the outside world owes them, and what they need is more power to tell outsiders (i.e. mainly white fellas) what to do, on the principle that all problems have been caused by white fellas, and that therefore they themselves have no responsibility to find solutions, whitefellas do and always will. Of course, one assertion does not necessarily follow from the other, even if it were accurate, which I suggest it isn't, by any means.

Genuine self-determination can only begin to occur once the truth, the whole truth, has been explored by the Australian population. So clearly, some sort of Truth Commission is vital, based not on rumour, hearsay and assertion, but on evidence, corroboration and examination. I'm not optimistic about any of that happening soon, perhaps not in my lifetime. But sooner or later, it has to come about, if only to allow Australians to move forward towards a common future.

Love,

Joe

Foxy and Toni,

There are two major weakness with the "3rd chamber" request:

The first is that a separate chamber only for aboriginals is largely viewed as racial discrimination as of itself and, secondly, if the "3rd chamber" that the RC is asking for is not actually going to have a veto or any constitutional influence on legislation, then this "3rd chamber" has no place in the constitution and there are also other Aboriginal bodies that are established by parliament to provide this function.

2016 Census data about university graduate numbers came out last week. So we can compare progress in many dimensions since, say, the 2006 Census, i.e. over ten years. Somebody please pass this official data onto John Bilger and his gullible British audience:

*. Increase in population by 42.7 %, from 454,770 to 648,904; the Indigenous population increased in NSW and Victoria, for example, by 56 % and 58 %, but in the Northern Territory, by only 8.5 % in those ten years;

*. increase in university graduate numbers by 77.4 %, nearly 80 % in New South Wales, but only by 43 % in the Northern Territory; one in every nine Indigenous people in Victoria (perhaps one every six adults) was a graduate in 2016, but only one in every 3.06 Indigenous people in the Northern Territory was a graduate, perhaps one in every sixteen adults;

*. increase in home ownership and purchase (for every 1000 people) by 53 %: the average number of occupants declined from 10.1 to 6.6 across the country. Actual home ownership and purchase numbers increased from 45,056 to 98,731, a real increase of 119 %.

Perhaps 60 % of that population rise was due to re-identification, people who were already there but not identifying until 2016 (and therefore rises in graduate and home ownership numbers occurring as well), and birth rates may even be falling if we take that re-identification factor into account.

Surprisingly, there was an average of only four persons per owned/purchased household in Tasmania. But no surprise that there were twenty two to an owned/purchased household in the NT, where usually people can't actually purchase the household that they live in, because of Land Council regulations, i.e. the responsibility of Indigenous people themselves.

Just trying to put the Recognition'Reconciliation dilemma into some sort of perspective. :)

Joe

Foxy would have all believe that aboriginals are somehow forgotten and unrepresented (and despite the three layers of government). As is easily demonstrated, that is a complete fabrication,

http://www.themandarin.com.au/?s=indigenou

Joe, there is another class of aboriginal that you haven't mentioned and that is the rapidly growing middle class remote and rural people. Nurses and teachers, owners of small businesses, workers in all trades positions, offices etc. many owning their own homes. But unlike urban aboriginals, these are still in close contact with their tribal lands, take the kids camping there on holidays, eat bush tucker and still hunt things like goannas, bush turkeys, turtles and dugong. The kids hear language spoken when they visit the communities and all primary schools teach some indigenous language and have posters up around the schools with the seasons etc in language.
Places like Darwin, Broome, Gove, Katherine etc are full of these people, and they are not concerned with recognition from what I hear. They are more interested in getting the Native Title issue sorted out so they can apply for individual leases.
They also have a higher rate of marrying other indigenous rather than white, in fact I read somewhere that Broome has the highest rate of indigenous/indigenous marriage in the country.
So we have at least three distinct, different groups of indigenous people, all with different goals and aspirations and all with different histories. A right mess.

Thanks Big Nana,

Wow, I hadn't really thought of that, it's great ! Yes, it seems that there are three distinguishable populations (at least), the (urban and more remote) working and welfare populations, often keeping a bit of a distance from each other, and certainly having different trajectories, aspirations and strategies.

Yes, I suspect that, on the whole those two working populations have other preoccupations besides pumping up the 'leaders' and elite families (a fourth population ?) over issues such as Recognition', who seem to reach over them and suck up to the welfare population, on the basis of "Poor bugger me."

On home ownership: according to the 2006 and 2016 Censuses, the average number of Indigenous people for every house/apartment owned or being purchased fell from 10.1 people per dwelling owned or being purchased in 2006, down to 6.6 in 2016. In Tasmania in 2016, there were only 4 people for every dwelling owned or being purchased. In the NT, with so much of the population in 'communities where nobody can buy their dwelling, there were 22 people for every dwelling owned or being purchased. So if they're taken out of the equation, the average number of Indigenous people across Australia for every dwelling owned or being purchased outright, would come down to about 5.8. That's 'owned or being purchased', John Bilger, not per dwelling generally, but kept telling your Gullibles something different.

So what's the real story about 'over-crowding' ? When we lived in a community for those four years, many young couples had houses, but chose to stay with their mum, so that she could look after the kids and they could continue being teenagers. So some places were, yes, over-crowded - and many houses were simply vacant.

Thanks again, Big Nana, that's broadened my optimism :)

Joe

Hi Big Nana,

Just looking at the 2016 Census results, with the 60 % rise in Indigenous graduate numbers in five years (mostly, I suspect from re-identification). I checked out the proportion of graduates in capital cities and was surprised to see that the percentage of graduates based in cities rose from 51.2 % in the 2001 Census [9840 out of 19228] to 53.9 % in the 2016 Census [26249 out of 48660] (some graduates may have been overseas at the time of those Censuses).

Now, what does 'self-determination mean, if not that 'communities' make the effort to boost their social and economic potential, and to do that, they need to attract skilled people ? And if Indigenous people enthusiastically supported that definition of 'self-determination', then graduates would have moved from the cities to those 'communities' ?

Perhaps they did, got ignored, beaten up or otherwise pissed off at the corruption and went back to the cities, with many gruesome tales to 'encourage' others.

Perhaps graduates, like other Indigenous people, have a somewhat different definition of 'self-determination', but it doesn't really seem as if any enthusiasm for it - in the limited sense of my definition - is growing. Yet surely the push for 'Recognition', treaties, a separate State, and maybe a separate Nation - or Nations - requires just such enthusiasm ? How would a separate entity float otherwise ?

So here's my question: do Indigenous people generally support Recognition ? Yes, I know that sounds absurd, of course they do. Don't they ? If not, then what ?

Clearly, in my case, the Devil makes work for idle hands.

Cheers,

Joe