Foxy, I didn’t ask to be referred to a web site. I’m quite capable of finding my own resources.
I’m asking for your opinion. What exactly would a treaty mean in practical terms? Give me some examples of what would change.
And please don’t tell me that aboriginal people would get some say in areas that affect them because if you do it would mean you have absolutely no idea of how indigenous affairs in this country are run. Even 40 years ago, when my husband was on the executive committee of Aboriginal Legal Service and an ATSIC representative for the Kimberley, aboriginal people were giving advice to government about what they wanted changed.
And how could you recommend anything that will see husbands and wives separated by racial laws or first cousins unable to access facilities equally because of race?
Anything that separates citizens is going to breed resentment and ill feeling, especially when family are involved

Big Nana,
Give me mixed race any day over academic background do-gooders !

Hi Pul,

I think you mean "prattle": I prattle, I don't prate.

I'm no expert on Indigenous affairs, I've never lived in a northern remote community for example: Big Nana has for nearly fifty years, so I'd defer to her expertise any time.

As for my web-site - www.firstsources.info - being confined to archives from South Australia, clearly you haven't ever checked it out (nor do you have to). There are thousands of pages on it relating to other States and the NT:

* . from NSW, numerous royal commission transcripts, reports on Aboriginal conditions, a report on southern missions;

* . from Victoria, a couple of royal commissions and a detailed report on Aboriginal conditions;

* . from the NT, Bleakley's 1929 detailed report on Aboriginal conditions;

* . from WA, the massive (1000-page) Moseley royal commission of 1934-35, and a couple of other royal commission transcripts (1905 and 1928), as well as material about the wonderful Camfield School in Albany;

* . from Queensland, transcripts of royal commissions on outrages around 1860, and Meston's report in the 1890s;

* . and of course, transcripts of national conferences ( including the ones you were complaining about), from 1931, 1937, 1951 and all through the sixties.

All on my web-site: www.firstsources.info

Or, of course, you can ignore it all. Your choice.

Cheers,

Joe

Excellent Joe. Yes I have visited your web site previously.

Although I must say it needs a bit of tweaking for easier navigation. But that requires time, and time is often something we are very poor in.

I think we are on the same page, but look at things a little differently at times. I don't believe we should be totally immersed in the wrongs of the past, but we should not completely ignore them either, where we can make a correction for the good, we should do so. The way to go is forward as a united people, not arguing, but agreeing on actions, in all areas of Aboriginal affairs for the common good. Lets call it multi tasking, you know tackling more than one thing at a time.

As for Chairman Mao, I don't think he ever met an Aboriginal, so lets leave him out of the equation.

On the treaty business, I said a couple of years back to you that I was ambivalent on the whole idea. That's based on what I know, and have discussed with many Maori people, some who are experts on their Treaty of Waitangi. It takes a lot more that a bit of paper.

Aps for the typo.

Dear Big Nana,

A First Nations voice in the Constitution
would guarantee Indigenous people a say, without
transfering power to the High Court or undermining
parliamentary supremacy. It presents a way of improving
Indigenous policy through early Indigenous engagement
rather than subsequent litigation.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would not
divide us by "race." There are already race clauses
in the Constitution that divide Australians. Ensuring
First Nations have a voice in their affairs would create-
a fairer relationship. It would prevent discrimination. It
would unify, not divide.

Constitutional recognition is not about the out-dated,
pseudo-scientific concept of "race." It is about
recognising the rightful place of the First Nations of
Australia - the Wik, the Yolngu, the Yorta Yorta and the
Anangu.

It is about acknowledging that there are peoples
in Australia whose pre-colonial heritage gives rise to
distinct rights and interests in their descendants (these
are already recognised in common law and legislation, such
as the "Native Title Act"); and those peoples should have
a say when parliament makes changes affecting their distinct
rights and interests.

Recognition of Indigenous rights is a reality the world over,
and it has nothing to do with "race." In some countries, the
Indigenous people are white. The Sami in Scandinavia have
blonde hair and blue eyes. There are Sami councils to advise
Scandinavian parliaments on Sami affairs, as well as
guarantees of equality before the law and clauses protecting
Sami culture and language in their Constitutions.

Recognition of Indigenous peoples does not
contradict equality before the law;
they are complimentary principles. Countries that
value equality should accordingly value their Indigenous
citizens and recognise the distinct rights and interests
which survived their dispossession.

Indeed, recognition of Indigenous rights is the hallmark of
a nation that has deeply considered the equality of its
diverse citizens.

However, objectors ignore the fact that historically the
Constitution has excluded Indigenous Australians from our
democracy. Before 1967 Indigenous Australians were excluded from
being counted in the census for the purposes of voting.

The Constitution also empowered laws and policies that
denied Indigenous many rights.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Big Nana,

Rights such as - voting rights, property rights,
equal wages, and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

A constitutional amendment ensuring Indigenous people
a voice in their affairs would not divide, it would unify.
It is a way to address inequality without empowering the
High Court.