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.