Foxy,

This is a discussion; questions are asked in discussions, often just to find out if the others have a clue.

Is Mise,

I have provided links for you with answers.
Understanding them - is something you have to
try to do for yourself.

Dear Big Nana,

It was -

John Howard who said - Ä country doesn't make a treaty
with itself." And then he shut the Aboriginal
movement down completely. ATSIC had its problems
but it was a sound moral concept. There's been
plenty of crooked MPs but they don't shut down
parliament.

Still, despite Australia's troubled past on Indigenous
matters and fears from government and business on the
implications of a treaty - of financial compensation,
or of official recognition of sovereignty over land.
What is being asked - is a clear plan capable of
being adopted
by governments which will give empowerment to the
Aboriginal people.

From what I can gather - with Australia's Constitution
being difficult to change, what is needed is the
establishment of a National Representative body allowing
Indigenous people to make their own decisions on
matters affecting them, rather than have decisions forced
on them from Canberra.

A treaty would break the 200 year old cycle of
governments not negotiating with the Indigenous people.
It would provide a framework for how negotiations are
held on Indigenous issues such as welfare, employment,
education, health, and ownership.

It would say - we're no longer just going to do things
to them but that they're included and empowered.

Anyway the following link explains further:

http://australianstogether.org.au/discover/the-wound/the-lack-of-treaty/

So Foxy, how do you see this working? A group of aboriginal people make decisions that are going to affect other aboriginal people but not the non aboriginal people they are married to. In other words, you want apartheid.

Dear Big Nana,

Why don't you read the link I gave.

You'll see who it affects.

And no, apartheid is not being suggested.
The opposite in fact. Equality, respect,
and empowerment.

Hi Foxy,

It's my opinion a formal treaty as such would prove to be a bridge too far for the majority of Australians. Why I say this, is a treaty would require recognition of Indigenous sovereignty over the Continent, then in turn that Indigenous sovereignty would need to be ceded to the crown. Only in that way could the legitimacy of the Commonwealth of Australia be legally established.

That is exactly today's problem with the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, among many other failures. The English version signed by a small minority of Chiefs did cede sovereignty of Aotearoa to the British Crown. However in the majority Maori worded version the Chiefs only cede governance to the Crown, and ultimate sovereignty remained in Maori hands, the British didn't see it that way. Following Maori insurrection in the 1860's the colonial government passed the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863, the act allowed for the confiscation of some 3 million acres of Maori land, which in turn was sold off to white settlers.

And no, apartheid is not being suggested.
The opposite in fact. Equality, respect,
and empowerment.

Well, if that's going to be the eventual outcome I'm all for it. Free housing, low interest rates in fact all the support that the Indigenous receive would be most welcome for many normal Australians also.