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