There are currently 70 organisations actively involved in 'managing' a variety of schemes to close the gap between the 3.2% of people identifying as aboriginal or part thereof and the other 96.8% of us. ("Coalition of the Perks", Tony Letford, 16/7/22).

These organisations all have "flashy websites", all funded by you. The organisations are almost "completely ineffective", and they are free of any independent cost-benefit analysis.

On top of these quangos, we now have a call for a Voice to Parliament, which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Linda Burney, says we don’t need to know the details of - just vote for it, and all the important stuff that we don't need to know about can be decided later. Amazing! And the ABC claims that 73% of all Australians are in favour of something they know nothing about.

If 73% of people really think that a Voice sans any details, on top of the existing 70 other bodies will offer "better guidance to politicians and bureaucrats", then we are looking at a "fantasy" that exists only in the minds of people with opinions "based on ideology rather than evidence".

The Voice is a "mad scheme" that no one can give a clear explanation of how it will work in a way acceptable to all parties".

The "wokerati" are adamant that there is a need for an aboriginal-only Voice to Parliament, but "no two of the advocates" can agree on how it will work, and how it will be different from the other 70 groups already supposed to be advising our parliaments on aboriginal policy.

And why aren't the relevant ministers paid very well to do so, not liaising with aboriginal groups already advising parliaments.

http://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

Just another organisation meant to tie our governments down with international treaties.
Likely also provides a context for access to nations, financing opposition and overthrows of existing governments.
- All under the cover of 'good intentions'

http://www.usaid.gov/environmental-policy-roadmap/indigenous-peoples

http://www.cfr.org/article/reorganizing-us-promotion-democracy-and-human-rights

http://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/National-Endowment-for-Destabilization-CIA-Funds-for-Latin-America-in-2018-20190403-0042.html

I can't believe that there are still people in this
country who don't see the vital importance of giving
Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people a
say in the laws and policies that impact them.

Australia has seen over 2 centuries of failed policies
directed towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people, policies created from governments without enough
engagement from our native people who are directly
affected by them.

Our native people deserve a fair go and a voice to
Parliament would ensure that a Voice can tackle the
challenges and deliver fairness and equality in
Australian society.

All they are asking is to be able to advise Parliament on
policies that affect them. Parliament will decide what they
will or will not legislate. Also the details will be
worked out. This is merely a small but worthy step of
recognition.

The following link explains more:

http://www.fromtheheart.com.au/why-does-the-voice-matter/?

If Aboriginals have a right to a “Voice to Parliament” then so do the Irish, Scots, Welsh, English, Indians, French, Germans, Spanish etc., etc.
Parliament needs to know what people want and to be advised on those different wants. . .hang on, isn’t that what we have elected representatives for?

Is Mise,

Yes, that's why we have representatives, and now representation by the group in question far outweighs their presence in the population, percentage wise.

But, close-the-gap activists don't really want the so-called gap closed because it would mean the loss of money and perks. There is a feeling that the Blacktivists and their white useless idiots don't want the Voice, either. All the last gabfest came up with under election-losing Minister Wyatt was a name-change.

I don't know what legislative changes don't affect aborigines. All to be argued after the event. I see a lawyers picnic for the next century should this and treaty get up.

The silent majority wants the Australia Project to continue as it has. No matter how we or our ancestors got here, be it by land-bridge, sea, or air, we should not be distinguished in the constitution by race. There are land-rights, native-title and closing-the-gap measures to deliver the needs of aborigines, besides many assistance measures. All racist inclusions in the constitution should be removed, not more added.

Government media institutions are softening up the public for change, along with all manner of acknowledgements, in private and public institutions, that the white-fella is an interloper. Let's see how it rolls once the Voice campaign is on in earnest. Whatever the people decide, I will live with. That's democracy.

There is Australia the continent and Australia the project. Are we really saying that the 350,000 or so aborigines that populated this continent 250 years ago, and their full and partial progeny, should be put into a position to be able hold up the progress of the project?

Tossing in a 'link' to what are just opinions is pretty desperate, and does nothing to bolster the yes case. Hopefully, if the identity politicians and race botherers ever get around to asking the question via a referendum, the answer will be a big no.

Dear Foxy

I support the idea of a voice in principle, but I also think we should know the detail of how it will work before we vote on it. Questions such as who is eligible to stand, how are they to be chosen and by whom, how and how often will they be replaced, what issues will they consider, and how are their views to influence government policy are likely to be difficult and fraught. But if they are not resolved before the referendum, there is a real chance that people will be unwilling to vote for it.

Hi Foxy,

"I can't believe that there are still people in this
country who don't see the vital importance of giving
Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people a
say in the laws and policies that impact them."

I don't have a problem with aboriginal people telling us how they feel or contributing to the development of policies that will lead to better outcomes for themselves.

But you misunderstand my issue of seemingly good things done for nefarious purposes and the promotion of things that divide us instead of things that unite us.

That said, it seems to me that indigenous people have a kind of mass PTSD, in that it wouldn't matter what we did, they would still be angry at us.

They think we need to pay them rent and restitution and for that, they would still hold issue with us.
The UN isn't their saviour, the UN will just send more immigrants and make them more of a minority.
And truthfully, I'd probably prefer the indigenous to a lot of other foreigners who cant even speak english.

Just an excuse for more unelected bureaucrats and NGOs
Lowering the unemployment rate by getting five people to do the job of one, at taxpayer expense.

Hi Rhian,

The details of the design of the Voice would be
determined by Parliament.

The Voice to Parliament is a common feature in many
liberal democracies around the world. It is a simple
proposition that Indigenous people should have a say
in the laws and policies that affect their lives and
communities.

As Prof. Megan Davis explains:

The idea is that if you have direct Indigenous
input into laws and policy making the quality of advice
will be vastly better than contemporary decision
making which is primarily done by non-Indigenous people
making decisions about communities they have never
visited and people they do not know.

That's why so many communities are not flourishing.
This is why so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people are struggling. The decisions made about their
lives are crafted by people in Canberra or other big
cities.

The ABC's Vote Compass found 73% of Australians agree the
Constitution should be amended to establish a Voice to
Parliament. That was up from 66% in 2019.

Australians are showing that they are ready to accept the
Uluru statement's invitation to walk with the First Nations
People in a movement for a better future. Now it is up to
our nation's leaders to finally catch up.

Much has been written on this subject and can be found on
the web. If you have the time - it would be definitely
worth looking at and then making up your own mind.

Megan Davis is the Pro Vice-Chancellor - Indigenous
of the University of New South Wales, where she is also
Professor of Law and the Balnaves Chair of Constitutional
Law. She is a Cobble Cobble woman and a renowned
Constitutional lawyer and law expert focusing on advancing
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/megan-davis-voice-to-parliament-our-plea-to-be-heard/11300474

Hi AC,

I can only rely on the information
provided by people who are knowledgeable on these issues.
And what is being advocated does logically make sense.
What has been done to date has not worked. And trying a
new approach just might help. Especially as this is an
approach that our First Nations People are themselves
asking for.

A great deal of fuss was made about same-sex marriage
and yet - Australians made their decision. I'm sure that they
will also do the same - regarding the Voice to Parliament.

Dear Foxy

Thank you for the link – very interesting. I agree with pretty much everything in the article and would have been one of the 73% had I been in the ABS’s sample.

I think the key statement in Professor Davis’ article is this one: “The task ahead now is to agree to the amount of detail that is required for Australians to feel fully informed when voting at the ballot box.” I fear there is a risk of trying to leave important but difficult issues unresolved until after the referendum, and that this may backfire.

Hi Foxy,
Forgive my bias, but when I see USAID (feel good arm of the CIA parading itself as helpful to others in need) and NED (National Endowment for Democracy - US overthrow team) and all these UN agencies all intertwined, my internal alarm bells start ringing.
It's certainly not as though I want a worse outcome for the indigenous, or anyone for that matter.

I've always been one to draw attention to things that others pay little mind to, and I've mostly always been this way consistently for the 7 years I've been a member here.
There's always more to the story if you dig a little deeper.
Yesterdays conspiracy theories are often tomorrows breaking news.

Hi AC,

I respect your opinion.

Your heart's in the right place.

"What has been done to date has not worked".

Why not listen to somebody on the ground who's got a clue rather than city elites, albeit it that they are aboriginal city elites. The lot of aborigines won't be improved by dividing the nation.
http://www.facebook.com/JacintaNPrice I look forward to the senator's first speech.

What hasn't worked is maintaining quasi-aboriginal lifestyles in communities where services cannot be brought equivalent to what they may find by relocating to towns. Anything further in that direction only stunts advancement, as it has done for generations. Meanwhile, urban aborigines are moving ahead with the rest of Australia, with the assistance that can be provided in urban settings

Is Mise: Australians of Irish, Scots, English, Welsh, etc ancestry don't have a history, in Australia, of being dispossed of their land, of being rounded up and placed in government controlled reserves, of having their children removed because of their ancestry, of being refused school admittance, of being refused access to soldier settler land grants even after war service ... I could go on with many more examples. Given that history, the effects of which are still felt by Aboriginal communities and families today, why ever would Aboriginal people trust government?

Many of those things were legislated, that is, enacted in laws by politicians. What the Voice would provide is for a formal process for Aboriginal people to comment on draft legislation before it becomes law to minimise negative impact on Aboriginal people. This is still pretty weak, it would not be able to enact law, just advise, but such a formal process could be more effective than individual submissions.

Why should indigenous people have this and not people of immigrant descent? Well, the latter don't have a history of such overwhelming coercive government control (though early Chinese and Pacific Islander imigrants got similar treatment in some aspects.)

"Meanwhile, urban aborigines are moving ahead with the rest of Australia, with the assistance that can be provided in urban settings".

Spot on. Those who want help and can be helped are doing well among the mainstream. Most people identifying as having varying amounts of aboriginality live in urban areas where they share the benefits of modernity.

Nothing can be done for those people languishing in the Whitlam/Coombs living museums in the outback. Flying Doctor is about it. There are no jobs in remote areas. If there are basic schools, kids are not made to attend. The horror stories coming out of even fair size towns like Wadeye and Arakun curled the blood.

Ordinarily, I would agree that our indigenous people should have a voice in Parliament. But whenever I had anything to do with them, their voice, though limited in number, thundered noisily with the feigned and spurious sound of almost ALL politicians both State and Federal, to a point it almost drowned out, genuine aboriginal concerns, and causes.

I believe it's become almost fashionable among politicians to support whatever causes or demands our indigenous folk are currently seeking, for fear they'll be typecast as being racist if they fail to do otherwise.

From my own limited knowledge, the average black man in the bush sees very little of the money or benefits given to them, via the tax payer. It would seem to me, there're just a select few indigenous people, who totally control the money, and direct its expenditure, and not always for the benefit of all indigenous people?

And I've seen, first hand, brand new houses built for exclusive aboriginal occupation, trashed in a matter of weeks when various indigenous groups are the custodians. Do you think that, and other wanton behaviour, will ever be reported to Parliament, by a lone aboriginal representative?

Until the term racism is used by all in the correct context, no progress will be made.
it'll simply continue on its funding path !

Thanks Cossomby.

As always - a voice of reason.

O sung wu

Very reasonable and measured comments. Being in the ' job' as you were, you would have seen things most people couldn't even imagine.

Not my own words, but given the way things are going in Australia, it might turn out that this opinion it is not as harsh as it sound on a first reading. I do agree with the bit about the totalitarianism of group rights. It is a key tool of dictators.

"The Voice is part of the attempt to erode Australian society, with a strong ideological connection between communists in Australia and the push for Aboriginal land rights; and now this egregious, racist nonsense being pushed by a hard Left Prime Minister, who insanely blames history for every indigenous problem, and who is epitomises the totalitarianism of group rights instead of individual rights"

O sung wu: Re new houses built for Aboriginal people. I was once shown through one of a group of new houses built for Aboriginal people in a town in western NSW. The rooms were tiny, with low ceilings and minute windows. They opened off a central hallway just a metre wide, we had to walk single file. There was no air conditioning. Just walking through, I felt claustrophobic. I grew up in a 1950s housing commission house in western Sydney, one of eight kids, so I had real experience to compare. I couldn't believe that, nearly 50 years later, even worse houses were being built for poor people (though at least they were brick veneer not asbestos fibro!)

How this came about - the new housing project came up in a conversation with some Aboriginal people I was visiting. I said something to the effect: "Oh, that's great, new houses! You must be pleased." This was met with silence, then "come with us", and they took me to the development and showed me through one of the houses. The local community and organisations were not consulted about their needs or desires, it was just a matter of this is what you get.

While I don't condone it, I can totally understand why people vandalise such houses. Such dog kennels are seen by Aboriginal people as a constant reminder of their low status in society.

That was in the 1990s; housing standards may have improved since then, but I suspect some Aboriginal people still have no choice but to live in the ones I saw

One thing thar needs to be done is to define just who is Aboriginal, as things stand the Aboriginal “Voice” could be the descendant of the union of a European and an Aboriginal in, say, 1790 and all Europeans since then; hardly representative.

There are quite a number of people who claim indigenous status but haven't a single drop of indigenous blood. Complexion does not qualify for indigenous heritage.
I found the real indigenous quite decent folk when their lives weren't manipulated by academic & bureaucratic self-interest hypocrites.

Indyvidual wrote: There are quite a number of people who claim indigenous status but haven't a single drop of indigenous blood.

How do you know that?

The numbers of "indigenous" persons has  increased from 115,953 in 1971, 0.9%  of the population to 812,728 in 2021, 3.2% of the population.  This reflects the  very loose definition of indigenous.

A test for aboriginality is well overdue. There is too much temptation via money and perks, which encourages dishonest people to make false claims. Even people with one black parent and one white parent are pushing it by identifying as aboriginal.

david f,
personal experience from living in communities for a very long time. People will tell who is who & related to whom. All it takes is a little axe to grind & the facts come out !
Of course, many of such people will argue that their grandfather had a near white child with an indigenous woman & Bingo, they're indigenous.
People of Asian, Indian & even southern European heritage have become indigenous over time.
There were literally thousands of ledgers in the libraries of each State but since indigenous or rather people who claim to be indigenous have been given the keys it's becoming increasingly difficult to obtain such information.

As usual, TTBN speaks with a great deal of common sense, being the pragmatist that he is. I've been following his opinions and views for some time, and his unwavering approach too many issues are essentially pragmatic. And the solutions, highly practical. I'd imagine, he might annoy some folk with his unerring wisdom and feasibility. I applaud it myself!

And INDYVIDUAL, my friend - From my training many years ago - It's my understanding, if an individual in custody *claims to be aboriginal, AND is **accepted by other aboriginals to be one of them, therefore the law recognises that person as being indigenous, irrespective of his features, and the colour of his skin. That may've changed by now? But as far as police are concerned, they have far more rights and protections than an other ordinary citizen in custody.

DAVID F... What INDYVIDUAL has stated herein is quite correct DAVID F. Many individuals claim aboriginality, knowing there are far more benefits and protections are afford them, than any other ethnicity, while in police custody.

COSSOMBY...While I accept you statement; apropos the sub-standard(s) and inadequate size of some of these new indigenous housing developments, wilful destruction of them is not on, and a serious criminal offence.

As a relieving sergeant in the bush, I've attended many of these newly erected dwellings, and found camp fires set in the middle of a lounge rooms, on bare floor boards, almost catching fire to the entire dwelling, while the indigenous occupants camp outside in the back yards. Dog excreta all over the interior, together with mouldy food scraps and other detritus thrown about with casual abandon.

I've always harboured a soft spot for our original people. Nonetheless, wilful damage to public property is just not on, irrespective of the reasons why.

An Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament" is a fair and reasonable preposition. It will only be successful with bipartisan support, so any proposal is going to have to have general agreement to be accepted. There are those who will oppose change as they have always done, no matter what is proposed.

There are also those rare Europeans, without a drop of Aboriginal blood, who have been accepted into a tribe as full members and are thus Aboriginal.
I personally knew only one such person, and he has passed on, but he never traded on the honour that was done to him, but there exists an area for possible exploitation by the unscrupulous.

The design and details of the Voice will be determined
by parliament.

73% of Australians agree the Constitution should be
amended to establish a Voice to parliament.

It's a simple request that Indigenous people should have
a say in the law and policies that affect their lives and
communities.

To date the decision making has been primarily done by
non-Indigenous people making decisions about their lives.
People who have never visited their communities and
about people they do not know. That's why so many
Indigenous communities are not flourishing. This is why
so many Indigenous people are struggling.

Nothing has worked in the past. Why not give them the
self-determination that they are asking?

It is long overdue.

And the fact that there may or may not be some people
misusing the system? Good God - our entire history is
based on some people doing just that - including many in
positions of power. But that hasn't stopped anyone -
has it? And look at how many politicians are against an
anti-corruption commission! I wonder why?

Pot-kettle4-black!

What lame excuses.

Pathetic.

Australians should vote no, and start taking more notice of things important to all of us: like a new Bill, that could be introduced when Parliament eventually (!) sits again, that sounds awfully like the Communist China 'social credit' travesty. Already it is being said that "it won't be compulsory". But we heard the same thing about vaccines before people lost their jobs and were publicly shamed for believing Morrison’s big fat lie.

The fools in favour of this racist, group identity Voice don't see that (in particular) the ALP Socialist regime wants to separate us, as all totalitarians do, and keep us occupied with out own group's affairs while they root us all, en masse.

SA (aboriginal) Senator Kerrynne Liddle, has joined Senator Jacinta Price in questioning Albanese’s rush to the Voice referendum. As hero of the Left, Paul Keating, used to say, 'If you don’t understand it, don't vote for it'. And nobody understands the Voice because there are no details to understand. There are no details because the proponents, including the Socialist Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, don’t want you to know the details: they will be worked out AFTER the fools have voted for it. How's that for open government and democracy!

All Australians should be equal as far as Parliamentary representation, to have a particular voice for a minority group, based on their race is RACIST in the extreme and has no place in a democracy.

Rachel Perkins says that an Indigenous Voice to parliament
is about fairness and she rejects the claim that it would
result in divisiveness.

http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/rachel-perkins-says-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-is-about-fairness-rejects-claim-it-would-result-in-divisiveness/news-story/4265b6d85ccfba436886e369374cc84e

From Foxy's link, "In an interview with Sky News Australia, Ms Perkins pointed to the fact there is already a provision in the Australian Constitution for the government to make laws around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s been there since 1967, so it’s already there. So this is a minor change in some ways”.

Get rid of all racist inclusions in the constitution, I say. Nor should the Australian constitution refer to anything pre-existing the Australia 'Project' (Lydia Thorpe's term, “I signed up to become a senator in the colonial project, and that wasn’t an easy decision for me personally, and it wasn’t an easy decision for my family either to support me in this” http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/greens-senator-lidia-thorpe-said-she-is-here-to-infiltrate-australias-parliament/news-story/6d16a6a660f7f55612e20455d28d9fc8 ).

Aborigines wanting to destroy our 'Project' can try it without the facilitation of using our words against us, which is exactly how Voice and treaty will be applied. Also, on the back of her own statements, Lydia Thorpe should not be allowed to be a member of Parliament.

How realistic, and just, is it for 350,000 people, estimated to have occupied and wandered over this continent 250 years ago, to claim through their full, partial and even non-progeny, the entire continent and its surrounding ocean as theirs alone? 'Always was, always will be' seems like fighting words to me, and I'm damned if I'm going to give them the words, as well as the legal system free for their use, to destroy the work of our pioneers, my ancestors, who they paint as evil-doers. Frankly it was war, in parts, and not by one sovereign nation against another, so there's no validity in retrospectively applying modern concepts. Treaties are signed when neither 'nation' has won to its satisfaction. This is not that situation, if my vote counts.

It is a lie that details have not been settled and will not be available prior to the referendum. Since 2011, there have been 10 gabfests, and 7 long reports produced. These reports have answered these questions: what the Voice would actually do; who would be on it; how would they get on it, appointed or elected; would it be advisory or would it have legislative powers.

Politicians want to hide the details because they think, or know, that the referendum would not succeed if the revealed them. A great democracy we live in!

Some people also thought that our world would
collapse, regarding same-sex marriage. It didn't.
And if anyone wants explanations - there's enough explanations
on the web for anyone interested enough to search
what the Voice would entail and how it would work.
As it is the design and further details will be
worked out by Parliament. This is only the first step.
And it concerns only laws and policies that will affect
the Indigenous people - so why anyone should have a problem
with that is beyond my understanding.

Indigenous people have put up with a lot - why can't we give
them a say in their own affairs?

A society is judged by the way it treats its most vunerable
people. It's time we Australians gave our Indigenous people
the self-determination that they deserve - which has been
denied to them for decades - be from being able to vote, to
being counted in the Census, to being allowed to drink in
pubs, to having their children taken from them, to not being
given wages for their labour, and the list goes on.

And now some have the cheek to suggest that they are equal to
the rest of us?

Some ideas given here are as useless as rubber lips
on a woodpecker.

For anyone really interested in knowing what the
Uluru Statement From The Heart really is:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20220524-p5ao6y.html

Troy Bramston has a piece in today’s Australian – “Establish a voice, and let parliament sort out the details” - which raises some interesting points and has caused me to change my view a bit on the level of detail we need before the referendum.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/troy-bramston (sadly, behind a paywall)

I don’t agree with all his points, but these seem valid. He argues:

1. It is highly unusual for constitutional change to be preceded by detailed legislation. The constitution establishes the head of power; Parliament legislates to give that effect. There is no reason why the Voice should be different.

2. Critics of the Voice argue that it could undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. But surely one of the best counters to this is to give Parliament the role of determining exactly how it will take account of the advice the Voice offers.

3. It may be that the form of the Voice, its membership and the mode of their appointment will need to change or adapt over time. This will be much easier to do if these features are not prescribed in the Constitution.

These seem to me quite solid reasons why we should not be too detailed and prescriptive in describing before the referendum how the Voice will work in practice. I still think the government should give some indication of what it has in mind before the vote, but a degree of flexibility in implementing it could be a good thing.

We used to have an aboriginal organisation designed to liaise with government. It was called ATSIC.

It was closed down after operating for 15 years amidst massive corruption and nepotism.

In the age of where people aren't interested in what went before, it seems each generation has to learn through making the same errors as the previous generation.

mhaze,

As you say, people don't remember or don't want to remember. I brought ATSIC and Mr. Clarke up recently.

John Howard was able to close it down, but if this racist referendum gets through it will be there for good.

My guess is that 95% non indigenous Australians would support such a voice. The dilemma is to find people with sufficient integrity on both sides to resist the urge of past-blaming whenever a hickup arises. It'd need to be people who accept that many of the past wrongs were committed by people who were sent here in chains & who survived the sea journey & once here had fewer rights than the indigenous.
People who accept that recent indigenous leaders have failed also through greed & corruption, not just the settlers. Indigenous leaders of the future need to acknowledge the enormous good will forwarded to the indigenous of this land & just because many failed to take advantage of the opportunities & let themselves go & find bleating discrimination the easier path.
Many very early settlers were just as ignorant & superstitious as the indigenous yet the mostly academic hindsight brigade is not smart enough to see that> They're the ones who resist every effort to close that gap ! The reasons are obvious !

One can blame the uneducated or uncultured for the wrongs that have been done. However, the highly educated can be as cruel and unfair as the uneducated. Those who commanded the ships that brought the convicts to Australia and presided over the cruelty and the slaughter were educated men. The top Nazis and those who supported them contained many educated men. Heidegger, one of the twentieth century top philosophers was a Nazi. One of lowly class can be a decent noble person and one of cultured and noble background can be a dirty dog and vice versa.

Victim blaming must stop, there is no doubt in my mind that Aboriginal people came off second best due to European colonisation, only an ardent racists would believe otherwise. Recognition, and truth telling of the past is important, it can't simply be ignored or altered, as some would have it. Without that truthful recognition we cannot move constructively forward. Fortunately many Australians have come to know of that truth that was hidden for over two hundred years. In some areas improvements have taken place since the first real efforts towards equality were made back in the nineteen seventies by the Whitlam Government, but after fifty years and many mistakes and failures more still needs to be done. The 'Voice to Parliament' is deserving, and is just one more step on the road to improve the lives of our First Australians.

The Aborigines of then were utterly different in mentality just as the descendants of the settlers are now ! Both are evolving more & more selfish & conniving.
We must move away from the notion that the Aborigines were always the victims. Their land was invaded & they drew the shorter straw. Their retaliations when the opportunity arose were horrific in the extreme. They can not be blamed for standing up against the invaders then but today's can now safely be accused of double standard !

The word "educated" is wrongly used all the time, just as are so many words bandied about by people who regard themselves as being educated by dint of a piece of paper.

There was no deliberate cruelty as an official policy for the First Fleet. George the Third specifically put in writing that the native population was to treated with kindness and respect, and anyone not doing so, was to be punished accordingly.

An 'educated' person would know this, and therefore refrain from lying about British settlement, or stop repeating the lies of others.

There is enough information today out there in
national and public library collections for anyone
interested in this country's true history. There
are primary sources that can be verified. There
are also people still alive who have experienced things
first hand and who can testify.

Misinformation and lies are of course out-there as well.
But if anyone really wants to know the true history -
one doesn't have to look very far to do so. And there
are enough people willing to help you search if you're
really interested.

Denial serves all of us badly. And reconciliation takes
backward steps every time denialists do their damage.
Research is worth the time - if truth is important to
anyone. It's there waiting to be discovered.

It just may open up an entire world. And of course - with that
comes understanding and action.

I watched Miriam Margolyes and her program -
"Australia Unmasked," last night at 8.30pm
on the ABC.

It was riveting viewing and part of a series that
she's doing on exploring the idea of a "Fair Go,"
in Australia.

Last night she travelled to Tasmania. We learned a great
deal. For example that one in five Australians live in poverty.
That a sizeable percentage of our population are illiterate.
The treatment of the Indigenous Palawa People in Tasmania,
and so on. It was quite a revelation.

She also got to chat with a band of bikies - ten of them, at
a cafe. It was hilarious. And quite charming.

It's worth watching - as the series continues. She's off to
Melbourne next.

http://www.thewest.com.au/entertainment/tv/miriam-margolyes-explores-the-idea-of-a-fair-go-in-australia-unmasked-c-7517282

Here's the link again:

http://www.thewest.com.au/entertainment/tv/miriam-margolyes-explores-the-idea-of-a-fair-go-in-australia-unmasked--c-7517282

I mentioned earlier that we have already had a government funded organisation to give a voice to aboriginals - ATSIC. It ended amidst acrimonious evidence of rampant corruption and nepotism.

Of course, the an organisation that is guaranteed by the constitution can't be shut down irrespective of the level of corruption or nepotism. The ABBA-riginal grifters must be salivating at the prospect.

Two men looked out from prison bars.
One saw the mud, the other saw stars.

I think Foxy is referring to where the ATSIC grifters should have been.

mhaze,

No.

We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we
used when we created them.

Think higher, feel deeper!

"Think higher, feel deeper!"

Yep, closing the gap is all about feelz.

mhaze,

You still don't get it.

Without Indigenous participation (Closing the Gap)
is going to be doomed to fail.
(Patrick Dodson).

The gap has long been closed for those who could claim to be Aboriginal but don’t bother to do so.
My numerous relations who have Aboriginal ancestors being examples.

I've got a touch of Aboriginal in me but I wasn't raised as one and don't identify as one.
My Dads mum was born in the 1920's and was quite a few generations down from an Irishman who married an indigenous woman back in the 1800s
If you go to the national library in Canberra you can read it.

Gungarlook : The story of the Aboriginal Riley family of Burragorang Valley
Ivy Brookman & Jim Smith - 89 pages.
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/5020237

"Without Indigenous participation (Closing the Gap)
is going to be doomed to fail.
(Patrick Dodson)."

So one of those who'll benefit mightily from 'The Voice' tells you how important it is to establish 'The Voice' from which he will benefit mightily....and you fall for it.

Does your naivety know no bounds?

I'll try to make it easier for you...there is no gap except that which applies to those who want the dual and incompatible objectives of living a traditional life while enjoying all the goodies of a modern life. They can't have both and people like you aren't prepared to tell them.

Activists don't want the 'gap' real or imagined closed because they would lose money and prestige. All those 70 odd organisations would disappear. If the Voice referendum ever gets up, I will vote NO, and others can do as they please. Nothing more to say.

mhaze,

People like me?

You have no idea.

ttbn,

You probably voted against same-sex marriage as well.

Still it got through.

ArmchairCritic,

Small world, I used to hunt regularly in the Valley, before it was destroyed.
Used to go mainly to Neville Lang’s property out past Yerrandery.
Used to hunt with a couple of the Rileys, Tom and Syl, (probably Sylvester but nobody called him that), also with Dudley Goodfellow from the other side of the river, he was a cousin of theirs.
This was way back in the 1950s.

I'm interested that the OP is interested enough to comment on the voice but not interested enough to read what it is.....

It's a very exciting day in Canberra today.

The opening of Parliament will be filled with
all sorts of pomp and ceremony. Hopefully, we
shall see our new government being able to
negotiate what it promised. Or at least
make a start. And it will go
down in history for having done so. It will
be up to the Opposition - as to how it wants to
be remembered in future years. As builders, or
wreckers.

Fingers-crossed they'll choose the first option.

Exciting times ahead.

Foxy,
If you can get excited about the National Parliament, don’t take up Tidily Winks, the excitement might be too much for you.

What is Tidily Winks?

It's not a game I'm familiar with - is it an Irish
game?

I prefer chess.
Except I don't play with pigeons.
Pigeons will crap all over the board. Knock over
the pieces, then fly off claiming victory.

Is Mise,

This may bring some memories back for you:

http://www.eenymeeny.net/games/jacks%20games/Knucklebones.html

Foxy,

It’s a decidedly English game, devised and patented in England in the1880s.

Sounds good.

Hey Is Mise,
"Small world, I used to hunt regularly in the Valley, before it was destroyed.
Used to go mainly to Neville Lang’s property out past Yerrandery.
Used to hunt with a couple of the Rileys, Tom and Syl, (probably Sylvester but nobody called him that), also with Dudley Goodfellow from the other side of the river, he was a cousin of theirs.
This was way back in the 1950s."

Wow, that's awesome, I only know the few things that I know from the book.
- My grandmothers name's in it, she died in a car accident when she was in her 30's, even my Dad didn't really know his mum well.
I didn't find out about this indigenous side of my family until my late 30's as my Dad never spoke much about it.

[Cont.]
Actually, after thinking about it...
I don't have the book right now, but my mum does.
She's planning on visiting this week so I'll get her to bring it.
It's got a fairly detailed telling of the Riley family tree and events.
I'll go through it and try and figure out where Tom and Syl fit in with regards to my Grandmother and get back to you.