It is likely that we are going to have a 'Voice' referendum to vote on in the near future, if an activist government minister gets his way.

All Austrian citizens are supposed to be equal, but blacktivists and the Left are still snarling about ‘recognition’ for a minute section of the community, most of whom live the same way as the rest of us. These blacktivisits and lefties want a ‘special body’ enshrined in our Constitution.

The wreckers of society have been joined by virtue-signalling law firms, banks, superannuation funds and accounting firms. What makes these totally irrelevant outfits think that they have to stick their noses in is anybody’s guess.

The nonsense of ‘recognition’ is part of the just-defeated ‘middle-of-the-road’ Labor party’s divisive policies. The ‘bit-better-than-Labor’ Coalition, is equally keen to divide the country along racial lines.

Remember ATSIC?

Show-Indigenous Affairs minister, Ken Wyatt ,has come up with a proposed laws to establish to establish yet another commision run by elected so-called elders.

Again. Remember ATSIC!

Messrs. Morgan Beggs and Daniel ,of the Institute of Public Affairs, remind readers of the Spectator of the obvious “mission creep” resulting from such a body, which could never be confined to issues solely affecting indigenous Australians. All major policies - health, education and infrastructure - apply to ALL Australians. The body could, and probably would, try to shame a weak government into agreeing with its advice if any legislation for ALL Australians went against indigenous ‘voice’.

Begg and Wild quote Sir Robert Menzies, who said: “The power to advise is the power to coerce.

Not sure how this got under Technical Support. I clicked on new and current affairs.

Bottom of the barrel seems to suit

Program after program has been established to improve Aborigines’ lot, costing many billions of dollars over the years. Some were partly or wholly run by Aboriginals for Aboriginals. Some achieved some benefits, but most failed completely. The result to date? Apart from assimilated Aborigines who live their lives much the same as most non-Aboriginals, the lot of the rest has steadfastly failed to improve.

It is not our responsibility to atone for British settlement. Nobody can turn back the clock. People identify with an aboriginal background have no rights to special privileges because their ancestors were here before white Australians.

We all need to get over it. We need to stop the nonsense of smoking ceremonies and welcome-to-country paid performances that mean nothing to 97% of the population in the 21st Century.

Enough of the victimhood!

If this minority of Australians wishes to keep aspects of their culture alive, let them do it at their own expense, just as other minorities do.

Dear Belly,

Yep.

But I'm not sure why events in Austria should concern us. Perhaps they have a different constitution over there since our constitution explicitly says 'The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.'

So perhaps the Austrians might not know that much about our constitution but any decent Australian should at least have some clue.

Better late than never!

>"The power to advise is the power to coerce"
I don't know what the context of that Menzies quote was, but on the face of it I think he got it wrong – 'tis not the power to advise that's the power to coerce; it's the power to prevent the advice of others from being heard.

And it's well known that there's a widespread sense among our Aboriginal population that they're not getting heard. Hence the Uluru statement.

People are indeed supposed to be equal - but when equality is used as an excuse for failure to address disadvantage, it's safe to conclude some people are defining it wrongly!

I'm glad the government have finally rejected the preposterous notion that the Voice would amount to a third chamber of parliament, despite having no legislative power. Having said that, I think it should be given one very specific legislative ability: the power of veto on the government's use of the constitution's race powers.

I also think there should be a sunset clause. It should expire after two hundred and thirtysomething years (the amount of time from the First Fleet until its inception).

Ken Wyatt just told them a couple of days ago ! Hats off to him !

In the spirit of multiculturalism, all minorities have the right to practise their cultures, but at their own expense and in their own time. Watered-down descendants of original (maybe) inhabitants are now probably the smallest minority in the country. There should be no special consideration for them. Most people with aboriginal heritage live the same way as the rest of us. Like all minorities, they have moved on. The few trouble makers who have not are malcontents; the white renegades who support them are just using the fools as another weapon of division.

Having Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs is as as archaic as the Protectors of the past.

It's interesting that the SlowMo government is jumping on the division-by-race bandwagon so soon after blacktivists were cheering Labor for telling them that they would put the 'Voice' legislation to the people at the next election.

Just like Malcolm Turnbull, SlowMo is implementing Labor policy! He will show Labor that he can suck up to minorities better than Labor, by gum! Labor can relax in opposition, while Morrison does their dirty work for them. He'll show them how to embrace identity politics, race division and white guilt .

A special for NAIDOC week.

The jaws of Shorten and the extreme Left must be aching from smirking, and poor old, bewildered Albo will be wondering why he bothered. Morrison's admiration for the Chinese president, and the 'one party system' is emerging.

the country is divided enough by race politics. We don't need this garbage especially when you look at the divisive nature of the aboriginals who have benefited most in this nation. Instead effort needs to be made to integrate, stop abuse and contribute to society.

C'mon STEELEREDUX, TTBN's use of the word 'Austria' was merely a typo nothing more. Gee ol' man, you're getting very 'picky' in your old age. I understand when we start losing many of the arguments on The Forum, we can all become a little 'ornery' I suppose.

I've always had high regard for our indigenous people, mainly after I did some relieving Sergeant duties in the bush for six months or so when my opposite number(s) took LSL. Initially, I had a preconceived notion about them, purely due to my lack of knowledge and ignorance being a city cop. However, my attitude changed substantially when I realised just how much I had to learn about these proud people. And 'learn' I did!

That aside -

The more so-called recognition; tangible benefits; 'official; self-determination; money, and Government sanctioned 'voice' we give them - The more harm we'll do them, their proud spirit, and their way of life.

The pure blacks that live in humpies in dry creek beds amid the flies, snakes and other 'bities,' want more from us than anything else - **RESPECT** (absolutely vital) — followed by medicine, some foodstuffs, education, jobs (for some) and help, with the inordinately high levels of suicide among their teenager kids. And yes, to be left alone by the coppers, so they may lead their lives in the way and manner they prefer.

It's the mixed-bloods some with only the smallest iota of indigenous blood that can be sourced as the trouble makers — supplying booze, drugs, porno material, to them, as well as raising an uproar with the authorities and governments, claiming fervently they do it on their behalf. The hell they do!

The last thing the Blackfellers need is Uni indoctrinated do-gooders from the suburbs.
I have lived & worked alongside indigenous for nearly 40 years & never once have I been told that they find the term offensive. This nonsense was brought in by the do-gooders who do nothing but bad !

Dear o sung wu,

And here I was thinking that far from being ornery I had exercised restraint along with at least a dollop of humour, especially given the title is 'There Is No Place For Race In Our Constitution' whereas the thing specifically says it can make laws regarding race.

So I flagged the Austrian comment only to reinforce the point I was making, that the author is clueless.

Anyway aren't you taking this a little bit too seriously? You have employed the odd sly jibe in your time, often to good effect, in fact that is one of things which serve to raise your offerings here above the dross. Keep at it old chap I say.

So, here is a question for you. Let's put a figure on the amount of money which goes into combating disadvantage within our indigenous communities. No one is saying it isn't substantial but many in the know describe how only one dollar in five actually makes it on to the ground. So let's call it 15 billion dollars per annum.

What would you say to having 10 billion of this paid as compensation for use of indigenous land. It would then be distributed to Aboriginal organisations for them to care and sustain their communities. Now it is rent rather than welfare and controlled by the 'landlord' rather than crumbs given to the beggar.

I'm looking forward to exploring this with you so if you could give it some thought rather than replying with a kneejerk reaction that may well serve the discussion positively.

ttbn,

"These blacktivisits and lefties want a ‘special body’ enshrined in our Constitution."

Fear not, ttbn, this is actually good news. Unlike many other policies the elites are able to push through against the will of the people (eg 150000-200000 immigrants pa), this one will actually have to go to the people.

As with Brexit, while the EU was foisted on the nation over the heads of the populace, the people got to vote and voted against the way their 'betters' demanded. The elite was so out of touch with the people that they just assumed they'd win the vote. They're still trying to recover from that shock and overturn the will of the people.

Here also, the people will get a vote. Unfortunately for the elite, the constitution requires that any change must be approved by a majority of people in a majority of states.

Now, when the proposal was to just have a bit of puffery in the introduction to the constitution saying that there were people here for a long time before whites arrived, then it stood a chance to get the required vote since it was just virtue-signalling window dressing.

But that wasn't good enough for the carpet-baggers, and leaders of the aboriginal industry. They want real power and real money to enhance their position and allow them to dole out increasing largess. They just can't help themselves.

And the more they demand, the more power they want to grab, the more insane their screams for 'equality' (remember "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"), then the less likely it is that they'll get anything.

A referendum is a yes/no question. 'Yes' I want to give away all this power and money, or 'no' I'd prefer things to remain the way they are.

The changes this dills want will never get approved. And the more crazy their claims, the less likely that becomes.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I do agree with you. Much of the millions spent on Indigenous welfare and advancement doesn't get to where it's needed. I'm fortunate enough to have a Psychiatrist (Doctor) as a friend (yeah I know, you probably think he should treat me!) and until the last 18 mths., he spent three months of the year being flown around to some of the most depressed settlements in WA & NT treating those who needed him the most. This was yet another C'Wealth initiative, albeit meaning well, again costing millions in light A/C hire, pilots and not counting the Psychiatrist salary.

He told me, many of the most troubled young people he saw suffered from the deepest of depressive illnesses. Including but not limited to, acute psychosis, bipolar and other serious mental illnesses, often caused by petrol sniffing and other dangerous ingestion of drugs incl. Metholayted Spirits. Ordinarily, they should be hospitalized ASAP. Realistically though, he couldn't budge them from their settlements let alone admit them to a specialist hospital who dealt with severe Psychiatric illnesses. His prognosis, before he settled back into private practice, was most depressing.

I have but a mere skerrick of knowledge, compared to the good Doctor!

He continually stressed they believe they've no hope, no prospects, no chance of formal education, notwithstanding it's made available to most of them, but they decline to leave their settlements. They live in utter squalor and despair. Abused during their childhood, the 'white' Brothers ('cast' blacks) selling them alcohol and drugs, taking what little money they might have from Social Security. And yep, the coppers are always on their tails.

The 1967 referendum was successful because the large majority of citizens generously and rightfully believed that more should have been done for aborigines at that time. There was no implication that there should be two systems of law in Australia. It was concerned with removing any differentiation between Australians on the ground of RACE.

Fifty two years later, it would be surprising if voters wanted to approve of new differentiation BASED ON RACE.

Even Malcolm Turnbull, in rejecting the ‘voice proposal, said:

“Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civil rights, all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers or our national parliament. A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle”.

If it starts, it will never end. One contributor to the Uluru Statement wrote: "Indigenous constitutional recognition should be understood not as the achievement of a final postcolonial settlement but as AN ONGOING PROCESS OF CONTESTING AND RENEGOTIATING INDIGENOUS AND SETTLER PEOPLE’S BASIC POLITICAL LEADERSHIP” (My emphasises)

After 230 years, where are the ‘indigenous’ and the ‘settlers’?

There is no place for race in our Constitution?

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not
ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous
Australians. It confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate.

White Australians have always been the predominant
law-makers in our Parliament, and they don't enact
laws that racially discriminate against themselves.

Their ancestors have never been denied equality on the
basis of "race" under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians is lacking.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They are asking for Constitutional recognition through a
First Nations voice in the Constitution. They ask only to be
heard in decisions made about them. A practical reform.
Not a veto, but a voice.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart offers a way to
recognise and empower the First Nations of Australia to
take responsibility for their affairs, while upholding
the Constitution, respecting Crown sovereignty and
unifying the country.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a
racial non-discrimination clause, and calls instead for a
First Nations voice in laws and policies made about
them as a way of preventing repetition of past
discriminatory policies.

The proposal has a long history. Indigenous advocates have
argued for decades for fairer representation in their
affairs.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would guarantee
Indigenous people a say, without transferring 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 help prevent discrimination. It
would unify, not divide. It is a way to address inequality
without empowering the High Court.

cont'd ...

mhaze

Yes. It’s not like the voluntary ‘survey’ for same sex marriage. Not sure I like the Brexit comparison, though. The UK governments has done its level best to ignore that democratic vote. However, I would like to believe that the average Australian will know when enough is enough with these people. Irrespective of the result, it’s going to cost us big time. The Morrison government has already set aside $7.3 million to “progress a First Nations (another concoction) Voice to Parliament”. There is also a ‘contingency reserve funding item of $160 million as a provision for the Indigenous Recognition Referendum in 2020-21.

Very expensive people, those identifying with an aboriginal history.

cont'd ...

Would a First Nations voice in the Constitution divide
our nation by "race" and undermine the principle of
equality? Or would it create a more complete
Commonwealth addressing injustices of the past and
bringing the three parts of our nation - our ancient
Indigenous heritage, our British institutional
inheritance, and the multicultural character of our
society into deeper accord?

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.

The "equality" objectors posit that ordinary democratic
processes are enough for the First Nations to have
their say - even when Parliament makes decisions about
their unique rights.

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 voting rights,
property rights, equal wages, and asserted
unequal protectionist controls.

We can't continue to preach equality, but keep enacting
and demonstrating discriminatory double standards.
They ask only to be heard.

Dear mhaze,

You opine; “Unlike many other policies the elites are able to push through against the will of the people (eg 150000-200000 immigrants pa)”

I know very few of my 'progressive' friends and acquaintances think these kind of levels of immigration are desirable at all.

These are being driven purely by big business and governments who are too scared to take the foot off the pedal because they know it is the only thing which is keeping us from a recession.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for acknowledging the point about money not hitting the ground. I'm wondering though if you had considered the further point I raised?

“What would you say to having 10 billion of this paid as compensation for use of indigenous land. It would then be distributed to Aboriginal organisations for them to care and sustain their communities. Now it is rent rather than welfare and controlled by the 'landlord' rather than crumbs given to the beggar.”

Are you up for it?

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

In principle, I would support the proposition one hundred percent. My main problem, I don't have much faith in many of those groups or organizations entrusted to 'fairly' distribute the money amongst the neediest of these 'Beggers' as you so quaintly describe them?

Someone always has to take their cut, a fee for services rendered, or some tariff, for merely doing their job. From my own practical experience, many of these proud black men, distrust virtually anything, the white man's government does for them. Give a black man a Dollar, by the time all the helpers take their cut, the black man ends up owing; $1.50.

I believe there are very few genuinely altruistic people, in regular interaction with our indigenous people. I hope I'm wrong. I know those who ferment liquor and mfg. Illicit drugs, do a roaring business among the humpies, in dry creek beds, that passes for some of our indigenous folk's, usual place of abode?

More money is not the answer. The money that's already been allocated, in recent Budgets, should be spent, much more wisely I believe. Extend the use of the 'Food Cards' have it closely audited, not for any misuse by the recipient, but those who would seek to take advantage of the beneficiary

o sung wu, my feelings about the black fella's is well known on this forum. I have always explained why, and so it is that we keep hearing about equality and that WE don't do enough for them or we don't give enough money.
Now ALL the criticisms us white fella's have had to endure, enough is enough.
If everyone is being honest, this is one country and if we are supposed to be equal, then why the hell are we throwing billions of dollars at the blacks?
I charge the govt and the morons of this country with bias, favoritism, prejudice, and racism.
If you want equality, then start by withholding all the benefits that the blacks get, over the rest of the population.
All this money they allegedly get goes into the back pockets of the scumbags who manage or oversea it's distribution.
The current system is being rorted so bad that if it were truly investigated, firstly the public would not believe the findings and secondly there would be a lot of people going to jail, but that won't happen because they can't afford to let even one of them to be found guilty of anything, because you know how scum betrays scum, and it will expose whole departments and groups of people.
I simply refuse to allow one group of people preferential treatment over another.
We have all the services in this country, from medical to welfare, so the blacks should not get special treatment over the rest of us.

SR wrote..."I know very few of my 'progressive' friends and acquaintances think these kind of levels of immigration are desirable at all."

But I was talking about the elite pushing through these policies. And, trust me, SR you aren't in the elite.

"These are being driven purely by big business and governments"
There you go. But not just big government and big business but also big media, cloistered academia. All those protected from the effects of massive immigration seem to be in favour of it.

The fact is that most people identifying as descendants of the original occupants (if they still see any point in doing so) are doing just fine. The fact that certain people, black and white, are agitating for special treatment for a tiny minority is an indication that they think that the ones not doing so well are totally incapable of looking after themselves; after two centuries of opportunities they are still duds. That's real racism for you. Certain people are incapable of doing anything for themselves because of their race. Charming. These blacktivists and white virtue signallers are actually saying the people they CLAIM to represent are a bunch of useless basket cases who, after two centuries still can't cut the mustard.

Maybe they are right. But, if they are that useless because of their race; if they are not like most of the others of the same race, then nothing is going to work for them, just as it has not worked in the past.

But the Morrison government is going to demonstrate the version of lunacy that is doing the same useless things over and over, with the addition of a pinch of apartheid and an undemocratic 'voice' for a few slick, suburban black fellas. Plus, a lot more of taxpayer funds. Why are the only people interested in politics complete plonkers?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to resolve
the fundamental moral problem that has tormented our
country since 1788.

Indigenous
peoples were not represented in the constitutional
compact that made the Commonwealth. It was not answered
in 1967: the referendum empowered parliament to make
laws for Indigenous people, but it did not empower
Indigenous people with a fair say in respect of those
laws. It was not resolved in 1999: the proposed
symbolic preamble would have changed nothing, and it
failed at referendum.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They ask for constitutional recognition through a First
Nations voice in the Constitution. Not a racial
non-discriminatory clause, which was opposed by politicians.
Not uncertain symbolism in the Constitution.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about them.
A practical reform. Not a veto, but merely a voice.

We've all heard the objections - the rejections of the
call for Indigenous Australians to have a guaranteed say
in laws and policies made about their affairs because
"all Australians are equal." That our nation's founding
document should "unify us - not divide us." However it
already divides us.

One of the problems is that our Constitution
has not ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous
Australians. Our Constitution confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate. The Race Power
was inserted, according to the Constitutional convention
debates, to control and exclude the "inferior" and
"coloured" peoples.

The Uluru Statement offers a way to recognise and empower
the First Nations of Australia to take responsibility for
their affairs, while holding the Constitution, respecting
Crown sovereignty and unifying the country.

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 acknowleding that there are peoples
in Australia whose pre-colonial heritage gives rise to
distinct rights and interests in their descendants
and that those people should have a say when parliament
makes changes affecting their distinct rights and interests.

Foxy, you're so full of it.
'They only want to be heard'.
Where have you been all these years?
Are you wearing earmuffs?
All we've heard, ad nauseum, are the blacks and how they are being persecuted, hard done by and treated like second class citizens.
Rubbish, bulldust, crap, lies all of it.
Only a liar and deceiver would believe or push such a line, when EVERYBODY knows that the blacks have been receiving special treatment for as long as memory serves, at the expense and behest of the rest of us.
Foxy stop writing these long winded stories trying to garner sympathy for an undeserving group who scoff at us behind our backs yet claim unfounded rights to our face.
You are not the type of person to be commenting on these matters as it is people like yourself that would give away the family's financial security to help others, leaving YOUR family in the poo.
Then you would have only succeeded in putting your family in dire straights, because of your narrow minded and naive views.
So stop pushing the lie about 'just want to be heard'.
We are sick of the bleeding hearts and their jelly brained followers.
You've heard it said here many times, well, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
Those of us with an open mind and a fair amount of maturity and pragmatism and objectivity can see what you refuse to see because of insane do-goody attitude and mindset.
In some circles/circumstances people of your ilk are considered dangerous, and we can now see why.

ALTRAV,
Cheers for putting it out there so straight & forward.

Yes, ALTRAV. Well put

The Left has never been about helping the poor and the marginalised to become self-sufficient and successful, but about making the people a wholly owned subsidiary of the government.

This applies to everyone they think that they can use - black or white.

Tony Abbott told parliament in 2013:

"Australia is a blessed country. Our climate,
our land, our people, our institutions rightly
make us the envy of the earth; except for one
thing - we have never fully made peace with the
First Australians. This is the stain on our soul
that Prime Minister Keating so movingly evoked at
Redfern 21 years ago... we need to atone for the
emissions and for the hardness of heart of our
forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as
a united people."

Paul Keating in his 1992 Redfern speech said the wrongs
of the past were able to occur because our forebears failed
to ask, "How would I feel if this were done to me?"
We failed to recognise common humanity. We lacked empathy..

The colonists should have done unto the Indigenous "others"
as they would have had them do unto themselves, had the
situation been reversed. Of course, we cannot turn back
time. All we can do is work towards a better future.

The Uluru Statement has given us a practical way to do this.

The objectors lack empathy for their Indigenous Australian
countrymen. Their stance is unpatriotic. Their false
equality objection is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Most Australians have more generous hearts. We want to rise
to this moral challenge.
We want to learn from history and create a fairer future.

As the Australian's legal affairs editor, Chris Merritt,
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, has history and circumstances been reversed.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Australians have it before us to guarantee mutual
respect, kindness and comity in the relationship
between the First Nations and the Australian government.

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

It is not beyond this great nation to make it happen.

Gentlemen,

As the old adage states:

"Before you assume
Know the facts
Before you judge
Understand why ...
Before you speak
Think."

Intelligent people speak because they have something to
say. The ignorant because they have to say something.
And the highest form of ignorance is when someone
rejects something they don't know anything about.

Love your work Altrav .
Regards
Narelle

Narelle, thanks for that.
Foxy, I love reading your rubbish.
So many times you have left yourself wide open to be knocked down a peg or two, but we all know you refuse to heel to right or truth, so it is, just a quick word on your last posting.
It so happens, you fall into all of the three categories you have mentioned.
'before you assume', in your case 'preach', know the facts.
'before you judge', in your case 'preach', understand why?
'before you speak, in your case 'preach', think.
Yes I can see you were describing yourself.
Your assumptions 'are' based on facts, YOUR facts.
Your judgements 'are' based on understanding, YOUR understanding. (of the facts)
Your 'speeches' indicate the fact that you don't 'think', because ALL your postings, apart from your regular rants, are in fact other people's comments and thoughts.
It's true name is 'plagiarism'.
So it is that you don't think.
By your own admission, you are always quoting others.
Have you EVER conjured up an original thought of your own?
No I didn't think so.
I don't know why we bother to comment, I think we should ALL stop commenting and let you have this forum all to yourself, as apparently, according to you, you and your comments are the only thing we need to know.
I would say you have the floor, go ahead, but you have never stopped 'having the floor', so as you were.

continued...........

I'll even go so far as to say, 'I'll bet that the last four lines of your last posting are again quoted from someone else'.
Really?

Many of us all learned about the Great pyramid of Giza or
the Colosseum in Ancient Rome, about ancient
civilisations that came before us but little was taught
about the breadth of history on our own doorstep. In fact
our own ancient sites seem to not only be unknown but are
actively destroyed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/brooke-boney-road-back-home-cultural-preservation-in-australia/9269956

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/dig-finds-evidence-of-aboriginal-habitation-up-to-80000-years-ago

Artifacts in Kakadu National Park have been dated
between 65,000 and 80,000 years old,
extending likely occupation of the area
by thousands of years.

Exciting times we live in.

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 ultimate hypocrisy !

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for the measured reply. They seem in scant supply in this thread.

You wrote;

"In principle, I would support the proposition one hundred percent. My main problem, I don't have much faith in many of those groups or organizations entrusted to 'fairly' distribute the money amongst the neediest of these 'Beggers' as you so quaintly describe them?"

Well I think they would have to work pretty bloody hard to do any worse than the situation diver dan quotes in another thread;

"The government's Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program spend A$10 million on administration to provide A$2.7 million for just 15 loans. The program's target were 460 loans."

I would much rather see the money spent be in the form of rent or lease of land which was never ceded nor freely given than as welfare.

it is not going to right all the wrongs but it acknowledges the land was taken by force and will give proper dignity to the original owners.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the post. Yes the movement toward a treaty is indeed gathering pace an is the just thing to do. Having a voice in parliament for our indigenous Australians is part of that journey and is also the just thing to do.

Victoria looks like it will be the first cab off the rank and it will be very interesting to see how it takes shape.

Better times ahead me thinks. It is a credit to all those involved.

Dear Steele,

Thank You for your comments.

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.

It is a modest and moral request. And as stated previously it
is not beyond this great nation to make it happen.

Foxy, reality check.
The blacks are Australians, if they want to form a group for social reasons they can, just like ALL the other races and creeds here.
But also, like the other races and creeds, they MUST NOT have preferential treatment over the rest or the majority of the people.
The blacks have done NOTHING to make them a stand out/stand alone people.
In case you missed it, they are Australian, so unless they have done something of a humanitarian or other socially praised nature, they can just piss off and sit back and suck it up, like the rest of us.
Special treatment, indeed!
Want to be heard, we're sick of 'hearing' them.
Another wake up call Foxy, most of Australia, really doesn't want to hear another demand from the blacks, and whether you like it or not, we just don't care.
Remember, the little boy who cried 'WOLF', once too often?

One of the few sensible things Turnbull did was to knock this decisive, undemocratic and racist nonsense on the head. Now that his half-witted successor is actually promoting it, we will have to rely on the commonsense of the Australian people, few of whom are like the nasty Left ratbags infesting OLO.

Are there any Indigenous TV stations ? NITV, etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous radio stations ? Imparja,etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous newspapers ? The national Indigenou Times, etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous organisations ? Five thousand is a figure I've heard.

Are there any Indigenous members of parliaments around Australia ? There have been forty so far, in most parliaments, as well as ministers in State, Territory and Federal governments, including a Chief Minister, a current Treasurer, and a current Minister for Indigenous People.

Can Indigenous people drop by their MP's office and express their opinion ?

Are there peak bodies in health, housing, education, etc. ?

Are there Land Councils around the country ?

Is there an Assembly of First Nations ?

Is there a Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council ?

Clearly, if these don't represent 'Voice', then there is a desperate need for one to be legislated as soon as possible, and one which won't implicitly act as a veto on proposed legislation.

Joe

Why didn't you put that up right at the beginning, Joe? It would have saved a lot of pointless earbashing and swathes of rubbish copied from the ABC.

Ttbn,

It seemed necessary to tease out the issues involved and how to balance the difficult problem, of how to bring out Indigenous opinion on everything which might be relevant on the one hand, but in such ways as that won't hamstring government responsibilities on the other.

After all, there is an inherent contradiction that a body would have the right to - as many might see it - interfere in every issue which it may deem to be relevant, and yet have no responsibility to propose solutions to the problems that it may raise.

Maybe a legislated body might be an effective, working precursor to what many are demanding, i.e. a body enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, we all have the memories of the corrupt and incompetent ATSIC, so such a new-and-improved body would have to demonstrate that it has got past those sorts of fatal flaws.

That might take a few years, while it tests its powers and proves its worth. If it degenerates back into an ATSIC-style patronage and reward system for its members and their relations and cronies, and any sensible government scraps it, then any 'voice' may have to rely on the sorts of sources I listed above.

As well, there needs to be a clear distinction between issues which are ultimately the responsibilities of communities and families, and those which are the responsibilities of governments.

Not only that: Ken Wyatt spoke on Wednesday of local and regional (and presumably State/Territory) representative bodies, so presumably the specific responsibilities of those bodies have to be clearly differentiated.

There's a hell of a lot of work to do yet. None of this will be served up on a plate.

Cheers,

Joe

The Uluru Statement suggests that a voice in laws
and policies will foster responsibility, empowering First
Nations to take charge and improve the policies
addressing their disadvantage.

There are two aspects to Indigenous disadvantage and
disempowerment.

One aspect is personal and communal responsibility.
All individuals must take responsibility for their
circumstances and behaviour. They must send their kids
to school, abide by the law and contribute to a safe
and productive society. There is no disputing the
importance of personal responsibility to addressing
disadvantage - Indigenous or otherwise.

The other aspect to Indigenous disadvantage is structural.

No person or community can truly take responsibility unless
they have power. If government calls the shots through
top-down policy, uninformed by local views and preferences,
then people are disempowered. There is a structural and
constitutional dimension to persistent Indigenous
disadvantage. Untile we address this dimension, the gap will
not close.

Australia has come to expect abysmal Closing the Gap reports.
The current system is not working. It does not produce good
results. The systemic and structural failure of policy-making
is perpetuating disadvantage.

If we all agree that the system is not working, we then
should want it reformed.

Of course the solution is responsibility. But responsibility
requires two things: that people are willing to take
charge of their problems, and that governance structures
ALLOW them and empower them to take charge.

The Uluru Statement speaks to structural disempowerment
because it is a document about constitutional 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.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

To ensure change, the system must be reformed to encourage
and, indeed, 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
government could better hear Indigenous peoples' ideas to
remove red tape and make their land more economically
productive.

Some people point out 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 - just like a Greek Australian
or an Indian-Australian or a white Australian MP.

The difference is that parliament makes specific laws and
policies about Indigenous people. There is no native title
act for Indian-Australians and others because their ancestors
were not dispossessed of land in Australia. Nor has there
ever been an Indian-Australian intervention.

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. And we who champion responsibility
should support such a reform.

As Loudmouth has demonstrated, clearly the blacks have already had and keep on having, a 'voice', thereby putting to doubt or in question this insane and irrelevant push for some kind of special representation or treatment, even further than they already enjoy.
So NO, we should not give in to this totally unjustified demand.
And as for the comment of 'the land being taken by force'.
If that is part of the attitude that 'just wants to be heard', then they most certainly can SHOVE IT!
This land had NO OWNERS when the poms came along, remember the blacks were migrants from another place another time, so this land was up for the taking.
And irrespective of anything else, or whether we want to say the poms invaded or not, shots were fired, hostilities were involved.
Even if there were not, the poms became the next and current owners of this land, how they did it is irrelevant.
This is the way it has always been.
An aggressor takes over by force usually, it's only that there was not a lot of force at the time, but make no mistake, we owe NO ONE anything.
This farcical of a fabricated fantasy is one created by the white man purely for financial gain and they are not going to give it up any time soon, so wake up you gullible jelly brains and smell the thing called 'The Great Con'.
So then, no more special treatment, either they are Aussies or they are not.
They themselves keep saying they were the 'first Australians', so then where is the problem, they themselves have made it clear they are Aussies.
You can't have it both ways so which one is it?
I'll say it again and settle this once and for all; 'NO SPECIAL TREATMENT'.

Thanks Joe for the voice of reason. I was wrong about it stopping the earbashing from attention seeking trolls, though. She was back into it straight after your post. Although I have stopped reading anything she says, having to scroll past her never ending sermons on every subject known to man is a pain on the way to reading sensible people's posts. Even ALTRAV can't shut up her regurgitation of second hand propaganda from the ABC and other organs of the left. Most of us recognise that nagging and harping isn't going to change other people's minds if they have already decided what they think, which most of us have. Not her! On and on, with references to sites where she gets her garbage, which few people would bother to read. I'm all for people expressing their opinions, but I can get what the ABC thinks direct from the ABC, and much better presented than some tragic does it here

Foxy,

You rightly say,

"The First Nations of Australia have a right to take responsibility. "

I would respectfully suggest that they have the obligation to take responsibility, like any other citizens and communities and families and individuals have for their affairs. I'm very uneasy about the impression, perhaps inaccurate, that governments should bring back more sophisticated forms of paternalism and take - or keep taking - those responsibilities from Indigenous people, as if they are incapable of handling them.

So far, it seems, the multitude of channels for voices don't seem to be adequate, if I read this extra demand for a 'Voice' correctly. I just don't understand that. Indigenous people are as capable and intelligent as anybody else, so I can't, for the life of me, understand why they can't use all of those current channels to express their desires and aspirations - and primarily amongst themselves. So many issues affecting Indigenous people and communities and families are, frankly, internal issues, for which they themselves - in the spirit of genuine self-determination - must find solutions, not governments, not any outsiders.

I anticipate being corrected, but I hope not by Dr Google :)

Joe

ALTRAV,

Your comment about 'white men' rings true. The very people who signal their virtue by rabbiting on about self determination for people who are mostly already 'self determining' are up to their armpits in the racket,trying to do the determining for them. For those people, it's nothing to do with doing good for people they condescendingly deem as incapable of making it in modern Australia: it's all about divide and rule. Communism.

Foxy, NO!
We should not empower the blacks, unless we empower everyone else.
Oh wait a minute we do, it's called parliament.
You can flap on all you like about being dispossessed, but tell me which of these wannabee blacks of today have been dispossessed, or better still want to go and live in the 'bush' like their ancestors did?
NONE!
Stop pushing this arrogant virtue signalling mantra of yours.
We, the rest of Australia, including the migrants, don't agree with you or the idea of giving any one particular group of people, special privileges or treatment over the rest of us.
We already have to suffer through these annoying and erroneous attacks promoting a moot point and mythical society as though they have some reverence or right of ownership to a land simply because they happen to be standing on it when the real owners come to claim it.
Remember, the original people were passing through from up North?.
All that you write is a fantasy and most of Australia would tell you to your face, but for not wanting to waste the time and; IF THEY COULD BE BOTHERED.

ttbn,

This is a discussion forum. Therefore you have
to be prepared for opinions that don't agree
with yours. However you are not obliged to
read any opinions that seem to distress you,
But you certainly are not entitled to stop
people from airing their views. Freedom of
speech and all that... But of course this does
not seem to apply to you judging from you comments.
You only approve of posts that agree with your
viewpoint - other wise how can you explain such
a strong feeling towards someone you don't even
know. And you wonder why the term "toxic" is
an apt description of your postings. If you want
my opinion to change about you. You can always
improve your behaviour.

BTW: Who really reads ALTRAV's posts?
Anyone of any intelligence? No. forget I aksed.

Foxy wrotte..."They [aboriginals ]ask only to be heard in decisions made about them. A practical reform. Not a veto, but merely a voice."

Oh I get it. They just want to be able to vote. Well I say its about time they got the vote.....oh wait!

" Here's the harsh reality: Our forebears took this country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to give it back."

Well I for one think we should give it back to the original inhabitants. Does anyone know where we can find a 200 year old native? Because they're gunna be rich.

"And the highest form of ignorance is when someone rejects something they don't know anything about."

That's OK Foxy, we'll agree to overlook your faults

Foxy,

This is a discussion forum. Therefore you have to be prepared for opinions that don't agree with yours. However you are not obliged to read any opinions that seem to distress you. But you certainly are not entitled to stop people from airing their views. None of us are.

Do you have any actual opinions of your own, not just those regurgitated from Google ?

Joe

I must be as think as a brick? For the life of me, I don't understand what the problem might be by permitting our indigenous people to have a voice or opinion on issues that are being determined on their behalf, in Parliament? Indigenous advisor's or counsellor's, to the Minister in the relevant Portfolio would be one measure if they don't already exist?

I'm not suggesting for a moment, that a Third House be established, as it would create even more dislocation for the elected Government in power. If anything I'd remove the Senate, as they've done in NZ. Anyway, that's off-topic.

I guess we all should acknowledge, the traditional means of having a voice in our parliament is to seek election to one of the seats. Over the years, there've been several well known Aboriginal politicians, some were very good, while others have carried on like a wrecking ball.

Hi O Sung Wu,

They already do exist: the Prime Minister has an Indigenous Advisory Committee reporting directly to him. There is an elected Assembly of First Nations.

There are Indigenous TV stations, radio stations, journals and newspapers, Indigenous members of parliaments all around the country, including the Treasurer of WA, Ken Wyatt's cousin?nephew. And an Indigenous Minister for Indigenous People.

There are many thousands of Indigenous organisations. There are national peak bodies in many fields of concern. There are outstanding spokespeople.

If they all spoke together, it would be deafening.

So how come they are so quiet ? Or is there some sort of claim that they are not listened to ? Yes, Indigenous communities are afflicted with many very difficult problems, which, in the long run, only they can resolve: the Indigenous community claims to want less government involvement or intrusion in their lives. So what's the real agenda ?

Joe

mhaze,

Don't find fault with what you don't understand.
Correct your own first.
Still I guess it's a cultural thing for some. They find
fault like there's a reward for it.

Joe,

My sources are not limited to just the one search engine.
They include books and articles, peer reviewed, including
abstracts, original written works, diaries, interviews, surveys,
original research/fieldwork and research published in
academic journals, and much, much more. It's an
occupational habit. But, Thanks for asking.

o sung wu,

You are most certainly NOT 'as thick as a brick', and your concern about people having a say is commendable. But, all Australian citizens do get a say via our democratic system of voting and the obligations of the people we vote for. We don't always get the politicians we want; we don't always get what we want even from the politicians we want. But, winning and losing is the same for everybody; citizens are all equal before the law, no matter what we look like, where we came from, or how long we've been citizens.

As I've said previously, all minorities are at liberty to maintain their culture as long as they obey Australian law and don't force it onto other people. There is no hierarchy of minorities - certainly none based on race. And, as Joe points out, indigenously connected citizens have a truck load of cultural activities, organisations, communication organs etc., as well as the other privileges and responsibilities all Australians have. The hoo ha about Recognition and a special voice for - 3 or 4% ? - of the population - is all about social engineering and very slippery and dangerous mischief.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You are a ray of light on this forum.

We have to remember the patriotism in the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander soldiers who fought in
defence of Australia's Constitution and the Crown's
sovereignty, long before they were recognised as
citizens. They came home to a nation that excluded them
and were denied the medals and soldier entitlements
provided to their white counterparts.

Two of Noel Pearson's great-uncles served in France and
came home to discrimination and no recognition for their
patriotism.

Australia's constitutional arrangements empowered such
policies. The Constitution still enables parliament to
take necessary Indigenous-specific measures. These
measures are often not as effective as they could be, and
the gap between us widens.

Is it really asking too much for Indigenous peoples to have
a voice in the constitutional compact, such that their
imput may improve such measures?

Such a mechanism would encourage dialogue, sharing, and
"mutual respect and comity"between the parties. Inclusion of
the First Nations would strengthen our national unity.

Division arises from exclusion, not inclusion. Through
participation, inclusion is fostered.

Foxy,

"The Constitution still enables parliament to take necessary Indigenous-specific measures."

And the plethora of articulate bodies and individuals, including MPs, will surely ensure "that their input may improve such measures."

Joe

Joe,
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 you 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.

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

Government cannot solve people's problems.

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.

Hi there FOXY, TTBN, & LOUDMOUTH...

Hi Joe...

Thank you for acquainting me with some of the organisations representing our indigenous people. I must admit, I hadn't realised just how many there were. I wonder though, do all these various bodies discharge their functions & duties faithfully? Particularly those responsible for the distribution of benefits, both equitable and honestly? I've noticed on past occasions Joe, when Aboriginal people were part of the Topic, you seemed to know, a hell of a lot more about them than I do? I certainly could've used your knowledge, the first time I was sent to the bush. (Wilcannia) was my first job. Thank goodness, most of my crew there were very experienced.

G'evening to you TTBN...

I believe what you say is absolutely correct. Do you think perhaps they may have 'too much' representation, more so than any other cultural group, thereby causing substantial confusion among many of those who reside in isolated communities?

If so, I wonder if most of them believe their requests, outlining their many needs, are getting through to Government. And not being 'muddied' in the process by too many (paid) lobbyists? Or do you think a few self-interested individuals, who make extraordinary claims of having some remote connection to the Aboriginal community, only wish to get their noses far into the generous pot of goodies, strictly reserved for indigenous people? Or has it all been unfortunately lost in translation, accidentally or mischievously? It's trendy and often financially rewarding, to claim to have some Aboriginal blood?

Hi there FOXY...

Many thanks for your kind words. I couldn't agree more. Many of our indigenous black men acquited themselves bravely in times of war, and all theatres of war. My boxing coach for over three years (Vince BUNDA, an Aboriginal, M'Weight), was in the Military with me; I was 17, and you might say he taught me much — not only ring craft, but about life in general and being and acting maturely and responsibly with girls. An outstanding figure to model one's character upon.

o sung wu, I put this question to you, because I have had too many questionable answers in the past, but I will get the correct answer one day, I will find the correct question and ask the correct people, then, and only then, can I feel secure with the truth.
The question is;
How many of those 'claiming' to be Aborigines, are of true blood, where their mother and father are of true blood, or have NO European blood in their ancestry?
My reason for asking is that I and other aboriginal elders have commented that the wannabees stop calling themselves aborigine just to collect the benefits.
The underlying basis of the question is in line with this topic and why there is current or level of resentment and racism towards the blacks,in this country.
Other races are also represented in this context but for different yet similar reasons as the blacks.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Australia is a nation of three parts: its ancient
pre-colonial heritage, its inherited British
institutions and its multicultural achievement.

The Uluru Statement affords a unique opportunity
to embrace the most Australian part of ourselves,
and to do so in a way that upholds our successful
constitutional system.

This would be a belated recognition of the most
ancient part of our nation.

Formal inclusion of the First Nations would be a
deeply patriotic move, not a divisive one.

Indigenous peoples were the constituency left out of our
nation's unity pact. They weren't at the negotiating
table with the Founding Fathers, so they weren't
included in the compact. The Constitution recognised
neither their voice nor their rights.

Belatedly correcting this unfair omission by guaranteeing
the First Nations a voice in their affairs would be
a pragmatic inclusion, in keeping with our constiutional
culture and reality. A fair say in their own affairs.

As I've stated numerous times the Constitution still
enables parliament to take necessary Indigenous specific
measures. These measures are often not as effective as they
could be, and the gap between us widens.

Is it really asking too much for the Indigenous peoples
to have a voice in the constitutional compact, such that
their imput may improve such measures?

I guess the choice will be for the Australian voters to
make - if a Referendum will be held. We shall see what
kind of country and society we want to have.

Foxy, what you propose will not engender inclusivety, but exclusivity. You dare to hold one race above all others and yet you say we are multicultural.
We are no longer a country of singular values, yet we vote and move amongst each other as if we are.
If the blacks get what you propose, it will further widen an already wide rift and resentment for the blacks.
By your continual badgering and banging on about the poor hard done by blacks, you are only making things worse for them and thankfully so too the chance of them ever getting a special seat, for special treatment in govt.
Your are thinking of another place, this is not the UN.
Remember, we ALL have special needs!

ALTRAV,

I can see that we are going to have to agree to disagree
on this one. We are poles apart in our thinking.
Soon we will all decide if and how Indigenous Australians
will be recognised in the Constitution.

It will be up to the voters to decide.

Un abbraccio.

Hi there ALTRAV...

An interesting question, however, I cannot back up my opinions, with any substantiated facts or figures - I'll leave that to the various theoreticians to do that.

Empirically speaking, some individuals I've had to deal with, both as a Detective & in uniform, claiming Aboriginal heritage, I believed to be deceitful. I can't claim any expertise of indigenous folk. But I do contend I know a legitimate 'black fella' (a term they frequently employ themselves) when I've met with one.

While it's true, some have certain features, and complections that would pass as Europeans. But this tends to be more atypical than the rule. After a while, one does tend to recognise those who can legitimately claim to be of indigenous heritage. Police GO's & GI's stipulate how we must deal with individuals claiming to be Aboriginal. And the burden of proof lays with Police & the Crown to prove otherwise? Especially those in cellular confinement. Too many rules to share with you in this limited Site - but they are afforded some additional protections, above and beyond what others can expect?

Upon an arrest, police are required to employ a set of rules, called the 'Judges Rules,' which in my time were nine (9) in number. One you'll recognise; {'...you are not required to say anything, however, anything you do say, will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence against you in a Court of Law...'}. The Americans call it the 'Miranda.' Both are for the (legal) protection(s) of the accused person. Another 'Rule' - {The person arrested must be informed of the real reason for their arrest}.

Those of Aboriginal blood, are not only entitled to the protections enshrined in the nine (9) 'Judges Rules,' that apply to you & me; but a further ten (10) rules called the 'Anunga' (sic) Rules, that arose out of a High Court judgment, some Sixty years or so ago. I hope this goes in some small way in helping you with your inquiry ALTRAV?

Dear o sung wu,

It is an interesting topic. What makes someone Aboriginal.

Perhaps looking at what makes someone a Jew in the eyes of the State of Israel. To enjoy the embrace of the "Law of Return" which gives someone living overseas the right to become an Israeli citizen one needs only one grandparent to have identified as Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

This incidentally was the same test applied in Nazi Germany to decide if you were off to the ovens.

Now of course there are many blue-eyed blonde people living in and being accepted as Jews within Israel.

If you don't see a problem with the approach taken by Israel then what would prevent you extending the same criteria to a person's aboriginality?

Steely, Oh I see a problem alright.
Firstly, like the reasoning of the NZ govt, the matter of who you are is not the same as what religion you are.
The KIWI model says that if your parents are Kiwi, then it matters not where you are born, you are always Kiwi.
Now I agree with this but it must be seen as two things, one is a govt thing.
The other is a genetic thing and so, to that end if you're born in Australia, then you are Aussie.
But because your parents are both pure blood Kiwi, I'm sorry but genetically you are Kiwi.
So even though your passport will say you're Aussie, the NZ govt says you're not.
This is an on-going issue.
Now if we are talking about Jews, if I understand correctly, to be Jewish, is a religion, you can be born anywhere.
I'm not sure but I imagine the fact that Jews have so many special dispensations around the world, that their case is unique.
Steely again you choose one of the extraordinary examples or cases.
The example which best describes the correct answer is; because an aborigine is someone who has descended from a blood line going back for thousands of years, they can only be called an aborigine.
When two aborigines mate, their offspring will be, by definition and blood, an aborigine.
This is the terms of reference for any race, an unbroken lineage or bloodline.
On the other hand, and what is more prevalent today, is that because of the 'contamination' of the blacks bloodline by the insertion of Europeans on the Aussie landscape, we began seeing mixed blood offsprings.
These children, again by definition were not aborigine.
They simply were not because they were of mixed parentage, and so what they were was Australian.
Like anyone of mixed blood they could refer to themselves as an Aussie Abo or an Abo Aussie, but NOT aboriginal.
To put a more light hearted spin on it they were not aboriginal because they were no an 'original abo'? (pun intended).
continue.............

continue...........

Then we come across the case where, for example, a Frenchman and an Aussie have a kid, this would be classified as an Aussie, genetically, because one parent was Aussie and he was born in Australia.
If both parents happen to be, say French and the child is born in Australia, well his passport would say he was Aussie but in fact he is French, because he is a pure blood Frenchman.
I have heard wannabee black's suggest they 'feel' aboriginal, or they relate to the land as an an aboriginal.
Well good for them, but they are not aborigine and they are not genetically correct.
I see it as a test of several factors both parents X and X then offspring X.
One parent X the other Y the offspring born in Y then two out of three the offspring is Y.
And so on.
I hope this is clear enough for most.

Legally an "Aboriginal Australian" is recognised as
a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or a Torres
Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community
in which he (or she) lives.

Today about 3% of Australia's population has Aboriginal
heritage. And, Aboriginal Australians are still struggling
to retain their ancient culture and fight for recognition
and restitution from the Australian government.

The Victorian government is currently working towards
a first-of-its-kind treaty with its Aboriginal population
that would recognise Aboriginal Australians sovereignty.

What would we do without Dr. Google ?

When I was working in Indigenous Student Support at one university here in SA (albeit an insignificant uni in an insignificant state with very few Indigenous people), back in the days when very few Indigenous students were finishing Year 12 (VERY different now), one would get the occasional person who, one suspected, was not Indigenous. When asked, just as a matter of curiosity, who they might have been related to, they got dodgy (some people are lousy actors) and claimed to be from far away, usually from some obscure town in Tasmania or WA.

No worries, I'd say, since one could easily ring up a local Indigenous organisation - what, your mother or father or both ? Usually mother. Oh, what was her maiden name ? Um, she didn't really know, she was stolen generation. [So how did this person 'know' he/she was Indigenous ? I'm such a cruel bastard].

Or, if they hadn't planned well, from a local country town. Oh, my wife's auntie lived there, I'd say, did you ever know her or her kids, they might have even gone to school with you. No, I didn't live there, I left as a baby.

Okay, I'd say, just fill out this family tree and we'll take it from there. [Goodbye].

One bloke got into a more 'friendly' Indigenous program and later was their Aboriginal Scholar of the Year, and scored a plum job in Canberra in policy development, and then one back here in SA. Others I was a bit uncertain about. Usually Indigenous people are happy to let you know who they're related to, in case you know one of their rellies. So the equivocation was a give-away. With others, it's like playing some blind card game: do you have an ace of spades ? No. Do you have a six of diamonds ? No. Do you have ....

Joe

Loudmouth you cannot believe how wonderfully enlightening and vindicating it is to read your postings on certain topics.
Had I had the gall to cant the same words, stories and events you have, I would be abused and vilified from one end of the forum to the other, which has been the case thus far.
It appears we are not allowed to question certain people and what they say, and simply take them at their word, or anyone else's for that matter.
I must admit I am surprised at your candour as it reminds me of the 'pigs' (just one of the endearing terms we used call you lot years ago) of our day who were more like 'mates' than your enemy, and so unlike the 'pigs' of today. (todays lot are not endearing, they really are more like 'pigs')
You were, in the main an OK bunch, back then.
I find comfort in reading your comments.
Keep it up.

Loudmouth sorry I meant o sung wu, I still had your entry in mind when I started writing in response to osw.
I appologise to both of you, as I had a response in mind for your comments as well Loudmouth, but now I find I've lost my train of thought.
I might respond later to you loudmouth, if I can get back on the bike.
I was distracted momentarily and will have to get back to this after I deal with this distraction.

No probs, Altrav :)

Foxy, care less what your kangaroo court says about 'recognising' someone as something they're not, merely because a 'group' say so.
And as for the Vic govt doing whatever they are doing, there are no grounds for recognition or restitution.
The absolute arrogance.
Foxy you are no better by promoting these agenda, they and by association you are complicit in a major deception and fraud, which ultimately is major theft.
So as not to allow you to gloss over it or deflect, look up google for the meaning of 'complicit'.
They are NOT entitled to the gratuitous bounties they have enjoyed thus far, and still do.
I, unlike you, believe that Aussies are not as brainwashed as you, and because of this, will not allow the govt to give away any more 'benefits', or anything for that matter.
If they are struggling to retain their ancient culture, I don't see how giving them money and benefits will in any way help them with their culture, because there is an ulterior motive, and it has nothing to do with culture or heritage.
You can't be serious, and if you are, you have a problem

Loudmouth, I recall now, the reason I was going to repond to your comments was because I felt the same response to osw and so I basically felt as though I could copy what I said to osw, but obviously without the comic references to the 'pigs'.
You both exemplify people of maturity and experience.
Something I always appreciate.
Look forward to more of your comments.
Another I have enjoyed but have not heard from lately, is canum malum, wonder where he has been hiding?
Keep up the good work.

Whew.

Joe,

What would we do without Dr Google, you ask?

Well, you could also go to other search engines
and databases, you could go to original works,
diaries, books, articles, original research,
fieldwork, research published in scholarly
academic journals or alternatively go to your
state and national libraries and ask a librarian
for help.

There's also essays written by people like -
Megan Davis, Damien Freeman, Stan Grant,
Jackie Huggins, Nolan Hunter, Rod LIttle,'Shireen
MOrris, Warren Mundine, Noel Pearson,
Galarrway Yunupingu, to name just a few.
Then there are the diaries of explorers,
pastoralists, protectors, and historians.
Bill Gammage is worth reading.

But, perhaps you're right - stick with Google.
It's an easier option for you.

A multicultural Pom, with the grand old English name of Sahil Mahtani, has written a tongue-in-cheek piece demanding that Britain’s Anglo-Saxons deserve reparations for the Norman Conquest of their country. Funny and absurd, it highlights the equal absurdity of our own Recognition and Voice nonsense.

He refers to the enduring devastation, war and genocide that occurred in 1066. The Anglo-Saxon ruling class was was replaced, the church had to surrender to foreigners, English was replaced as the official language by Norman French.

The Conquest of Britain by the Norman invaders has had lasting effects, according to Sahil Mahtani. Norman surnames are over-represented by 25 percent in Oxford and Cambridge. Cambridge “drips with Norman money”. Graduate descendants of the “rapacious Norman invader” class earn 400,000 pounds more during their lifetimes than do graduates from non-Norman universities. And, it’s been like this for ‘31 generations’.

There should be Royal Commission to trace the present day descendants of the Norman “usurpers”, and they should pay a tax to the Anglo-Saxon victims for the invasion and genocide.

Mahtani knows that there will be the “inevitable” moans from descendants of Normans that they were not personally responsible, but this is “feeble prattle”. (Sound familiar?).

And, that’s not the end of it. One Royal Commission into injustice will not be enough. Once the Anglo-Saxons have been compensated, the descendants of the ancient Britons will need to go after the Anglo-Saxons who took over from them. The enormous cost of all this, could be retrieved by the Scandinavians in compensation for all the raping and pillaging by the Vikings.

Constitutions confer power upon parliaments, which
are, by definition, political organisations. The
purpose of constitutions is to organise and manage
political processes through the creation of political
institutions.

Internationally, many publicly funded institutions empower
First Nations with a voice in their own affairs, often
accompanied by constitutional provisions, recognising and
protecting Indigenous rights.

Norway, Sweden, and Finland have publicly funded Sami
affairs, New Zealand has the publicly funded Maori
Council (and reserved Maori seats) to ensure the
Maori have a voice in Maori affairs; 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 Indigenous peoples and the
nation state, to ensure Indigenous peoples
can participate fairly in the nation.
Representative arrangements are part of such
measures.

Hi there ALTRAV...

I'm sorry I hadn't realised you were addressing me in one of your posts. As you can probably gather, I'm very much a blue-collar person, who will never cite some academic opinion, on a particular topic, other than statements made by the individual(s) I'm responding too.

I don't think anyone is smart enough to determine a person's ethnicity purely by meeting and speaking with them momentarily. But as a copper, stationed in an area with a high (Australian) indigenous population, you do tend to know, after you've been talking with them for a while, precisely who they are.

As an example, when I did a stint at Redfern (Sydney), and we had an area under our local Command, very near the Redfern Railway Station, known as the 'Eveleigh St.' sector. Four densely packed Streets, bordered by Eveleigh, Holden, Vine & Caroline St's. with Eveleigh Lane, abutting behind. This group of streets roughly in a square had a very high concentration of blacks 'living' there in conditions that I could only call squalor.

I kid you not; it was a veritable war zone! Drunken, brawling, rowdy, drug-affected individuals, all spoiling for a decent stink with the coppers! Egged on, by several people of questionable Aboriginal heritage, who delighted in nothing more, then agitating and stirring these people, to belt the 'bejesus' out of the coppers. It got so bad when I was there. I (think) it was 'Four Corners' that did a TV Show dedicated to all the trouble. It was the 'stirrers' we wanted to lock-up, but 'the best laid plans of mice and men'?

The only voice of reason in those violent times, was an Aboriginal lady called 'Mummy SMITH', a really wonderous person who knew exactly where the troubles laid?

Foxy,

Both Canada and Australia fund their respective Assembly of First Nations. But your surfing through Google is commendable.

It strikes me: do you actually know any Indigenous people ? I don't mean someone on the same Committee, maybe a few years ago, but an ordinary person, here and now ? Your comments have a sort of extra-planetary sound about them.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I was honoured to be mistaken for you by AltRav.

I have some second-hand association with Redfern: my father was born there, and my mum's father died there. My sister was beaten up there on the railway platform by an Aboriginal bloke who pinched her purse. Those were the days.

Many of those inner-city suburbs are familiar by word of mouth (I'm a Bankstown boy myself, we moved up in the world): as a kid my mum lived in Glebe, her mum later lived in Surry Hills and died in Annandale, an aunt in Woolloomooloo - all back in the days when a hovel was a hovel: my grand-dad's had a dirt floor, it was eight or maybe ten feet wide. If only he'd lived to 100, or 120, he could have sold it for a fortune to a Green. Or a left-Labor functionary.

Have you thought about writing up your memoirs ?

Cheers,

Joe

Ttbn,

Your thread has got me thinking. Indigenous groups are trying to revive their languages, maybe all 500 or more of them, a task difficult enough for a team of linguists, let alone someone with the basic 200 words or less. Indigenous languages were full of hunting/gathering terms (and farming terms in the Torres Strait Islands), which have largely fallen into abeyance, at the same time as new terms have not been devised. I wish them every good luck.

Fortunately for Indigenous gatherings, they have a language which is almost universal, spoken from one side of Australia to the other, from universities to communities. It's called English. That's their language as much as it is anybody else's.

Of course, it may be spoken in a vast range of dialects and accents - my wife had a charming Pt McLeay accent from the lower Lakes, it was a shock recently to hear her voice on tape.

Different groups - at least in SA, an insignificant state - have slightly different accents (phonies, please note: copy an Indigenous accent). But they all can understand each other through a common medium for the first time in 60,000 years: English.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

What about the more remote people who, we are told by the 'experts', don't understand English. Is that another example of us being had a loan of? I have never met a person of indigenous background who couldn't express themselves as well as, if not better than, I can.

Joe,

You keep referring to my use of Google
as being "commendable." I don't use
Google all that often. You should not
judge others by your own standards -
commendable as they may be. I am trained
in the use of more than one search engine
as I stated earlier.

Do I know any Indigenous people? Yes, quite a
few. One that stands out is -
the Director of our nearby Mia Mia Gallery.
Colin McKinnon Dodd.
Who introduced all of us in the city to
his Gallery and people. His much loved Gallery
attracted over 250,000
visitors a year, and specialised in not only
Aboriginal artists, musicians, actors, dancers,
poets, story-tellers and sculptors. But it -

was a very popular spot for tourists, school students
and school groups.

Learning about Aboriginal
culture was a wonderful feature of the gallery.
It was in a bush-like setting and very much loved
by everyone. Unfortunately it closed in 2013 - but
the work continues today at the City's Centre.

Anyway, Thanks for asking.

How about yourself - any Indigenous people that
you're still friends with? Any elders?

Foxy,

Not too many friends these days, I don't get around much any more :) But I do remember some of the 'elders' when they were kids and tearaway teenagers. Some of them do have very big beards, so they must be elders.

Ttbn,

There would be quite a few people in remote areas who don't have a good grasp of English. But fortunately, many of them have grandparents who do, who can help them out when they go to town for something, or need help with a document.

Of course, in spite of the ABC's coverage and film shots, the vast majority of Indigenous people live in towns: the percentage living in 'remote' areas is probably less than 10 %, and in very remote areas, 3 - 5 %. After all, there are more Indigenous people in the Sydney area than in the NT and Western Australia combined.

Cheers,

Joe

G'day to you LOUDMOUTH...

Hi Joe;

I know the Glebe area well, the site of Harold Park, Trots & Dogs and of course, Arundel Street Glebe is the present Site of the Coroners Court and below them, the Morgue. Even though the correct address for the Court, is Parramatta Road. I'm shocked to hear your Sister was assaulted and robbed, by an Aboriginal bloke on one of the platforms at Redfern Railway Station. It certainly can be a rough area around there, especially at night.

Again, I know Bankstown, Punchbowl & Greenacre pretty well too. I was part of the Lebanese (illicit weapons) Task Forces when I was a Detective. Another hazardous occupation at the time. That said, I always liked Bankstown and their vast Shopping Mall, and their terrific RSL Club.

You know my friend, your family sounds similar to mine. Back in the days of the Great Depression and the War. Both families dirt poor, yet they still worked their butts off, so we kids had bread 'n butter on the table at night!

Sorry, Joe, I'm well off Topic, so I best go. Thank you for your kind sentiments. I do appreciate them, very much indeed.

My memoirs? I think I'd bore everyone utterly senseless?

This article pretty much encapsulates sensible discussion:

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07/a-voice-of-division/

Joe,

This is better:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

We've heard your argument for decades. Nothing new there.

Foxy, did you just sideline loudmouth?
Because what you wrote tells us, no loudmouth my suggestion is better than yours.
Yet again you push your way through with more plagiarism and still pushing YOUR same old mantra and dogma.
I am predicting that just like the SSM thing, those people who could not be bothered to come out to do the 'survey' last time, will not make the same mistake next time in making it quite clear that the so called indigenous people do not get to realise their unjustified and arrogant demands.
First nations my Ar&e.
The truly 'first nations' people were in fact the convicts.
Even though I will cop the wrath of the great unrealistics, like yourself, it is far more reasonable and justified than giving the blacks one more hint of praise or shekel for having done NOTHING, and therefore are deserving of NOTHING!
Tell me what the blacks have done for the country or even for the people, or anyone for that matter, that they should be rewarded or even revered.
Foxy stop this baseless campaign trying to raise the profile and viability of the blacks.
Those who are aware of this campaign are well and truly over it.

ALTRAV,

More ranting from you does not a discussion make.
I am not sidelining Joe. Merely providing a
balance to the views he's presenting. That's
not plagiarism. It's called dialogue. And it's
what happens in discussions of social and
political debate, which is what this forum is.

How about you providing something of substance?
Ranting, does not count.
Neither does your beating the same ignorant drum.
It's wearing a bit thin.

Give us something to back up your claims that the
Australian Aboriginal people are worthless and
have contributed nothing. The evidence says
otherwise. So show us what you've got to disprove
the evidence of historians.

Put up or shut up.

Do some klutzes not know of Joe's published research, his website and his marital connections.

Foxy, you make it so easy, OK I'll take on your challenge I will now 'put up' and you will finally 'shut up', do I understand you correctly?
Right well, your challenge is too easy.
What I 'put up' to you, is all around for all to see, just how successful your poor downtrodden blacks are.
I give you their progress over the thousands of years they have been here.
It is non-existent.
There isn't any.
The blacks are not progressive and any attempt at trying to make them appear anything but people who have just 'settled' is futile.
Historians can spew out all these theories and quote 'actual' interviews which we are to take as the true account of the times.
Well no one has had the stones to respond to the question; if they were so smart in actually displaying an ability to engage in some new engineering and construction practices, why oh why do we not see them in a more advanced state or culture by the time the white's turned up.
As I said, more than likely the people who built the rock circles/houses, were wiped out by the warm and welcoming blacks, who would not harm a hair on anyone's head.
There are many other examples, but we know you don't want to hear them so I'll just release them as and when 'I' feel inclined.
I don't understand why you promote these inane causes.
It's almost as if you have something to gain by displaying this, what can only be described as extreme adulation for certain people.
I'm damned if I know why.
You really need to dial it down a notch, we're all getting a bit concerned.
Now that I've 'put up', I will, at my discretion remind you and take you at your word to 'shut up'.

Hi O Sung Wu,

As a kid, I lived in Greenacre when it was Chullora, on Waterloo Road. Our mum had taken out an order against our father. God knows how she (or us) survived. We went to half a dozen schools to keep out of his reach. When she re-married, a lovely, quiet, gentle bloke, we moved to Bass Hill, to a one-room place that he built near the paperbark scrub. And then to Penrith.

Exciting times for us ! Thinking back, we were remarkably self-reliant, getting buses and trains on our own at five and six. Our mum couldn't really be a helicopter mother :) Yeah, the Depression had a long shadow. But we got through all that, didn't we ? Tough little buggers.

Our greengrocer in Bass Hill, with horse and cart, was an Aboriginal bloke, with two pretty daughters, maybe eight and nine, a bit older than me. One lent me her comb to try to untangle my matted locks, but I probably gave her nits.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

You have mentioned before that, while some people in remote areas have trouble with English, their grandparents can help them out. This means that the situation has regressed; it is now worse that when Whitlam and Coombes decided that they wanted a 'living museum', with aboriginal people as the exhibits.

ALTRAV,

After European settlers arrived in 1788 thousands
of Aboriginals died from disease, colonists systematically
killed many others. At first contact, there were over
250,000 Aborigines in Australia. The massacres ended in 1920
leaving no more than 60,000.

The Constitution empowered laws and policies that denied
Indigenous people voting rights, property rights,
equal wages and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

Had the principle of equality been extended justly to
Indigenous peoples in the first place, Australia would not
now be grappling with Constitutional reform to ensure
Indigenous people receive a fairer go then they've had in the
past.

The political context exposes the hypocrisy - had a racial
non-discriminatory guarantee been supported by those who today
espouse "equality" Indigenous people might not now be asking
for a constitutional voice in their affairs.

Judging from your comments you firstly really need to
find out more accurately - the
history of our Indigenous people. Who they were and what they
did prior to colonial settlement. And why things changed
for them so drastically after the colonial settlement.

Still you're not alone in this. Many Australians are unfamiliar
as to what is being asked by the Indigenous today, and why.
Many don't even want to know. And that is what makes any change
difficult.

Australians have before us to guarantee mutual respect,
kindness and comity in the relationship between
the First Nations and the Australian government.

It's not asking much as I've stated in the past, to hear
Indigenous views when parliament makes decisions about them.
It is a modest and moral request. It is not beyond this
great nation to make it happen.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy,

Hmmm ..... the old 'Well, how do you explain .....' fallacy. There were many reasons why the Indigenous population may have seemed to decline from 250,000 to 60,000 - lack of immunity to diseases (TB could take people off in a month or two), grog, massacres, infanticide (common over most of Australia) and simple merging of people into the community. I'm always very sceptical about estimates of population off the top of people's heads.

Before the accession of British sovereignty, the population might have fluctuated between a quarter and half a million: at the onset of a drought, population in affected areas might decline substantially and keep declining until after the end of the drought; then take much longer to build up again. Before the next drought.

Of course, droughts had little effect on numbers of groups fortunate enough to be living along major rivers, but must have been devastating in areas where feed for animals was always precarious - i.e. most of Australia.

Paradoxically, the ration system - at least in South Australia, an insignificant state - meant that everybody was provided with food for the duration, including the able-bodied who couldn't find work. So people were more settled during droughts, not less, as before. That must have actually boosted the revision of song, dance and ritual. Of course, during droughts, people from 'way-out' came 'in' to ration depots; they weren't stupid.

Joe

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

G'day Joe _

By the sound of things we both did it pretty hard in those days, nevertheless, I wouldn't have traded those times for quids. As you say we trudged off to school on our own, no worries about some twisted bastard, molesting us in the process.

I would hasten to say growing up in the 1940s-50s though we never had the material things, it still was one of the best times of my life. The Chullora Drive-In was a regular haunt of ours back in the day. My first car was a Wolseley 1947 mod. 18/85 Horsepower, with twin SU Carbs. (standard). It would do 0 to 60mph in about 45 minutes, down a steep incline. It's best feature was a spacious back seat, very handy at the Chullora Drive-In! Cheers...Joe.

I surely MUST remain on Topic, sorry TTBN, my apologies.

AS Foxy has finished with this topic, my response will be in the form of a broadcast.
In dissecting Foxy's comments and submission, I find it necessary to give a baseline view on any objections to her propositions.
I believe that Aussies, in the main, do not side with Foxy's views because we do not believe we have caused the blacks any grief.
Whether it was at the time of settlement or through to and including today.
We are aware of the claims being made and their reasons for them, we just don't feel their claims are justified, for several reasons.
Firstly, we, the white man are NOT responsible for their plight, neither now nor in the past.
Secondly, we've been 'throwing' money at them for as long as we can remember, to no avail.
Thirdly, we do not trust the black fella's agenda with this push for self governance and all the reasons given.
Fourthly, and probably the most important point of all, is the idea that one group should get priority or beneficial treatment over ALL others is the ultimate slap in the face to the overwhelming majority who now 'own' Australia.
At the head of all this is a hugely misleading dogma that has been preached ad nauseum and is being pushed by virtue shaming people into submission.
People we have nothing to be ashamed of and we owe the blacks nothing.
Had they demonstrated that they were an advanced civilisation, and by our arrival we, destroyed their lifestyle and drove them back into the bush and back to a life of subsistence and homelessness, then I might be inclined to cede to some of their demands, but such is not the case, the opposite is in fact the case.
PS, just saw the news and guess who was being shown punching up a black woman in their 'living room'?
A drunken black guy, and they were under a tree in the park.
NO!
The blacks need to fix THEIR own internal problems, before anyone will take them seriously.
Till then, non-blacks must all stand firmly together.

ALTRAV,
But how to deal with the dumb Whites in the meantime ? The book reading ones ones who keep throwing fuel into the fire ?

Indy, your question is a pertinent and valid one, because one of the main problems I have found with people or debates today, is the clash of truth and fact.
I cannot believe the vast amount of conflicting and opposing books and documents or writings on a particular topic.
Why is it so hard to report the truth, not just the facts?
I fear it has to do with personal preference or a pre-concieved and long held, even if unfounded, view or belief about something.
This type of mind set refuses to accept anything which questions their long held beliefs.
What we must do is hold our ground and try to find truth in what they otherwise present/promote as fact.
Remember, truth and fact, are not always the same thing.

Dear, Oh dear.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32162214?searchTerm=pizarro%20missing&searchLimits=

Dear, Oh dear.
Yeah, well !

Indy, sorry don't follow what you and Foxy are saying.
Foxy, says, "Dear, Oh Dear".
Then you say, "yeah, well"!
I'm a bit thick, what does it all mean?

ALTRAV,
I meant yeah well, that's just her ! We've all tried to make her remove her blinkers but she steadfastly refuses. I think we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that common sense is not taken in by some people even if it is thrown at them.

Thanks, O Sung Wu,

Yes, the Drive-In was just up the road but we had moved by the time it was built. i recall a flooded quarry in between our place and the Drive-In site, maybe where the shopping centre is now. My mum said later that a bloke rescued my brother and me from a make-shift raft that we intended to sail across it. It's a miracle some of us survive our stupidity :)

Cheers,

Joe

Individual,

Mud and faeces slinging, does not count as common sense,
except by sewer dwellers, primates, and mental midgets
with an IQ of a fence post.

Foxy, you should write a book, you come up with some real pearlers, I gotta hand it to you.
Although no maybe that may not be a good idea, because you will get charged with plagiarism as we all know you don't have an original thought worth sharing, of your own.
Where did you copy your response from on that last retort?
That's right, you mentioned it once, was it the "The book of un-original comebacks"?
Keep it up Foxy, your nearly at rock bottom.

The story so far:

* . there is a multitude of mechanisms for 'voice';

* . a case for another, new and improved, 'voice' has not really been made;

* . the difficulty of ensuring that a 'voice' does not become a de facto Third Chamber, one with plenty of power but no responsibilities, has not been thought through; in fact, I don't think the 'voice' has been thought through at all;

* . most certainly, the need for inserting 'race' into the Constitution by recognising yet another 'voice' has not been explained;

* . the successful 1967 Referendum abolished 'race' from the Constitution, so many of us are mystified why it should be put back in, and in this cack-handed way.

Many of us may have the IQ of fence posts, but we honestly - yes, Foxy, honestly - can't understand these demands, except as yet more grabs for illicit power, lucrative employment and spite against the 'system'. We're starting to realise, some of us more belatedly than others (e.g. me), that the flow of demands will never stop.

Get into Google, quick, Foxy, and give us one of your succinct and brilliant rebuttals.

Joe

Loudmouth,
Foxy's last post is dirtier than any mud/faeces slinging so, expect the same.

ALTRAV,

Don't concern yourself about my writing.
I've got a whole stack of caustic quips.
A putdown for every occasion.

I realise of course - as Paul pointed out to you on another
discussion that English
is not your original language, nor is it
your second or third.
And your comprehension skills - well lets not talk about
those. That would be unkind.

You thrive on insults, you poor creature.
You need them to continue your
rants, barks, and raves. But even those are very limited
skills. However, it's all you've got.

Never mind, you do show us the prejudice, bigotry, and
mental midgetry that does exist.
All one can say is - "Dear, Oh Dear!

But even that you obviously don't understand.

Joe,

Pleased to help you out:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/after-uluru-australias-politics-of-contempt-threatens-the-soul-o/10095186

There you go dear heart.

Sorry, Foxy, it's no clearer.

Why can't the multitude of voices currently available be effectively used to persuade Australians of the need for some sort of statutory body, enshrined in the Constitution, which anybody can see would have great power to scrutinise each and every piece of proposed legislation, and yet have no responsibilities, not even the responsibility of explaining why any particular piece should be objected to - after all, it won't be a third chamber, will it, so explanation within the parliament itself won't be necessary, and actually can't be called for.

Certainly the government could legislate for another body to represent the views of Indigenous people, except that there is already an Assembly of first Nations - awfully quiet - and an advisory council within the PM's office. Also strangely quiet.

And a number of MPs in most parliaments. And media organisations. And peak bodies. And round five thousand organisations all over the country. Etc. Etc.

If you can't persuade me, then this issue is in trouble :(

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

We've been down this route before. Anything concerning
our First Nation's people you've made your mind up
a long time ago. And all you're really interested in
is shat stirring. I'm not interested in arguing with
you. It's a waste of time as I and others have
discovered years ago.

You're presumably an intelligent man and are quite
capable of doing your own research on what the Uluru
Statement is really asking for and what has yet to
still be decided as to how it will work. Look into
the matter yourself if you really want to know the
answers.

Cheers.

Foxy,

I've looked and looked, and read and read, and still can't see how any of it will help communities or families. Maybe I'm too practical :(

Maybe I've experienced too many scams and rorts and policy failures over fifty years, but to thine own self be true.

Joe

Joe,

As Associate Prof. Robert Foster of the University
of Adelaide and a specialist in Aboriginal History
would tell you -

" Ït's how you choose to spin it!"

You've obviously made your choice years ago.

Cheers.

Foxy,
have thought about a career in teaching snakes how to be venomous ?

Individual,

Thanks for the offer but I'll leave that to
Aussies like you. Wouldn't want to take
your job away. You're so good at it - it's
a cultural thing with you. For me it would
be rather difficult to do.

cont'd ...

Individual,

But hey, give me time - I'm learning so much
about venom on this forum. It seems to excel
in certain quarters especially.

Foxy,

Yes, I remember Bob Foster's remark that you partly quote, and what it was in relation to. Do you have the full article that it was from ? Wow, nearly five years ago.

Joe

Guys, guys, I think we may have pushed our little wallflower to the point of exhaustion.
Loudmouth I concur, i too am skeptical of the true and ulterior motives behind this, yet another money grab, via the guise of First Nations and so many other titles.
AS for the word "race", I am sure MOST Aussie's are repulsed by the notion that we have a very aggressive and selfish minority insisting on laws which will segregate and alienate us even more than we are currently.
But most of all they can see through their bull, that it's all about money, and nothing to do with self regulation.
Just find who are the people behind these agenda and who is really benefitting from these billion dollar payouts, and you will find the truth and the true culprits.
The blacks need to be told, to come into line and stop making insane demands based on an arrogant fallacious belief.
We owe them NOTHING, and if they don't stop this annoying and continual ranting and raving of demands, they will end up getting completely ignored, which is very near to happen soon.
I might remind them of the little boy who kept calling "wolf".

Altrav,

Maybe it's not as simple as that - the Indigenous elites are probably more interested in power than just funds (which will flow from power);.

And their 'left' spruikers are, as Gramscians, interested in bringing bourgeois society down, no matter how and no matter what the consequences may be; PLUS, as Marxist-oriented parties always have done, they assume that they can control the Indigenous elites and use them.

But I wonder which are the useful idiots and which are the puppet-masters. Or are they both duping each other ?

So the elites will never acknowledge any satisfaction with whatever concession they have screwed out of the 'system'. There will always be something else, which makes them ideal targets for the Gramscians and anarchists (and Trots as well, I suppose: are there still Trots ?) - so the Gramscians think. And of course, the Indigenous elites think they are manipulating the 'left'. All quite hilarious.

Joe

A very interesting and insightful article in today's Australian, by Henry Ergas: that a legislated body, for a period of trial, something subordinate to parliament, would be more workable, and testable. Highly recommended.

Joe

the Indigenous elites are probably more interested in power than just funds (which will flow from power);.
Loudmouth,
Not only that but they're also way more pale !

Loudmouth, would this not be just another department, group, body or entity to once more just do the same things the current fifteen departments, bodies or groups are already doing?
No I say, enough is enough, we are and have been doing more than is reasonable or justified for the blacks, and I know for a fact that if these jelly brained marshmellows ever woke up to the truth behind the financial handouts and leg ups we are throwing at the blacks, the public would be 'up in arms', and you would see a vastly different mood and opinion than we have thus far.
No I for one consider the blacks to be Aussies, and because of that should not be given special privileges over the rest of the 99% of Aussies.
I dream of the day when these scum bag politicians get exposed and the public actually grow some stones, we might see some of the pro-activity of the past, where the people actually revolted physically and stormed into parliament dragging these bastards out kicking and screaming to finally lynch them up to a fitting and justified end.
It would be some time before we would see any criminals attempting to run for office again, that I'll bet on.
Ah well, one can dream.

Henry Ergas has suggested a compromise position - that parliament legislates for an Indigenous advisory body rather than an unremovable body sanctioned by a change in the Constitution.

He suggests that, if after ten years, this body, subordinate and answerable to Parliament, has been performing efficiently, fully representative of the Indigenous population, and has been constructive in the interests of the Indigenous people, then the notion of a statutory body can be put to a Referendum.

I suppose such a legislated body would replace the current Assembly of Traditional Clans (or 'First Nations') and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council.

So what do intelligent readers (the great majority of OLO contributors, and all so good-looking too) think of that suggestion ? Too much ? Too little ? Too premature ? Too late ? Too limited - there should be local, regional and state bodies too ? Already too much - why not leave it to the elected Indigenous reps to speak up ?

Joe

Jacinta Price has suggested the likely development of the Uluru Statement:

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/07/15/power-inclusion-and-exclusion-my-concerns-about-voice

At last, some balance to the vague declamations about another 'voice'.

Joe

Loudmouth,
What about those indigenous indistinguishable from non-indigenous Australians ?
How do they fit into this ?

Hi Individual,

Yes, there may be a need for everybody to get registered,c if they can: that everybody who wants to make a claim, or vote in an Indigenous-only poll, has to provide their family trees. I can think of plenty of people who wouldn't make the cut, if that was required.

Oh, and perhaps a declaration of how long, or when, did each applicant know that they had Indigenous ancestry: from birth or from the age of forty ? From all of their relations around them, or from a bar-fly's rumour ? A bit of a difference .....

I know one woman who, I was told later, used to make all sorts of racist comments about Indigenous people, but when she 'discovered' that she had an Aboriginal gr-grandfather (really?), she got very interested in applying for Indigenous jobs: last I heard, she was a senior AEW, whatever the current terminology is. You've probably heard many similar stories ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, if I must be the voice of reason, then so be it.
I would like at least one realistic, tangible and objective reason WHY we must have a SPECIAL, anything to cater for just another minority which is already being catered to many times better than the greater majority, and for NO GOOD or OBVIOUS REASON!
We are ALL Australians, of which the blacks are too.
So if someone can give me a reason, I am very keen to hear it.
No subjective and ideological reasons will be entertained or accepted, so it better be good.
No mantra's or dogma's, I want to hear real and practical reasons.

Hi Altrav,

I'm obsessed with justice for Indigenous people, which in turn involves complete equality in every way. No more and no less.

So no, I can't, for the life of me, understand, after nearly sixty years of involvement, why there need to be yet more voices as well as the organisations, media, parliamentary representation, peak bodies, land councils, national councils, which all have voices already. So why aren't they using them ? Don't they have all the rights to express their opinions like anybody else ?

Mind you, over those years, I've observed so many rorts and scams and, frankly, stupidities, that I respond to every brilliant new idea with scepticism, rather than enthusiasm, much to my regrets: I would far rather believe without reflection, and accept without any qualification, just to go along with whatever cock-eyed idea is being floated.

Maybe it comes with old age, that every brilliant idea is pushing against a tide (or more likely part of the tide) of bullsh!t and idiocies, especially if it proposes no clear pathway to mend the difficulties in bringing about genuine family and community effectiveness, and diminishing violence and abuse in communities, as if they don't really matter. They do. They're the touchstone of Indigenous liberation, the alpha and omega, but about which the elites haven't got a clue or more likely don't really give a toss. So many of the 'leaders' are the enemy of Indigenous people generally.

Cheers,

Joe

Keith Windschuttle has published a very relevant paper now in Quadrant:

ttps://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2019/07/theres-more-to-the-voice-than-gleeson-says/

I would echo his reflections, and his suspicions that there will never be an end to demands on the Australian people, including the Indigenous people.

The story of the frog and the scorpion constantly comes to mind.

Joe

Joe,

You're obsessed all right - but not with justice for
the Indigenous people.

Here you go quoting the extremist Keith Windschuttle
again who imagines conspiracy where there is none.
Coming from the hard left and having switched to the
hard right when it was opportune to do so, Windschuttle's
paranoid style is understandable. He's had to earn his
stripes since swapping sides and,
like all apostates, his ideological
arguments are more extreme
than his more
established counterparts.

His writings reflect his attempt's to whip up irrational
fear. His objections are out of touch. As are yours

ALTRAV,

To keep you up to date - Anne Twomey who's a professor
of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney
explains why an Indigenous Voice would not be a third
chamber of parliament. She tells us that:

At Uluru in 2017, Indigenous Australians made clear that
the kind of constitutional recognition they wanted was
a living and continuing recognition rather than mere
words on a page of a little-read document.

They called for recognition through an ongoing voice to
Parliament about the laws and policies that affect them.

In rejecting this proposal, one claim by the government
was that this would be discriminatory and contrary to
principles of equality because it would give one racial
groups a means of influencing Parliament that is not
open to others.

But it must be remembered that it is already the case that
Indigenous Australians form the only racial groups about
which special laws are already made.

This is because they are the only racial groups that
lived in Australia prior to European settlement and
accordingly have continuing legal rights, such as
native title rights. Their continuing cultural heritage
is also entitled to special legal protection and
sustenance as part of Australia's national heritage.

If they are the only racial groups subject to special laws,
then it seems reasonable and fair that they should at
the very least have a voice that can influence the body
that makes those laws.

If established, the body representing Indigenous voices
would have its views tabled in the Parliament, so that
Parliament could be better informed when it makes laws.

It would not be the only body to inform Parliament.
There are numerous other bodies that already fulfil this
function, representing other points of view. They include
the Productivity Commission, the Australian Law Reform
Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and
the Auditor-General.

They all make reports directly to Parliament which are
tabled so that our law makers can be better informed when
they enact laws.

cont'd ...

Nearly a hundred years now, (in 1924), the notion of a Black State Movement was proposed in Adelaide by a retired accountant named Genders: the idea was for an 'inviolate' 'full-blood' State somewhere in the far north, where all 'full-bloods' in Australia would be collected and administered by a few missionaries and bureaucrats. 'Inviolate' meant that nobody else would be allowed in. The Movement recruited David Unaipon the bloke on the $ 50 note, a 'full-blood' himself, from Wellington here in SA, to go around the missions and settlements - at least in SA - to recruit people to go up there. Not a single person was interested: they said, why should we leave our own country to go and live on other people's country ? So the notion had died by about 1930.

And now it's being revised - only this time, instead of being a conservative - right-wing - concept (and a precursor to South Africa's Apartheid ideology), it is now somehow a 'progressive' - 'left'-wing - idea. Meanwhile, of course, the great majority of Indigenous people in Australia are living in towns and cities - perhaps an actual majority now live in metropolitan areas - and the proportion of Indigenous people who are of the full descent is probably no more than 20 % of the total. As well, of course, people are living their lives where they want to, and how they want to.

Sometimes, one suspects that either (or both) Indigenous leaders are not serious about making thought-bubble demands, there is a smell of the 'nyah-nyah' politics of spite and threat, AND/OR they are too clueless to think anything through. Perhaps, instead of those study tours to Canada and the US, some of them need to live in South Africa for a while.

There are more people describing themselves as Indigenous and living in the Sydney area than

[TBC]

[continued]

in all of the NT and WA combined. And more in the Brisbane area too. Most of the South Australian Indigenous population live in the Adelaide Census area. Most Tasmanian Indigenous people would live in Hobart and Launceston. Most Victorian Indigenous people live in the cities of Melbourne, Warrnambool, Ballarat and Horsham.

So where would a separate State be ? Who would pick up sticks and go there ? Or is the thought-bubble meant to encompass hundreds, if not thousands, of tiny clan 'nations' out on country ? Given that the thousands of Indigenous organisations can't seem to run a two-seated 'necessity', how does anybody intend to administer hundreds of mini-states ? From where - Uluru ?

Well, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time ....

cont'd ...

ALTRAV,

To continue with the explanations given by Anne Twomey,
Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
She further says:

Are any of these bodies mentioned earlier a "third house of
Parliament?" Of course not. None of them have the power to
initiate a bill in the Parliament. They can neither vote
on the passage of legislation, nor veto it.

None is a constituent part of the body that makes laws. It
would be exactly the same for an Indigenous voice in
Parliament. It could not be a third voice of the Parliament.
Simply because it would have no power to initiate, pass,
or reject bills. Its role would be to simply give a
voice to Indigenous views that could be heard within
the Parliament, in the same way as these other bodies also
speak to and inform Parliament.

If we are comfortable with the Auditor-General reporting
to Parliament and advising about the issues of financial
prudence and accountability then it is difficult to see how
we would not be comfortable with an Indigenous body
informing Parliament about matters that could improve the
effectiveness and utility of its laws in Indigenous
affairs and the efficient targeting of its expenditure.

The Houses of Parliament are not obliged to implement the
advice of the Auditor-General, but will
give it respect if it is sensible,
well-reasoned, and wise. It is hard to imagine that
anyone would argue that it is better for Parliament to be
ignorant and ill informed, its laws ineffective and its
expenditure wasteful. There can be no harm in listening to the
views of others and using them to improve out comes.

Why then do we need a constitutional amendment to give
effect to this proposal, when other
bodies already fulfil a similar role under
ordinary legislation?

cont'd

cont'd ...

ALTRAV,

An important aspect of the proposal is the moral
authority of the people. If, as in 1967, the vast
swathe of the Australian people voted in favour of
Indigenous Australians having a voice about the
laws and policies that affect them, then it would
not only provide a profound reconciliatory moment
in Australia's political history but it would also
impose sufficient political pressure to prevent
future backsliding.

Governments would be forced to make the new system work
and focus upon how to get the best out of it. It could
not be abandoned by neglect.

While the Commonwealth government was initially unsettled
by the Uluru proposal, it has allocated money in the
most recent budget to develop the detail of that
proposal further. This suggests that it has recognised
the underlying merit in it and is prepared to contemplate
it more seriously.

Perhaps with further consideration, both at the political
level and across the country the Uluru proposal which
at first seemed so confronting to some, will grow in
familiarity and be seen as a natural part of Australia's
evolution.

Just as the Australian people voted in support of the
inherent fairness and justice they saw as underlying
the more technical 1967 referendum proposal, they mauy
recognise the same essence in the Uluru Voice From
The Heart.

We should continue to have a provision whereby the Federal Government can legislate on race, there may come a time when a particular race is threatened and there may be no way of protecting its members.

Politicians are only interested in one thing: getting re-elected.

The Whites stole the land from the Aboriginals and marginalised them as misanthropes. The only way to truly reconcile Aboriginal people with the Australian political system is to give them their land back and let them have control over their destiny.

But instead the politicians, bureaucrats and business community are bringing in millions of Chinese (and now Indians as well) to displace the Whites as well as the Aboriginals. Well at least the Whites will now know how the Aboriginals have felt about the great dispossession that destroyed their people, lands, and cultures.

The fact that someone is dark-skinned imparts to him no special virtue, just as the fact that someone is Caucasian saddles him with no special liability.

Foxy,
WOW!
Talk about an emotional and passionate submission.
I have to give you full marks.
There is no doubt you 'wear your heart on your sleeve', and good for you.
But Foxy, you do know that there are the 'thick heads' as you would put it, like myself who do not agree with those who you promote, nor their promotions.
Where you promote goodwill and benevolence, I promote caution and vigilance.
You cannot simply set aside those people who disapprove of the things being proposed for the blacks.
We are suspicious of their true agenda or intent.
This suspicion is well founded by history and records.
The sad part is that the bad guys are mostly the whites, disguised as the ones helping and assisting the blacks in their quest for recognition.
Then there is the bulk of the population who feel that the Europeans settled here, and in doing so are in control.
Then there is the others like myself, who do not recognise the blacks as anything of note.
As a result I/we are offended by any attempt by anyone who would try to gain any kind of advantage over the rest of us, especially when there is no real or justifiable reason to do so.
As you keep reminding us, history is in the books and archives for all to see, if they wish.
The problem is we don't care, and any attempt at changing the status quo is seen as a threat to our very being.
Foxy no matter how many ways you or Twomey put it, it is offensive to make demands on the rest of the population when they are well and truly, over represented in every sector of society, from the parliament down.
I strongly suggest, those pushing the black cause, to look into all the groups, bodies and performance of same, and find the rot and kill it, so they can fully avail themselves of the myriad of offerings already in place.
As for changing this place into an ABORIGINAL STATE, forget it I/we will never allow that to happen.

Mr Opinion, I'm not letting you add to the adulteration of this topic by trying to infer some wrong doing on the part of everyone that isn't a borogine.
You are lying and attempting to twist the facts to make your point.
You do realise that by doing so, you render your point or comment, moot.
So to enlighten you somewhat; when the Europeans came along they were just the next lot of inhabitants to become Australians.
You see, if truth be known, the blacks were part of a mass migration coming from countries like Africa and India, to name but two, they were transients.
Like any transients, (gypsies etc.) they would have kept going if there was land further South.
In their transiency they could not go further South so they spread out East and West, in keeping with their usual M.O.
So they were not the original owners or occupiers any more than the Europeans were, but merely happened to be here when the next lot came along.
So in actuality, the blacks are no different or have no greater claim or ownership to this land than we do, but because we moved in and got on with our lives we are NOT going to be penalised or virtue shamed into thinking we have done ANYTHING wrong, especially stolen their? land and dispossessed them.
We have been more than accommodating and charitable in going way beyond what would be regarded as fair and reasonable to help the blacks when we had no reason or right to do so.
Your attitude maligns those, unlike me who have helped and still help the blacks today, by accusing us of anything but tolerance, kindness
patience.
We have done even more than throwing money, (lots of money) at them and their demands.
So I for one will not tend to be swayed or guilt tripped into giving more leeway to the blacks, let them clean up their own house first, then let's see what's left after the dust settles and all the thieves and charlatans have been evicted once and for all.

ALTRAV,

Thanks babe, at least for reading the explanations.
I'm optimistic that the Parliament and fellow
Australians will do the right thing by our
Indigenous people. As stated earlier - what's
being asked is not very much at all and while
the Commonwealth government was initially unsettled
by the Uluru proposal, it has now allocated money
in the most recent budget to develop the detail
of that proposal further.

This does suggest that it has recognised the
underlying merit in it and is prepared to contemplate
it more seriously.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next.

cont'd ...

ALTRAV,

I don't know where you get the notion that
we're going to be turned into an Aboriginal
State? All this is being asked is that they
have a voice in laws and policies that concern them.
For so long this has been denied and white people
have made decisions for them. This has not worked.
So we should all be interested in reforming the system.
Because if we keep doing what we've been doing - we'll
keep having the same failed results.

You can't empower people to take responsibility, if
they're not given any responsibility. That only
encourages dependency.

Give them back their land before the Chinese just take it from the Whites anyway.

Foxy,

Yes, I desperately hope that "fellow Australians will do the right thing by our Indigenous people", as you put it, and that all Australians will welcome their fellow Australians who happen to be Indigenous into a 'completed' and completely equal Australia - as, I think, the great majority of Indigenous Australians hope for as well.

In all probability, a referendum is a long way off, and even CJ Gleeson entertained the possibility of yet another body to represent Indigenous Australians which is legislated - maybe within this parliamentary term - by parliament and is completely subordinated to it. So no more ATSICs: if this next one goes down the same-old paths, then it can be abolished in an instant. Fair enough.

So it either genuinely works for the Indigenous people - not just for the aggrandisement of a few hot-shots - or it's gone. Sounds fine to me: after all, the Indigenous people of this country are going to be the people who elect the representatives to this hypothetical body, and if it betrays their aspirations, then it's doubly abolished. And given the rapid changes over the next couple of decades, maybe forever. So they've got to get it right, for the benefit of the masses of Indigenous people - and of Australia, eventually.

Joe

Mr Opinion'

Please define 'white''

I know about ROYGBIV, so confine your answer to people.

Dear Is Mise,

Only if you define non-White.

Mr OPinion,

"Give them back their land before the Chinese just take it from the Whites anyway"

It's your statement so it's up to you to clarify it for others.

Dear Is Mise,

No need to. Any thinking person can work it out.

Foxy, my 'notion' is enshrined in history and on record.
By this I mean, history shows us that we, the 'white fella', has been good to the 'black fella'.
The fact that the fair thinking blacks acknowledge and appreciate this is not in doubt or question.
What I am eluding to is that slowly but surely there has been a rise in the amount of assistance, money and governance given to the black fella.
Common sense tells us to be careful, and ask, where does it end?
A large part of the population is in disbelief as to why the blacks need to be pandered to and managed, so much?
Some believe they know the answer, and it ain't purty'.
Unless the group pushing for the blacks admit the blacks are not up to looking after themselves, and were not these wondrous people we are meant to believe they were/are, I cannot see the majority changing their stance on the blacks and letting them get a further grab at more power, which means money, and put the chance of their own state further up the ladder.
I always come back to the fact that we are ALL Aussies, and as such we cannot give preferential treatment to one group over another, apart from the political implications/ramifications, it is just not a starter.
Can you imagine if ALL the different races suddenly want special treatment and acknowledgement, for whatever reason, well I'll leave that one for anyone to answer.
Before you do, just give a quick thought to the Muslim situation and how we are being pushed around and manipulated by them.
Well at least the govt is, not me.
Other races have NEVER made such outrageous demands as the Muslims have.
If anyone had the right of being heard and given consideration, it would be the blacks.
If it came down to a VOTE, (not a bloody survey) as to choose between banishing Muslims or considering the demands of the Blacks, it would be an overwhelming show of solidarity for the blacks and an overwhelming rejection of the Muslims.

MrOpinion,

"No need to. Any thinking person can work it out."

But I'm confused so you need to spell it out for me.
I'm also not a thinking person and really dumb.

Help me.

ALTRAV,

I've gone to great lengths to explain things to you
as to why the Uluru Statement from the Heart is
important and deserves to be heard.

Our nation has unfinished business. After more than
two centuries, Australians will soon all decide if
and how Indigenous Australians will be recognised in
the Constitution. I tried to show you what constitutional
recognition means and what it could make possible:
a political voice, a fairer relationship and
a renewed appreciation of an ancient culture.

With remarkable clarity and power, Professor Anne
Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law at the
University of Sydney traversed law, history and culture to
map the path to change.

If you still don't understand. There's nothing further
left to discuss or say.

See you on another discussion. I'll leave you to continue
with your kindred spirits on this forum.

Cheers.

Foxy,

Our Indigenous people are recognized in the Constitution, they are recognized as Citizens of Australia, just like the rest of us; Australians without any special creed, or colour or politics.

Dear Is Mise,

Sorry, I cannot help you: you are beyond help.

Australian citizenship isn't worth the paper it is written on. Australia has a Chinese future and if you think I'm wrong about that then take a trip to Sydney and have a look for yourself.

Is Mise,

The following link may clarify things for you:

http://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Recognising-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-people-in-the-Australian-Constitution.pdf

"As I record in The Break-up of Australia, this is a political outcome advocated not just by the far Left but by self-declared conservative activists such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine. They want self-government and an independent legal system for each self-identifying Aboriginal clan." (Keith Windschuttle)

Keith Windschuttle imagines conspiracy where there
is none. He contend the "Aboriginal political class"
seeks constitutional recognition because it will
ultimately lead to their sovereignty. Windschuttle means
"sovereignty" in the separatist sense, and he claims this
is their secret agenda.

There is no secret separatist sovereignty agenda. This is
Windschuttle's attempt to whip up irrational fear.

There is a public separatist agenda, but those advocates
are in the minority and they don't support constitutional
recognition. Most Indigenous activists who desire separate
state sovereignty tend not to support constitutional
recognition because of its inclusive nature. To genuine
separatists, constitutional recognition is problematically
integrationist.

That's why seven dissenting sovereignty campaigners walked
out of Uluru. The convention was heading in too pragmatic
and inclusive a direction for their separatist aims.

This nuance is lost on Windschuttle, however, who tries to
assert that formal Indigenous inclusion in Australia's
Constitution somehow equals Indigenous exclusion and
separatism.

But the leap from constitutional inclusion to constitutional
separatism, and separate Indigenous sovereignty, is
unpersuasive.

Windschuttle is also unclear about what "sovereignty"
entails.

Equally imp;ausible is the idea that separate Indigenous
sovereignty might be established through a legal loophole
or unintended consequences arising out of an amendment to
the Constitution (an amendment that will need to be
approved by a double majority of Australian voters, not
to mention the majority of politicians and their legal
experts). The suggestion that the sovereignty of the
Commonwealth of Australia could be impinged upon or divided
by anything less than military force is fanciful.

Constitutional conservatives support the proposal for a
First Nations voice precisely because it respects
parliamentary and Crown sovereignty and upholds the
Constitution.

Windschuttle's objections are totally out of touch.

In an article not directly related to the Voice nonsense, aboriginal 'backgounded' man, Anthony Dillon, points out that aboriginal-heritage people "have levels of violence, child abuse, and foetal alcohol syndrome far above average", but the "professional blacktivists", squealing about racism and the Voice, are not interested in talking about that in their push for self-determination. Probably because what they want would make no difference to those real problems. They don't want to talk about the fact that aboriginals are hurting other aboriginals at "alarming" rates, either. No. It's all ranting about racism, history, and white Australia as the cause of these problems. Colonisation and the government are blamed for every problem facing aborigines.

Apartheid and special parliamentary conditions would not have any effect on the very real problems this particular minority is suffering.

It may help to have input from the communities
that are affected rather than having others
dictating to them and disempowering them.
That's why the NT Intervention failed. There
was no community consultation.

Foxy, for Christs sake.
What bl**dy community intervention.
If these are the very people you and your lot promote as being an advanced society with abilities such as agriculture, aquaculture, engineering, and so much more.
Then WTF happened that led them to end up in this sad and sorry state, and the indolent bunch we witness daily, half cut or sniffing petrol?
Foxy stop it with the disempowering BS, you are wrong.
If these people were so advanced as you have tried to imply previously, then A; they should have been more advanced when the Poms arrived,
B; they should be well and truly self sufficient and just as advanced as the Europeans of the day, and more so today.
But they are not, so either we take control of their lives (again) or we leave them to their own devices, NO ASSISTANCE whatsoever, finacial or otherwise, just like any other and all, Aussies.
Your last five lines of your last posting are just plain overeach and completely untrue.
LIES!

ALTRAV,

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

The current system of government control is not working
for the Indigenous people.
It should be reformed.

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 for
example would be greater if governments could better hear
Indigenous peoples' ideas to remove red tape and make
their land more economically productive.

The difference between Italian-Australians, Greek-Australians,
or White Australians, is that parliament makes specific
laws and policies about Indigenous people. There is no
native title act for Italian-Australians, because their
ancestors were not dispossessed of land in Australia.
Nor has there been an Italian-Australian Intervention.

When parliament makes laws and policies about the
First Nations of the NT, as they did with the NT Intervention,
the First Nations of the NT should have a fair say.

Whether you 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.

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.

Anyway, as I said previously - I'm all talked out on this
subject. I shan't be responding to any more posts.

Ah, sweet Foxy, so incredibly naive . :)

Some of us have been around the block in Indigenous affairs for many decades, but you come along and, after getting to know one bloke at a museum, are the authority. You know that no Indigenous leader or member of the elites would every have a negative bone in their body, they all love their people so much and want everything to go well for everyone. Yeah, right.

You can't see that, for a start, constitutional 'inclusion' opens the door to eventual constitutional ' exclusivity' and to pushes for all manner of special rights (which you probably would agree with) and separatism, from special clauses in treaties within the states, to demands from others for political sovereignty, i.e. either carving off a chunk of Australia and declaring it to be a separate state, or separate country, to a multitude of little chunks being carved off to represent each clan, and each of those chunks being funded from Canberra BUT completely running (or hiring whitefellas to run) their own affairs - a sort of Clayton's 'sovereignty'.

And when some groups get the bit between their teeth, they'll be demanding for all non-Indigenous people to be repatriated back to Whereverland.

I'm simply not interested in special rights for anybody - I don't know how I, as an equal citizen with you and every other citizen, can 'grant' more rights to some group than I or you or any Australian already have themselves.

I have no trouble with Native Title, which recognises the form of land tenure existing pre-Contact - it's standard British practice to recognise the forms of land tenure pre-Invasion/Contact/Settlement etc., i.e. Aboriginal groups having the rights (as even now, in SA) to hunt and gather etc. as they always had done.

Of course, the early ration system knocked that about a bit, especially the 'gathering' part:

Joe

[continued]

once the ration system was introduced, perhaps within a day or so, what woman would be silly enough to keep going out and gathering grass seed all bloody day, and grinding it half the night (cf. Sturt), when she can stroll down to the depot and get her pound of flour per family member per day, i.e. a two-pound loaf each per day ? [Have you ever tried eating a two-pound loaf of bread every day, for, say, a week ?] . And then sit and talk with the other women most of the day while the missionaries looked after the kids in school.

So the Contact certainly disrupted some fundamental pillars of Aboriginal society, e.g. the total subordination of women for sixty thousand years. Whether the Protector etc. could foretell what the consequences of the ration system would be or not, it meant fundamental changes to culture, ritual, women's role, etc., and the establishment of schools in Aboriginal languages (at Adelaide, Encounter Bay, Pt McLeay, Pt Lincoln, eventually up in the north-east, and later in the north-west, probably transformed the position of children in traditional society as well. So much must have changed quite early, Aboriginal adaptions to new phenomena, which have been going on ever since.

Aboriginal people are Australians, 1st, 2nd and xth, like the rest of us, with full unquestioned equal rights. I hope it stays that way and is never doubted.

Joe

Joe,

The Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to resolve
the fundamental moral problem that has tormented our
country since 1788: How do we create a fairer
relationship with the First Nations of this land?

The problem was left unresolved in 1901: Indigenous
peoples were not represented in the constituional
compact that made the Commonwealth. It was not answered
in 1967: the referendum empowered parliament to make
laws for Indigenous people, but it did not empower Indigenous
people with a fair say in respect to those laws. It
was not resolved in 1999: the proposed symbolic preamble
would have changed nothing, and it failed at
referendum.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They ask for constitutional recognition through a First
Nations voice in the Constitution. Not a racial
non-discriminatory clause, which was opposed by politicians. Not
uncertain symbolism in the Constitution.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about them.
A political reofrm. Not a veto, but a voice.

Properly understood, the Uluru Statement from the Heart
respects and appreciates equality over division, unity
over separatism, secure sovereignty over sovereign threats,
responsibility over passivity, and rationality over
sentimentalism. The Uluru statement offers a way to recognise
and empower First Nations of Australia to take responsibility
for their affairs, while upholding the Constitution,
respecting Crown sovereignty and unifying the country.

The problem is the Constitution has not ensured fairness and
equality for Indigenous Australians. It is time it did.
The Constitution confers upon Parliament a special
power to racially discriminate. This needs to change.

If that makes me naive. I'll wear that badge with honour.
And you Joe, need to go against your paranoid nationalism.

Foxy,

Where would we be without Google ?

"The Uluru Statement offers a way to recognise and empower First Nations of Australia to take responsibility for their affairs ...... "

So what's to stop them now ? And for the last forty or fifty years ?

Joe

Joe,

So what's to stop them now - the same thing that's
stopped them for decades.

The Australian Government.

As Scott Morrison declared - it won't happen on
his watch.

One can only hope this changes - and soon.
This unfinished business needs to be corrected.

cont'd ...

Where would we be without Google?

Speak for yourself. I've got other sources.
Oh, that's right - you've got your one blog -
"First sources?" How's that working for you?

Loudmouth, seeing as how Foxy has moved on, matters not, I was addressing this response to you as well even though it relates mainly to Foxy's comments.
I'm incensed that I am expected to give special sway to the blacks, simply because some people think it is justified.
I openly and steadfastly admit to not giving the slightest interest or credence to ANYTHING the blacks demand or expect us to feel guilty about so for the life of me I wish people like Foxy would just stop pushing this guilt trip as if there is any substance to the claims.
Things like Ayres Rock Statements from the Heart.
You see, Foxy and Co, refuse to see the subtle movement creeping in and without notice.
The bl**dy thing is called Ayers Rock.
This is NOT Abostralia, but if we don't stop this slight of hand take over of the blacks it will eventually be.
Today Ayers Rock, tomorrow something else, until we are paying the blacks to live in our own homes.
I am angered at the arrogance and cheek of these people to even consider such demands.
I'm beginning to think that not only is Foxy naive but by promoting these causes, also makes her arrogant.
I think the blacks have been more than rewarded and tolerated, to the point where enough is enough.
What I am trying to explain is already happening.
We can't go places anymore because of some BS con called, 'Sacred Sites'.
You would choke if you saw how many places are now out of bounds to the white fellas because of these Sacred Sites BS.
Oh but no we can still go there, nobody is stopping us, Foxy would say, but what she wouldn't say is that now, we have to pay the blacks for the privilege.
Who were scumbags who approved such stupid ideas.
Having the arrogance to ask is expected of these greedy un-entitled lot, but the ones who approved these things is to blame.
This trend, now a precedent, must not be allowed to continue but stopped and reversed.

Aaaaaand she's back.
Foxy, I thought you were finished with this thread, apparently not.
Anyway, as Loudmouth rightly asks and you reply with 'the Australian govt'.
You do realise that by your own admission and argument, the Aust Govt is US, don't you?
So, US, WE, the people are saying NO to this outrageous, arrogant, insulting and completely baseless without a shred of justification, grab for an unjustified recognition of something which never happened and are definitely, therefore, not entitled to.
You, being the only one who hopes this changes, and soon,the rest of us don't.
And as for 'this unfinished business needs to be corrected', NO it does not.
Stop pushing these fallacious and baseless claims, you are insulting the 99% very patient and tolerant Aussies with your stupid irrelevant claims.
How many times do you have to be told we did not dispossess anyone, we came we settled and we did not push them out into the water,they were and always have been on this land and in this country.
If you are claiming we have removed them from a piece of land they called 'home',then you are way off.
They have told us forever they are transient and the idea of 'owning' land was alien and completely unknown to them, their culture and their beliefs, so where do you or anyone else get off accusing the white fella of anything but trying to help them.
Just to put the final nail in your coffin, because you keep saying there is no ulterior motive to the blacks push for whatever they call it, just look across the pond to NZ, and see what a disaster their stupid kindness did to them and how that's now working for them.
The cops have been tearing their hair out because they get told by the Maori that they (the Maori) don't believe in white man's law, they have their own and so they abide by their own law.
That people is a taste of where this very possibly will end up.
It IS possible because it IS happening right now.

Something referred to as 'traditional law' has already been sucked up by our gutless politicians, without the benefit of a referendum: in a few months time, it will not be permitted by an unelected minority for anyone to climb Ayers Rock, slap bang in the middle of Australia, a tourist attraction belonging to all Australians. What a piss-weak lot white Australians have become.

ALTRAV,

For you to put a nail in my coffin as you put it
or have any kind of influence on me - I would
have to respect your opinion. And how on earth
can I do that when you really have no idea
what this topic is about or what's involved
here. You're coming across like some of the
typical Aussie bigots that lived in our
neighbourhood and who I used to avoid. And,
considering that you supposedly are of Italian
ancestry - that is so disappointing. to say the
least. I really expected more from you.

Anyway, I shall leave you to your kindred spirits
on this forum. There's plenty of them around.

Foxy,

"So what's to stop them now - the same thing that's stopped them for decades.

"The Australian Government."

With thirty billion dollars a year going into Indigenous communities, you may have to explain in a bit more detail how the Australian Government is stopping people from exercising their self-determination.

Or not. Now that you've got the hump, you can ignore this post. Up to you.

joe

Foxy, thank you, and you have a nice day, now y'hear?
Now back to business.
The fact that I have a certain background gives me NO special rights over ANY other Aussie, especially when it comes to matters involving other Aussies.
And that is the truth.
Heck I don't even have the right to my own life.
It's illegal to commit suicide.
I am clear and convinced in my own mind that even though I am Italian by blood, I am Aussie by birth.
Foxy has shown her hand again and her weakness, which betrays her and her views.
She calls me a bigot, that's OK I know I am, but she also fails to see that she is one too.
By her seeing me as a particular kind of person, then showing her displeasure at the realisation that I am not this person I should be, according to her, is just the type of thing she abhors herself.
I'm not sure what the allegation is exactly.
Is it that because I present as a foreigner, I should be stereotypical of foreigners and their compliance to an unfounded dogma because I am to humble myself being of foreign blood, and given the privilege or fortune to live in Australia, is that it?
I, on the hand am perplexed at her continual promotion of matters which are clearly not correct.
It is as if she lives with Alice; IN WONDERLAND!
There is absolutely no substance to this stupid unjustified push for giving the blacks a voice, or being dispossessed, in other words ALL the things she goes on about are a fiction created by greedy zealots and promoted by naive and unrealistic zealots.

ALTRAV,

An Englishman wants to marry an Irish girl and is
told he needs to become Irish before he can.

It's a very simple operation where they remove 5%
of your brain.

Anyway, the Englishman wakes up after the operation and the
doctor comes up to him looking all worried and says,

"I'm terribly sorry, there's been a mistake, to be sure.
We accidentally removed 50% of your brain instead of 5%"

The Englisman sits up and simply says,

"She'll be right, mate!"

I would like to address two issues.
Firstly, the Uluru statement was not representative of aboriginal people. Those who attended that meeting were not selected or elected by local aboriginal people, they were chosen by high level aboriginal people in positions of power. People like Patrick Dodson, who hasn’t lived in his home area for decades and has no idea of the problems happening there. Or Nolan Hunter, who doesn’t inform anyone in the Kimberley outside his selected group, when any important elections are being held.
And for Foxy, the issue of personal responsibility. I cannot even hazard a guess as to how government is stopping aboriginal people from being responsible for themselves and their families.
It’s not the governments job to get kids off to school every morning, fed and clean and having had a good nights sleep.
It’s not the governments job to keep their houses clean so that they keep healthy.
It’s not the governments job to provide a safe environment for kids so they don’t wander the streets at night because the streets are safer than at home.
I’m currently involved with the welfare of one of my granddaughters who lives in a remote community in the Kimberley. When I complained that the school hadn’t reported to welfare that she was going to school dirty and hungry and so tired she was falling asleep in class the response I got was, “ but half the kids in the school are like that!”
The problem Foxy, is not that the government stops people from taking personal responsibility, it’s that the government doesn’t reenforce it and aboriginal children are treated like second class citizens by their own families.
Change that, and the gap will close.

Foxy,

Fascinating ! So how much of yours did they take out ?

Joe

PS. I take exception to the misuse of the Irish in this way. If anything, scientific studies have shown repeatedly that the mass migration of Irish to England raised the English IQ by several points, but without diminishing the Irish average IQ at all. Win-win !

Yes, I made that up.

Joe,

Lay off the Vegemite!

Good to hear from a sensible, practical woman with actual experience of the problem , like Big Nana, as opposed to the ideological chunterings of one who is too daft to know she is making a fool of herself.

The fact that someone is dark-skinned imparts to him no special virtue, just as the fact that someone is Caucasian saddles him with no special liability.

Dear Big Nana,

There are two aspects to Indigenous disadvantage and
disempowerment.

One aspect as you correctly identify, is personal
and communal responsibility. All individuals must
take responsibility for their circumstances and
behaviour. Nobody is denying that. They must send their
kids to school, abide by the law and contribute to a safe
and productive society. There is no disputing the
importance of personal responsibility in addressing
disadvantage - Indigenous or otherwise.

The other aspect as mentioned earlier to Indigenous
disadvantage is structural - which many objectors to the
Uluru Statement deny. No person or community can truly
take responsibility unless they have power.

If government calls the shots through top-down policy,
uninformed by local views and preferences, then people
are disempowered. There is a structural and constitutional
dimension to persistent Indigenous disadvantage. Until
we address this dimension, the gap will not close.

Australia has come to expect abysmal Closing the Gap
reports. The current system is not working. It does not
produce good results. The systematic and structural
failure of policy-making is perpetuating disadvantage.

If you agree that the system is not working, you should
want it reformed.

You are correct that the solution is responsibility. But
responsibility requires two things: that people are
willing to take charge of their problems, and that
governance structure ALLOW and empower them to take charge.

The Uluru Statement speaks to structural disempowerment
because it is a document about constitutional 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.

You appear to prefer to keep the system as it is - despite your
own admissio0n that it is failing. Perhaps you believe that
continuous lecturing of Indigenous people to " take
personal responsibility" might produce better outcomes.

I doubt it will. To ensure change, the system must be
reformed to encourage and, indeed, mandate responsibility.

cont'd ...

The arrogance is mind-boggling.

More comebacks than Nellie Melba and Johnny Farnam combined.

cont'd ...

Dear Big Nana,

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, as I mentioned earlier,
would be greater if governments could better hear Indigenous
ideas to remove red tape and make their land more
economically productive.

We should remember that the difference between us and the
Indigenous people is that parliament makes specific
laws and policies about Indigenous people. There is no
native title act for Indian Australians, Italian Australians,
Greek Australians et cetera, because their ancestors were
not dispossessed of land in Australia, Nor has there
ever been an Indian-Australian et al, Intervention.

When parliament makes laws and p[olicies about the
First Nations of the NT, as they did with the NT Intervention,
the First Nations of the NT should have a fair say.

Whether you 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.

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

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.
And as a champion of responsibility -
you of all people should support such a reform.

Indeed we all should.

ttbn,

Keep rolling your eyes - you might find a
brain back there. :-)

Foxy, apart from the intervention, can you name any circumstance in the past few decades, where indigenous Australians have been subjected to different laws and policies than anyone else in this country?
And what constitutional power do non indigenous people have that indigenous people do not have? What power do white people have that gets them sending their kids to school every day, clean and fed? What constitutional power do white people have that gets them clean their houses and yards and providing a healthy Nairobi meant for their kids to grow up in?
What constitutional power do white peoples have that prevents them from neglecting their old frail people whilst still taking all their pension money?
What constitutional power do white people have that allows so much abuse of women and children, a practise that is thousands of years old in indigenous culture?
(Cont)

Foxy (cont)
I can tell you why the current system isnt working.
Not because indigenous people don’t have a voice. As Joe pointed out, they have literally thousands of voices. Millions of dollars worth of executive committees who control medical, housing and land rights issues. And who speak to government.
No, the problem is because aboriginal people are not being held accountable for decisions they make that lead to failures in health, education, employment.
Do you have any idea of the problems encountered by schools in the north and in remote communities? Of trying to teach kids who turn up late, hungry, dirty and too tired to learn anything?
And if teachers were actually brave enough to report these kids to child protection do you know what would get done? Absolutely nothing because parents aren’t held responsible and culture is deemed more important than health and safety of a child.
I recently stood before a magistrate in the Family Court and listened to him tell me that despite the fact that there is evidence one of my granddaughters is severely neglected, it’s more important she not be removed from country!
Animals get more protection than aboriginal al children because not only does the RSPCA remove them when they are neglected, they also charge the owners.
The gap will close when aboriginal people are treated the same as everyone else!

Hi Big Nana,

Foxy's contributions and schoolmarm admonitions to you remind me of a brain surgeon being advised by some bloke who's wandered in off the street. Your fifty years on the very front line trumps Foxy's Google any day. Keep smiling :)

Joe

Dear Big Nana,

Much as I acknowledge you own experiences -

I can not exclude - what people like Noel Pearson,
Megan Davis, Stan Grant, Red Little, Jackie Huggins,
Damien Freeman, Nolan Hunter, Warren Mundine, Shireen
Morris, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and Marcia Langton, tell us.

They are also sharing with us their learning, experience and
expertise at a time of great importance to the Australian
nation: when the people will decide whether or not
they will deal with the relationship between Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the settlers
who came after 1788.

As I see it, the nation is an an important crossroads -
either a real process of settlement will now take shape, or
the nation will turn its back on these issues.

What we've tried so far has not worked. I don't see the
harm in trying something new. They are not asking for
much. Only a voice to be heard on matters that affect
them.

I won't list here all the ways in which our First Nations
people have been wronged but there are many, and there are
terrible acts that can be found in archival records that are
available at all State Libraries.

The Uluru Statement has given voice to their
grievances and has set out the issues for assessment.
It takes us into a process where we can as
a nation get serious and look to a proper
settlement once and for all. We can
have peace and harmony in our future. But only if we take care
of this unfinished business and allow their voice to be heard.

Joe,

Your analogy of some bloke who's wondered in off the street
to advise a brain surgeon? You never know who you're
really dealing with in life. Best to think twice before
making these analogies. I know of quite a few cases,
growing up in the suburbs of Western Sydney where my
taxi-drivers were surgeons in their own countries
and where experienced surgeons were only allowed jobs
as hospital cleaners because their qualifications and
experience was not recognised in this country. Time of
"White Nation," and all that!

Foxy, first of all, there are no aboriginal nations, that’s just a modern catch cry the activists use. For the people actually living in the bush the term is tribes. When a traditional aboriginal person meets another, unknown aboriginal person, they don’t ask what nation the belong to. They ask what country they belong to. When that is established they starting trying to work out if they are related somehow, even to the 100th degree of separation. Another word used is “ countryman” which refers to all aboriginal people, not just one tribe or family.
As for the system failing so we should try something new, well, the most obvious solution is the easiest and that has never been tried so you can’t say it has failed. And I’m talking here about treating aboriginal people exactly the same as non aboriginal people. My aboriginal late husband was most adamant about this, it was his constant cry.
No special aboriginal health centre, no special aboriginal schools hospitals. No special hostels. He believed, and rightly, that not expecting aboriginal people to rise up to western standards of living and care would turn them into second class citizens, unable to compete with mainstream employment and education.

Foxy, if you want an example of an area that has been managed totally by aboriginal people for decades , then look at the aboriginal health system.
In the 70s, the building and management of aboriginal health centres began. Billions of dollars were spent building clinics, training aboriginal health workers, electing management committees who were all aboriginal.Putting aboriginal health workers and aboriginal liaison officers and interpreters into every hospital.
Since that time, every year, the government has hands over billions of dollars to aboriginal people to enable them to manage own health issues.
Every town pretty much has its own aboriginal medical health centre now, staffed by aboriginal health workers. The only non aboriginal staff are the doctors. In the remote communities aboriginal health workers support the nurses who work in the clinic and those clinics have their own aboriginal management committee.
So Foxy, seeing as how aboriginal health has totally been in aboriginal hands for nearly 50 years, why havent they solved the issue of poor health outcomes in their people.

Dear Big Nana,

But don't you understand - that is exactly what
the Uluru Statement is asking. They want control of
their own lives. They want to make their own
decisions. They don't want any more "special"
treatment from the government. They want to take
responsibility for themselves. It seems that your
husband would agree with this.

Foxy, they already have the chance to make their own choices. They can live on country, they can speak their language if they want to, they can practise their culture if they want to. Hell, they even force welcome to country and smoking ceremonies on helpless audiences. But those choices have to be within our laws.
Do you really want old men raping 13 year old promised brides?
Do you really want kids not to have to go to school?
Do you want wife beating, even murder to be legal because it’s a cultural custom?
What sort of decisions do you think they want to Change ? Do you want apartheid in this country?
And they have shown, via the medical services, that they don’t succeed when they manage their own affairs.
Currently aboriginal people are not expected to own up to their own responsibilities, and so we have children left in appalling conditions that I wouldn’t leave an animal in. Parents are not punished for neglected and abusing kids. Men are rarely punished for abusing their women. Men and women are not punished for their appalling treatment of the frail aged.
A Voice is not going to change any of those things, in fact people in remote towns and communities have never heard of a Voice and if it came about it wouldn’t make any difference to their lives anyway.
Aboriginal land is in the hands of aboriginal land councils and looking at the intense arguments that are happening between land councils and communities members, I shudder to thing of the fighting that will ensure if aboriginal people get more control of their own issues.

Hi Big Nana,

Please excuse the arrogance of the naive. Of course, all of the communities I know have had community councils, full community control, for the best part of fifty years. As you would be fully aware, those councils have had all the powers (and responsibilities, often delegated to some whitefella whether she likes it or not), of self-determination for that time, if not long before. Foxy may benefit from looking at Tadhgh Pertill's 'Dystopia in the Desert' to see how that 'works'. But I doubt she will.

People in Indigenous communities have had standard, human responsibilities - in modern settings - for many decades, but the problem is that they've often tended to look for others, usually non-Indigenous, to dump them on. I was just talking to a young Aboriginal bloke, mid-forties, who rather off-handedly told me that his mother had left him at the hospital after he was born to go back to the pub. He was somebody else's responsibility, after all. Somehow.

How ? You have kids, you're responsible for them. For feeding them properly, making sure they were well and safe, and had a bed at night, and that they went to school. Don't whitefellas expect that ? Then why not Blackfellas ?

As for government 'control', I've lived on places where I, as a labourer, was the only whitefella there for weeks at a time. No 'government' bloke within cooee. In fact, for months at a time, and then only to drop in and provide some advice. Often an Indigenous 'government' person. The days of Simon Legree are long gone, Foxy.

Joe

It is interesting how some (one in this thread) of the left upholds it's stereotype by suggesting that people who disagree with them don't have a brain. They also can't tell the difference between expressing an opinion and constantly nagging, browbeating, sermonising, and yes, bullying. This particular bully is totally out of control, contradicting the only two people with first hand knowledge, saying she is off, then a short time later coming back with the same harangues and ultra left laying down of the law, thinking that everyone will eventually come around to her way of thinking. She keeps telling us how long she has been In a frenzy on OLO, but doesn't seem to be aware that the victims of her bile still think what they have always thought, although some have probably dropped by the wayside, unable to stomach her obsessive hectoring. The rest of us, no matter what we think, know when it's time to leave it alone. Not this one!

And we shouldn't overlook the blatant racism: know-it-all lefty whitey needs to help the blackfellas because they can't do it as well as whitey can - despite the obvious fact, that lefty is too dumb to see: most people with aboriginal background are doing just fine on their own, like every other Australian.

I wonder if this poster and her condescending, racist mates have had a look at some of the public housing estates, populated by whites, that would make some of the rougher remote settlements look like Toorak. All on the grog or drugs, plenty of domestic violence, no jobs, the whole shebang, and nobody says the government needs to live their lives for them. We have all sorts of dropkicks in our society; all have the same chances to pull themselves together; none of them need any special recognition or help. People who say they do, in the interests of big socialist governments, just want to make as many people as they can subsidiaries of government, beholden to government, controlled by government and its neo-Marxist puppet masters.

Foxy, you're a sweety and we all love you, and it's because we love you that we feel your pain and we don't want to see you hurting.
BUT, can't you see that, on this topic at least, you might want to soften your stance a little.
There will be other topics to regale us at another time.
Even if you refute my, and many others, input on this topic, I feel that Loudmouth and Big Nana, have made a watertight case for the rejection of any 'voice' or any more assistance to the black fella.
Your continual repetition of what we and/or the govt should or shouldn't do is admirable and shows you as a person of conviction and sympathy.
That is normally a good thing, but in this case it is mis-guided and not relevant.
One more thing, please don't keep repeating the same lines and message ad-nauseam, we got it the first twelve times, now it's just annoying to read it again and again and so on.
Foxy, remember the boy who cried 'wolf'.

Dear Big Nana, Joe,

So, let me get this straight. What you're trying to
tell me is that governments have not neglected basic
services and infrastructure in remote Aboriginal
communities for decades and that the problems are
of their own doing?

You're saying that there's no lack of medical care or
services, no lack of education facilities, or employment,
no staff exhaustion, decaying infrastructure, broken
traumatised families, or ineffective government programs,
and so on. And the problems that do exist - are the fault
of the Aboriginal communities themselves. That there
aren't any problems between the Aboriginal community members
and whitefella staff?

That there are no self-sustainable and unreformable situations?
Well, that is not what the book, "The Dystopia in the
Desert" tells us. It is an excellent and in depth book.
Neither does Diane Austin Broos's book, "A Different
Inequality," But hey, you're the experts. And I really
don't want to continue to argue with your logic.
So over and out.

ALTRAV,

Fear makes the wolf look bigger.
(German proverb).

ttbn,

Go back into your cave.
Take your club with you.

No. She is not a sweety, and we don't all love her. She is a bully and an earbasher and you are encouraging her ALTRAV. She loves the attention. She has a lot of text book problems that I won't mention because I don't want to be struck off. I know that you don't think people should be able to get away with the rot she comes up with, but she can't help herself, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to help her either.

You say "please don't keep repeating the same lines and message ad-nauseam, we got it the first twelve times, now it's just annoying to read it again and again and so on". But, I think you know that's not going to happen; she's been at it for too long; it is what she does; it's what she is. Fortunately, most people have never heard of her or her nonsense.

The final straw for me was when she had the gall to tell Big Nana that she - Big Nana - 'doesn't understand'. The rest of us show respect for Big Nana's experience and knowledge - Joe's too - but not Foxy.

Note the message for me at the bottom of what I presume was another ignorant, maniacal tirade against Big Nana and Joe. I'm to take my club back to my cave! Totally out of control. She must be a huge embarrassment to the average non-obsessive lefty.

Can we believe the 'over and out' is genuine? Does she really not want to argue anymore?

Foxy, obviously you have never been to a remote aboriginal community. They all have air conditioned classrooms with a teacher/ student ratio that urban teachers can only dream of. I know one remote school that has 55 students with 4 teachers and a teaching assistant, but the kids are working years behind their age level because those who actually turn up to school are frequently too hungry and tired to absorb any knowledge. And many have behavioural problems. The government provides the school structure and housing for teachers. The kids get free breakfast and lunch every day.
The same goes for the health clinics. Every community has an airconditioned clinic staffed by experienced nurses and a multitude of health workers. Doctors fly into the community at least once a week and specialists like paediatricians, obstetricians and surgeons visit the communities on a regular basis. In fact, you can get a child seen by a paediatrician in a remote community faster than you could get one in a city. No year
long waiting lists, kids get seen at the next paediatrician visit, which is generally every 3
months. Once again the government provides all buildings, including staff accomodation.
(Cont)

Foxy (cont)
Now compare that to white people living on a cattle station in the same remote area. The government doesn’t provide them with any building for teachers or classrooms. They have to provide their own. If the number of children on a station exceed a certain number, it used to be ten children, then the government t will provide a teacher but the station owners have to provide both the school room and the teachers accomodation at their own expense.
Same with health services. Yes, there are smaller populations on cattle stations but even the small aboriginal outstations get visiting nurses if they can’t travel into the community itself. White people have to get themselves to health services unless they are on the Flying Doctor circuit, then they get to see a doctor once a week or fortnight, but nothing in between. No nurse or health worker there.
When my children were small, my husband and I lived in a Remote community for years. I am well aware of what services and facilities are available. And no, my children were never sick and they were well educated by me at home because the Level at the school was appalling due to the problems I have already spoken of.
As for the other issues you mentioned. Can you please let me know of any race that hasn’t suffered war, invasion, slaughter etc. . It is incredibly paternalistic, in fact racist, to infer that aboriginal people aren’t able to overcome the same traumas that every other culture has had to overcome.
When the South Vietnamese fled here, I didn’t hear anyone calling for special measures for those survivors of a horrific civil war.
You do Aboriginal people a great disservice by trying to treat them differently to the rest of the population.

BAZINGA!

And there it is.
Big Nana, has slam dunked this one and it is a done deal.
The voice of reason and experience.
Objectivity at it's best, with not a murmur of subjectivity or emotion.
Just the good ole' plain truth and straight to the point.
I wish I were as articulate.
It is so pleasant to witness such deliveries.
Where-as the opposing force, once again quotes a third party.
I don't think we have ever heard an original thought from her, have we?
Oh well we'll see her again on another thread.
Well done to Big Nana and all those who put forward an alternate and realistic submission on this topic.
I'm glad to be a part of this.

Thanks, Big Nana, spot-on !

I wonder if many well-intentioned but ignorant people are so terrified of being called racist that they dare not ever criticise any Indigenous point of view. But surely the path to the truth and justice (for anybody) is to hold up every suggestion for critical examination ? That ideas can only improve with friendly criticism ? They can only fester, or take people up the wrong paths (perhaps for decades), if no criticism is allowed ?

Ttbn,

Just to chuck a cat amongst the pigeons, I think of myself as more left-centre than right. Sorry :)

Joe

Dear Big Nana,

You are right I personally have not lived in a
remote regional community. Although my older
brother lived in the outskirts of Darwin for
many years and he taught in an Aboriginal community.
My younger brother lives in Kempsey
and he tells me of the Aboriginal community there
and its problems. Also one of my grand-children's
teachers taught in Aboriginal communities and has
told me a great deal about her work there.

Of course, I respect your opinion and am as always,
interested in what you have to say.

I've expressed my views in this discussion so I don't
see any reason to keep repeating them. Only to add
that I don't think it fair to make sweeping
generalisations about remote communities. I believe
that they differ greatly and have their own regional
problems that vary from area to area. Not all of
them are as you describe. But I can appreciate that
you can only go by what you have experienced.

I in no way, mean to suggest, that the Indigenous
people are not capable of rising to the occasion
and taking care of themselves. That is precisely what
the Uluru Statement is asking for - the responsibility
to do just that. To have an input into government
policies and programs that affect their lives.

Anyway, Thank You for your thoughts. They are appreciated.
It has been quite educational.

Sure enough, she's back after saying she didn't want to argue anymore. No self-control, no dignity.

Joe,

I know where you are coming from, but you do speak with authority and common sense - apart from your views on Donald Trump:).

Dear Big Nana,

I forgot to add that I'm not the one doing a great
disservice to the Aboriginal people
by trying to treat them differently
to the rest of the population. The Constitution
has done that. It haws not ensured fairness and equality
for Indigenous Australians.

The Constitution confers upon Parliament a special power
to racially discriminate. The Race Power was inserted
according to the Constitution convention debates to
control and exclude the "inferior" and "coloured"
peoples. It has only been used in relation to Indigenous
Australians.

ttbn,

And your constant barrages directed at me -
they're dignified and classy?

As I told you earlier - go back to your cave
and take your club with you.

As I said to ALTRAV, there is on point in arguing with you, you poor silly fool.

Hi Big Nana,

At my wife's community on the Murray Lakes, the school currently has about ten kids (maybe a lot less) and two or three teachers. The Ed. Dept. is desperate not to close it. There is a little non-Indigenous village about 2 km up the road, which used to serve all the surrounding farming families until its general store closed. All the Black kids used to go to the community school and nearly all the white kids to the neighbouring school. One community bloke ran off with his partner's cousin, (he eventually had four kids by each) so the ex-partner took her kids out of the community school and sent them to the 'white' school, whereupon most of the white kids were withdrawn and taken by school bus to the school in the nearest town 50 km away, whereupon most of the Black kids there did the same. So the 'white' school was closed and the buildings given to the Aboriginal community 2 km away. Teachers' housing was offered to the community cheap but I think nobody wanted to move.

Between 1998 and 2008, the old DEEWR gave perhaps a couple of million dollars' worth of farming equipment (combine, new tractor, two pivot irrigation works) to the community farm. Howard's dairy restructuring scheme meant about half a million dollars to the old community dairy so the manager (my brother-in-law) fought with the council to build a new dairy instead of selling it all up. It opened in 2002 and closed in 2006, a beautiful 25-a-side forward-release wonder (between us we could milk 200 cows in an hour), after he couldn't work there any more.

When Howard stopped the CDEP scheme down this way, the council paid out everybody for their holiday pay, super, accrued sick leave

[TBC]

[continued]

, etc., and set the debt of $ 1 million against the farm's account. DEEWR, as the 'debtor of last resort' for Aboriginal communities, understandably got pissed off and sent in the trucks to take a million dollars' worth of gear; the dairy was stripped down to its concrete block, heart-breaking to see. Tractors gone; silos gone; pivots gone; dairy cows gone. And nobody could give a stuff: in fact, I think most people there were overjoyed that at last there was no threat of work. At one council AGM earlier, the chairperson had congratulated the CDEP co-ordinator on ensuring that the numbers stayed up, for not finding anybody a single job. Unfortunately, he did so with DEEWR staff present.

So 12,000 acres of beautiful country and only a couple of hundred beef cattle, which a bloke in a wheel-chair could look after. So someone should tell me again about land rights and the love of country.

My wife didn't go back ever again except for funerals. Earlier she had tried to set up an off-campus university Study Centre but nobody was interested unless they could get unemployment benefits in addition to study grants. That devastated her. If I was a Christian, maybe I could forgive, but .....

Joe

ttbn,

I'm not looking to argue with you only to
have you stop your barrages against me
to which I have every right to respond.
As for a silly old fool?

I'm neither silly nor old. It's just not
nice when toxic people like yourself
continue to talk about me so negatively.
It's like the garbage hasn't been taken out.

Judge me when you are perfect.

At the risk of another barrage of nonsense from you, I called you a poor silly fool; I didn't use the word 'old' at all. You have proved my point that obsessed, left wing ideologues don't actually read what other people write. You are certainly not old enough to know what you are talking about. Doing all this harassment in work time, probably

Joe,

Just having a read back and your,

"Aboriginal people are Australians, 1st, 2nd and xth, like the rest of us, with full unquestioned equal rights. I hope it stays that way and is never doubted"

That's it in a nutshell.

Thanks, Is Mise, right back at you :)

Joe

Foxy, I did ask you, apart from the intervention, what laws has the government passed in the last 50 years that affect aboriginal people only?
And the reason that clause is in the constitution is so that the government can make laws to grant rights and privileges to aboriginal people, above white people, to make up for past discrimination
But we don’t need to make any changes to the constitution except remove that one clause that allows special privileges for aboriginal people.
BTW, do you actually know what happened during the intervention? I was working at the Darwin Hospital when it happened and had two of my descendants and families living in two remote communities in the NT so I know exactly what happened.

Dear Big Nana,

I've discussed the laws throughout this discussion.
However I shall give the following link again
to clarify things:

http://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Recognising-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-people-in-the-Australian-Constitution.pdf

As for the Norther Territory Intervention. Yes I am fully
aware of what happened. Here also is another link for you:

http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2017/06/21/10-impacts-nt-intervention

See you on another discussion.

I am at pains trying to be civil when I see a continual and concerted effort to promote an unrealistic and unwanted ideal or agenda.
My point, in a nutshell is;
The majority of Australians are NOT interested in any attempt at one mob getting a leg up over another.
This completely unjustified and baseless claim or suggestion that we need to atone for some wrong we have unleashed upon the blacks, in another time, by another people, is an egregious and fallacious attempt at shaming and blackmailing (pun intended) the white man into giving in to their totally frivolous and deceitful demands.
So Australia, stand your ground, do not let them shame you into giving in to any of their demands.
We have already given more than we should have and still some.
As punishment for pushing this greedy evil agenda, not only would I stop all the benefits and hand outs, I would begin a campaign to claw back the money paid out so far, just like the govt does to the white man when they realise they overpaid him for some reason, and demand restitution.
Now that is more appropriate and shows that the govt is genuinely interested in equality for ALL Australians, and not just a self proclaimed privileged minority with NO special claims or demands than the rest of us.
Beginning with the removal of the 'Native Title' farce.
As we are told they are an exceptional people at the forefront of agriculture, aquaculture, and engineering.
Then it should take no time at all for them to 'pick up sticks'and get on with it.
Being such formidable people, I for one cannot wait, as I am told we have a lot to learn or we stand to learn a lot if we 'give em' their head', or let them loose to demonstrate these marvelous and advanced achievements.

Dear Big Nana,

I Just realised I'd left this link out.
I hope it helps in answer to your
questions:

http://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/18/50-years-since-indigenous-australians-first-counted-why-has-so-little-changed-1967-referendum

ALTRAV,

You need to keep up.

Australian voters are positive about recognising
Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and
establishing a voice to Parliament, according to
polling by Essential.

A majority also supported a treaty with Indigenous
Australians according to research undertaken late
last month to coincide with NAIDOC week.

There's more at:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/12/essential-poll-majority-of-australians-want-indigenous-recognition-and-voice-to-parliament

Foxy.

In answer to the Guardian's question,
"Why has so little changed?"

Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?

Foxy, NO THEIR NOT!
Let's not try and con the good people of Australia again with your badly chosen and misguiding words.
Australians did not vote to recognise NOTHING in the constitution.
You see we've been here before.
'Some' Aussies MIGHT have indicated what you contend, not ALL, and again you try the lie, as with the rubbish SSM thing where the public did not vote, they participated in a survey, which if the YES camp weren't such devious liars, would acknowledge that 60% of the 70% surveyed, NOT 100%, would clearly show that NO was the clear winner. 42% YES and 58% NO!
So yet again and still you try it on with this latest ditty.
You really think we are thick.
Have you already forgotten what happened to the last poll, showing labour as a shoe-in.
Well we all know what happened there, don't we?
Oh I forgot you don't discuss anything that does not feather your nest, well too bad, the articles you quote are biased towards their goals.
Foxy stop trying to BS us, the TRUTH about your link is full of lies and allegations.
A vicious play on words in a pathetic attempt at trying to get their way.
What scumbags.
Don't believe me?
Read the rubbish in detail, and word for word, rather than gloss over it wanting it to be true.
All of that link is rubbish, every point is a play on words, an exaggeration, lie's read it but read it properly, and stop tryingto pull the wool over our eyes.
There is NO support for any of this by anyone outside the black community, and I am sure that not ALL of the blacks agree with you, your rubbish and what you both BS about.

Foxy,

Little has changed ?

Back in 1967 (and by the way, Indigenous people were not counted AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE until the 1971 Census, but many may have been counted beforehand as Australians, probably because, I don't know, oh yes, they ARE Australians) how many Indigenous tertiary graduates were there across Australia ? maybe only a few hundred, mainly teachers and nurses. How many would there be now ? Around sixty thousand.

Back in 1967, not too many Indigenous people owned (or were paying off) their own houses. Currently it's around 40 % of all households, with many people in communities, as a matter of course, living in publicly-provided and low-rent housing.

Aboriginal organisations now have responsibilities for around a fifth of the land mass of Australia.

Little has changed ? Get a grip.

Joe

Foxy, did you even read that article about the impact of the Intervention ?
Do you honestly have a problem with alcohol and pornography being banned from remote communities even though all the women supported this?
Do you realise that the welfare quarantining applied to all people in the NT, not just aboriginal people?
Do you not understand that women in communities were happy to have an increased police presence in communities because they had more protection against domestic violence?
Do you have any idea of how many chronic diseases were discovered in children due to the compulsory health checks?
And finally, the one issue that most uninformed people most frequently use to condemn the Intervention, land acquisition.
I will explain this in simple terms. Housing and facilities like schools, health clinics and stores were all built on aboriginal land in remote communities. Essentially private land. Many communities demanded visitors apply for a permit to enter this land, which meant social workers, health workers, child protection etc, couldn’t always gain access to community members who needed help. But all those facilities, housing, clinics, schools etc were built with public money, not private money as happens in the rest of the country. So the government offered a deal to the people. If they wanted to continue to receive all these public benefits, then the land on which they were situated had to become government land, as is normal elsewhere. Bear in mind we are talking about less than a square kilometre in most places, in communities that owned millions of square kilometres! So, this was not a land grab, as many people tried to imply, it was simply a method of guaranteeing access to public buildings for purposes of Maintenance and provision of services.
And that was the Intervention!

Dear Big Nana,

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 you 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. Even
Mal Brough stated that. The Intervention failed to
achieve its aims.

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 a necessary intervention 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. And if we
are champions of responsibility, we should support such
a reform.

Foxy, how many tines have I asked you this? Apart from the intervention, over the past 50 years, what laws have ever been made that affect only aboriginal people?
I would like an answer please.
And rather than create privilege and division in our constitution by mentioning only one race, the best solution is to simply remove the section that relates to making laws that apply only to aboriginal people.
After all, none of us get a say about laws that affect our lives. We elect a representative then just have to sit back and accept what laws are made.
Why should aboriginal people have anything different?

Loudmouth, do you think there is anything in the premise that the number of people calling themselves black are in fact not black but are merely people who have been categorised as 'wannabees', by even some elders, and for the benefits the blacks receive.
I agree with their comments as it is impossible to correlate and explain the huge and sudden increase in the number of blacks as quoted on the stats or census.
There is no known way the number of blacks, and I mean true blacks, could have reproduced so quickly to have suddenly increased over such a short period of time, multiplied into the numbers quoted these days.
60,000 blacks in uni or graduates?
I won't say, I don't think so, instead I'll say, it just isn't so.
As for 40% of blacks owning or paying off households, I think you mean 40% of the blacks are doing so, not 40% of all Aussies.
Then there is the comment that a fifth of Australia is under the control or management (the responsibility) of the blacks.
I get the feeling that number is also worthy of question or scrutinee.
Anyway, these are just a few observations that came to mind as being doubtful.

Big Nana and Joe,
To the best of my knowledge, many more people read the posts here other than those that comment. Therefore many more people get to read your comments than you may think.

I am sure your experience and practicality is understood and appreciated by most readers. Am also sure that we know your comments and imparted knowledge are aimed to benefit ALL Australians.

Keep on keeping on.

Big Nana, Loudmouth, hear, hear.
I feel somewhat despondent over Foxy, I like her but find myself feeling a little sad that she has been convinced of things which on the surface are good and well meaning, but unfortunately hide a poisoned chalice.
It is a shame, that she appears a very intelligent and intellectually savvy person and that is possibly and partly why I like her. (well her demeanor at least, obviously I don't KNOW her socially or outside of OLO, like the rest of you)
I find I cannot stop correcting her, and it is a tiresome feat, more so because I see no glimmer of compromise or even a partial acceptance of some of the points we raise in scrutinising her, even after exposing the obvious and controversial aspects of her submissions and or links.
Anyway, my interactions with Foxy are nothing of note, so if I do suddenly fall off the perch, I think there are enough other equally, if not more pragmatic and objective people on OLO to keep trying to get her to at least, soften her stance on certain issues or topics.

Bill Martin expresses his personal doubt that Ken Wyatt is the right person for the job of Minister for Indigenous Australians; in fact, he considers the appointment to be "a serious mistake" by the Prime Minister. (Quadrant Online, 26/7/19).

Wyatt, according to Martin, is "a man whose airing of his personal, subjective perspective so early on calls into question his capacity to discharge his duties for the good and betterment of all Australians."

Wyatt admits that the proposed interference with our Constitution based on race will be unpopular, so he wants the "right words" be used in a referendum.

Martin interprets this to mean that Wyatt "favours phrases sufficiently vague and innocuous so as not to frighten the horses." So will millions of politically aware Australians interpret it that way. Wyatt has also mooted the idea of parliament making a decision, irrespective of the referendum result!

Wyatt is enthusiastically supported by Opposition spokeswoman, Linda Burnley, who describes herself as a Wiradjuri woman, but " seldom if ever as an Australian".

However, Bill Martin is "heartened" by the fact that Coalition voices, " including those of senior government members" have expressed their disapproval of the whole idea, emphasising that Ken Wyatt is "off on a frolic of his own" without consulting his colleagues before making his comments.

Martin believes, as do many others that " any notion that differentiates Australians in any way based on race is not merely unacceptable but egregiously repugnant.".

A big problem with Foxy's submissions are the words she uses, which are mostly taken from other sources.
These words are 'TRIGGERS'.
These triggers form the basis of the unrealistic, selfish, petulant, unjustified, irrelevant, capricious and generally not entitled to the very things she is promoting.
For example she frequently uses words like;
First Nations.
The Intervention.
Empowered.
Responsibility.
Discriminatory.
Communities.
Discriminatory Paternalism.
Responsibility.
Empower communities.
But to name a few.
Then we have this further rubbish and clap trap;
"First Nations of Australia have a right to take responsibility, they should be empowered so they have a constitutional voice in their affairs so they can always participate in decisions made about them".
In summarising these triggers, what a load of bullsh!t!
These words were written to try to justify the unjustifiable.
As too many others have already pointed out, there is no case to be heard of any wrong doing by the whites, ever, not hundreds of years ago, nor today.
All that has happened has had good reason and how dare anyone attack the whites, accusing them of doing anything but good for the blacks.
They may not have done it as good as SOME blacks would like us to believe but it was for the greater good and for the good of all, not just the blacks.
I make it clear, that all this push for self regulation, forget all the stupid words and padding to disguise its true intent, is simply another rung in the ladder of a power grab.
These people must be slapped down and back into oblivion where they belong, because unfortunately for the sake of those few of us better informed, we will be dragged down by the many uninformed and gullible, who also happen to be completely dis-interested in such frivolous claims, and they are the ones they are focused on converting or influencing.
So we must keep opposing these stupid demands at every opportunity, or we will be the worse off for it, if they succeed.

ALTRAV,

I suppose you would have been against same-sex
marriage as well? Well guess what? The legislation
passed. The same will happen (according to recent polls)
with an Indigenous voice in Parliament. So you
can continue to rant and rave all you like.
Australia will decide.

Why can't we have a
rational, logical, discussion, on subjects that we
agree or disagree on - without the attacks and
insults?

It is after all only a discussion and opinions do vary,
as they should.

I feel as though you and I are
here facing off in a war of values.

Where I say asylum seekers, you say
queue jumpers. I say - Indigenous rights,
you say - special privileges. I say -
global warming, you say - conspiracy. I say -
gay marriage, you say - unnatural. I say -
feminism, you say selfish maggots, I say - immigration,
you say - invasion. I say - Islamophobia, you say -
- terrorism, and so it goes.

You see - an endless parade of man-hating feminists,
queue-jumping asylum seekers, Leftist University Lecturers,
biased ABC journalists, Grant-grabbing Scientists,
hand-out addicted Aborigines, and sharia - law
promoting Islamic clerics.
These all populate your fevered imagination.
Their stories are told with your own obsessive
compulsive repetitiveness that
creates its own kind of "truth." Which you believe is the
only "truth," because you are so "objective" and "rational."

There's barely an issue now that is not refracted by you
through the lens of your "truth".

Your "truth" is so well known now on this forum.

How can anyone possibly want to bother wasting their time
in arguing with it.

Talk to your kindred spirits. They're all here.

Foxy,

Spot-on !

"Government cannot solve people's problems. To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, government cannot do anything for you that you are not willing to do yourself."

Yes, indeed, and people in communities already have the power to do for themselves. The question is, why don't they ?

As you point out: "The First Nations of Australia have a right to take responsibility."

More than that, they have the obligation to take responsibility for their own self-determination - but don't. Why's that ? What's stopping them ?

Your next paragraph should read:

"They are already empowered to take control of their own affairs, and have been for the best part of fifty years now, so they can always participate in decisions made about them, by themselves. And if we are champions of responsibility, we should support the full exercise of such powers, no matter how difficult it may be for them. Because ultimately, it's nobody else's business but theirs."

Sounds better ?

Joe

Dear Big Nana,

I have answered your questions.

You just refuse to see the answers.

I can't help you any further.

Cheers.

Joe,

Keep trying.

Constitutional 'recognition' is seen by many as just another 'silver bullet' to follow all the other dud bullets used by the elites to solve problems that they caused, with their paternalism, divisiveness and Marxist attitudes. A distraction from 'closing the gap', which is not closing. If the electorate, which would have to give its permission for the latest hare-brained scheme, was silly enough to endorse the racist idea, it too would be a dud. We've already seen $30 billions worth silly schemes go down the toilet. There is something seriously wrong with the people pushing for things that won't work.

There you go folks.

My point has been proven.

"Paternalism, divisiveness, Marxist attitudes?"

We've heard it all before . Just like -
the "politically correct" "Leftist" "Cultural
elites?" And lets not forget the dispatches
from the front lines of the battle that fill many
an opinion column and radio-talk back segments
dealing with the endless parade of - "man-hating
feminists", queue-jumping asylum seekers, Leftist
University Lecturers, the biased ABC journalists,
the Grant-Grabbing scientists, the handout addicted
Aborigines and the Sharia-Law promoting Islamic clerics
who populate the fevered media imaginations.

As stated earlier, their stories told with an
obsessive compulsive repetitiveness that creates its own
kind of "truth."

There's barely an issue now that is not refracted through
the lens and presented as a partisan struggle between
"Left"and "Right."

How did we get here?

Foxy,
I gladly accept any and all your criticisms of me.
But I will NEVER accept that your agenda and push for something which ultimately is none of your business. (it's the black fellas fight)I find it an unfair and unjust one, especially when such a lot of effort has gone into creating and promoting a case which does not exist.
If you are half as smart as I think you are, you already know this.
But your lack of pragmatism and objectivity, even clarity on the issue is causing you to be 'one eyed' about it.
Even with all your other faculties in balance, you still need two eyes to control your depth of balance and co-ordination, which you so badly lack.
Put simply you are lacking in judgement.
I have not asked because I know you don't answer, but why are you so
invested in this as it clearly has nothing to do with you, or the rest of us for that matter.
The blacks have enough lobbyists and spruikers pushing their cause that they don't need you or anyone else's help.

Foxy, sorry, I forgot to add, what a wonderful rendition you did in the previous description of myself, my beliefs and my overall situation.
I am proud of you, see you were paying attention, even though you said you did not care what I wrote.
I am pleased to say, my work has not gone un-noticed.
Thanks Foxy.

ALTRAV,

This is a discussion forum of social and political debate
and as such discussions are raised by posters on a
variety of issues. I have been a member of this forum
for decades and have seen many people come and go. Many
have added some remarkable subjects for discussion and
provided links to consider and broaden the views being
presented. I have tried to do the same.

If you don't approve of the subjects being presented
you like others are not under any obligation to both
read or participate in the discussions. However, you
have no right to try to censor any body or try to tell
them that their subject is not worthy of discussion simply
because it does not have your approval. Nobody is going
to take that seriously.

BTW - just so that you know - I don't look for, want,
or need, your appreciation of anything I post.
I don't appreciate being patronised. Enough said. I
must try to continue to be polite.

Enjoy your evening.

Foxy, It is precisely because this is a forum of social and political debate, that I am allowed to comment on them, and if I think the topic is sh!t and unworthy of discussion or debate, guess what? this medium affords me the right to say so.
Now on the other hand, if YOU don't approve of what I say, you like others are under no obligation to both read or participate, in the discussions.
However we all have the right to try to censure anybody or to tell them that their subject is not worthy of discussion simply because it does not have my approval, because I found serious flaws in it and found it to be untrue or in doubt.
Everybody is going to take that seriously.

BTW, just so you know, I do look for, want or need, your appreciation for anything I post. I do appreciate being patronised. Enough said, I must continue to be polite.

Enjoy your evening.

There Foxy, wasn't that fun?

ALTRAV,

Not quite right.

You can comment, yes. But only the Moderator has the
authority of censorship and he decides whether
the topic is worthy of discussion. Not you.

Therefore your approval or disapproval does not
count for very much at all and certainly will not be
taken seriously by any intelligent poster on this
forum.

If you want appreciation of what you post - you're talking
to the wrong person. Try your kindred spirits on this
forum. You speak the same language.

Being polite and civil is a worthy pursuit. Nobody likes
or supports an illogical and abusive debater.

Have a good evening.

Foxy, apart from the patently obvious comment about the moderator, which you do realise I am aware of don't you?, the rest of your comments are drivel, until we get to the last paragraph;
Being polite and civil is lying if the situation calls for abuse and aggression to return a conversation to it's true path and true facts.
Being polite and civil does nothing for a stubborn person who will not see reason, even when it has been presented in a hundred different ways.
Nobody likes or supports an illogical and abusive debater.
No but everybody supports a logical and abusive debater, after the other debater has been shown they're wrong a hundred times, then the observers themselves will step in and add to the abuse, because they are sick and tired of hearing the same BS over and over again.
BTW, Foxy, I would put my approval rating up against yours any day, so don't stick your head up too far, you know what happens to chooks at the abattoir who stick their heads up too far, don't you?

ALTRAV,

I will put up my posting record against yours any
day. Lets test your claims - shall we. You stated
that the subject of our Indigenous people was not
one worthy of discussion. Yet the discussion that
I have raised on Budj Bim has attracted over 380
responses and is still going strong. You also said
that people were not interested. It appears they are.
We're still having this conversatio0n. You stated
that Australians are not going to support the
Indigenous people in their bid for a voice in
Parliament. The polls show us a different story.

It seems that your "truth," is not worth very much at all.

Anyway, why don't you start your own discussion on the
topic of your choice and lets see how many responses you
get.

Put your money where your mouth is! Back your blather
with action!

Sorry Foxy, but I have reread your responses and still cannot see an answer to the one question I have asked, several times, which is

“ During the past 50 years, apart from the Intervention, name any circumstance where special laws have been used involving aboriginal people but not the rest of the population.”

Please do not copy and paste some long winded article. I just want a simple answer in your own words. Thank you.

Foxy, I have in the past put up my own topics and they did not get so many antagonistic, argumentative and opposing comments as yours do.
Secondly don't kid yourself, or in your case, LIE, the 380 responses are in retaliation of you and your mates belligerent and petulant attitude to never considering that you can be wrong.
You are one of very few narcissists in the world who believe they are NEVER WRONG!
As for YOUR claim that people are interested in this topic, I would agree, but those within your circle contacts don't count.
Where-as I get around a lot more than you, and mix with very diverse range of people, and guess what, firstly nobodies even heard of this rubbish and secondly when I try to impart the information or engage with anyone on the topic, most have scoffed in dismissal and the rest varied in response with a generally similar position as 'I don't give a sh!t', or 'couldn't care less'.
And lastly, you wonder why people want to shove things down peoples throats; your other lie about the polls.
It appears you don't mind people thinking you a fool when we all know polls are a waste of time.
Do I have to remind you once more about the recent poll about labour was a shoe-in.
So you know what you can do with your polls.
No Foxy, as much as you continue to see the world through rose coloured glasses, you will never get the respect and following you seek.
I on the other hand do not seek popularity or status, just the truth.
What I know is that ultimately it matters not what you think but the fact that others are reading my comments and can make up their own minds.
Have you never wondered why you are continually defending your stance and that it goes on for 380 posts?
If you were right, you would get a few posters agreeing with you and moving on, not 380 arguments against you and your stance.
Heck even your running mates have fallen away.

Dear Big Nana,

I don't know why you were unable to find this
for yourself. As Joe keeps telling us - Google
is so great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_concerning_Indigenous_Australians