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.