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