Foxy,

Indigenous affairs were constitutionally a State matter until the 1967 Referendum: in the national conferences leading up to the Referendum (as on my web-site: www.firstsources.info ), all state governments (and the Feds under Hasluck) were quite relieved to be able to centralise them under the one federal government. Hence, although people were rigorously counted every year for many purposes, they could not be counted in the Federal Census until 1971.

But they certainly were counted, obtrusively so: in SA, the annual reports of the Protector (available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info ) record populations around the State annually. Removing this restriction imposed by the Constitution (and originally in reaction to WA and Qld's insistence on having representatives to account for the unknown Indigenous population out beyond 'civilization') was long overdue and all State governments knew it.

As for the vote, in almost (perhaps all ?) States and territories, Indigenous people could vote from about 1962. Again, long overdue. In fact, in SA, as the most enlightened State, any Indigenous person who had the State vote at the time of Federation, retained a right to a Federal vote. As well, Aboriginal women in SA had the vote from 1895, earlier than any women in other colonies/States, more than thirty years before British women between 21 and 30, and before French women.

So, in a sense, much of the hoo-ha about the 1967 Referendum was overblown: measures were already in place. But it needed the Australian people's agreement to change the Constitution: it already had the ready approval of all State governments.

Now there is still the clause about the Federal government's powers to make special laws about any 'race' - previous to 1967, these powers to make laws or Aboriginal people were State matters. Of course, this clause should be abolished. But it would cramp the room to manoeuvre of those who want special rights for Indigenous people.

No particular group is recognised in our Constitution, and that's how it should be. Indigenous people now have a Minister, and an Indigenous Minister at that. That's 'recognition' enough.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe,

The current system is not working. It does
not produce good results. The systemic
and structural failure of policy-making
is perpetuating disadvantage.

The Uluru Statement speaks to structural
disempowerment because it is a document about
constituional reform. The Constitution distributes
power. It can empower First Nations to take
responsibility, or it can disempower them, as it has
in the past.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would enable
Indigenous people to take greater responsibility for
and leadership of their affairs.

To ensure change the system must be reformed to encourage,
and mandate responsibility.

Policies to address family violence, truancy, suicide
and alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities would
be improved with input from the people they are intended
to benefit. The success of the "Native Title Act" would
be greater if governments could better hear Indigenous
peoples' ideas to remove red tape and make their land
more commercially productive.

There's the old argument that there are already Indigenous
MPs in parliament - as though this is a substitute for
empowering First Nations with a voice in their affairs.

Those MPs, like any MPs, must represent their
constituencies, their electorates and their political
parties in all their ethnic diversity. Those MPs are not
representative of the First Nations of Australia.
They are representative of all Australians who voted for
them.

The difference is that parliament makes specific laws and
policies about Indigenous people. There is no native
title act for Lithuanian-Australians like myself,
or Greek-Australians, or Indian-Australians, et al,
because our ancestors were not dispossessed of land in
Australia. Nor has there been a Lithuanian-Australian,
Gree-Australian, or Indian-Australian, et al,
intervention.

When parliament makes laws and policies about the First
Nations of the Northern Territory, as they did with the
Northern Territory Intervention, the First Nations of
the Northern Territory should have a fair say. Whether
we agree or disagree that the Intervention was necessary,
there is consensus that it was poorly implemented,
without proper consultation, and not as effective as it
could have been. The Intervention failed to achieve
its aims.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

Had local First Nations been empowered to take
responsibility in its formulation, the Intervention
would not have been discriminatory. It would have been
better accepted by communities and more effective.

Those on the political left say the Intervention was
discriminatory paternalism; they tend to oppose
government intervention promoting responsibility.
The right say it was necessary. They tend to support
government intervention promoting responsibility.

The "radical centre" approach is to empower communities
to take responsibility themselves to take the lead
when it comes to intervening in and ultimately resolving
their own problems. Government cannot solve people's
problems.

To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, government cannot do
anything for you that you are not willing to do yourself.

The First Nations of Australia have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered with a
constitutional voice in their affairs, so they can always
participate in decisions made about them. As a
champion of responsibility, you should support such a
reform.

Foxy,

I love these 'how else do you explain' arguments. There may be many other reasons why "The current system is not working." I presume you mean the child neglect, sexual abuse, domestic violence, anomie, lack of education, lifelong unemployment, poor health and derelict condition, in most remote communities ?

Could that have something to do with the behaviour of many of the people in those communities ? Basically, intelligent people seizing opportunities to do nothing with their lives, on the assumption that doing nothing is easier and therefore better than doing anything ? Like looking after your kids ? Getting them to school ? Looking after your elders ? Trying to stop or discourage violent behaviour ?

At least, that might be one other plausible 'explanation' ?

There are thousands of Indigenous organisations around the country. In remote communities, there may be no other bureaucrats or functionaries other than Indigenous people - no whitefellas, no police, certainly no missionaries. There is comparatively little 'colonisation' going on which the people there would reject, such as ATMs, air-conditioning, Toyotas, royalties and access to grog - although these days, there would be plenty of 'intergenerational trauma', mainly from the previous cycles of chronic problems which have been allowed to fester. Those organisations therefore have a free hand to make decisions and carry them out. Do they ?

For the life of me, I can't see how more 'voice' or a peace treaty can fix all that up. IF parents could be persuaded somehow to look after their kids, IF community councils and all of those organisations could be persuaded to do their jobs given that they have plenty of 'self-determination' to do so - even then, I can't see what these thought-bubbles have to do with day-to-day actual reality.

Can you join the dots for me, but without referring me to kids' web-sites ?

Joe

Foxy,

The first nations have the same representation and empowerment as the rest of us. What you are asking for is special racial discrimination.

Dear Joe,

Norway, Sweden and Finland have publicly funded Sami
councils which advise their governments on Sami
affairs. New Zealand has the publicly funded Maori
Council (and reserved Maori seats); and Canada has
publicly funded the Assembly of First Nations. All
these countries not only guarantee First Nations have
a voice, but also constitutionally recognise Indigenous
rights and interests.

Why do they accommodate their First Nations in
institutional and constitutional arrangements?

Because the First Nations of a colonised country are not
the same as any other lobby group. They are a group of
citizens descended from the original owners of the
land. They were dispossessed, and have rights and interests
arising from this history.

Responsible democracies put in place measures to manage
relationships between their Indiegnous people
and the nation state, to ensure Indigenous peoples
can participate fairly in the nation. Representative
arrangements are part of such measures.

Indiegnous Australians were denied a vote under the laws
of our parliament, they were denied equal wages for their
hard work, they were denied an equal reward for the guts
they showed in fighting for Australia in both world wars.

And while Indigenous affairs policies are more well
intentioned now, they are still not producing the
results they should.

The historic consensus achieved at Uluru shows
Indigenous Australians have guts, ambition, determination
and smarts. They have done the hard work to form a
unified position. They have asked for a voice in their
affairs.

As "The Australian's" legal affairs editor, wrote:

"Here's the harsh reality. Our forebears took this
country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to
give it back. So the least we can do is oblige ourselves to
listen when Indigenous people ask to be heard."

The Uluru Statement presents a way for the powerful
Australian majority, as represented by our democratic
parliament, to ensure that it treats the vulnerable
Indigenous minority as we would like to
have been treated, had history
and circumstance been reversed.

It's not asking much to hear Indigenous views when
parliament makes decisions about them. It is a modest and
moral request.