rgmwa

I guess you have to start somewhere.

So did last year’s and the year before…

I thought her antics at the swearing in ceremony were pretty divisive and pathetic, and showed her opinion of the Parliament to which she had just been elected. I don't think she has anything worthwhile to offer and Bandt is well rid of her, although she's going to be a pain in the neck as long as she's there.

... as any good pilot would.

Jandals?

Window dressing to.support the fiction that the enemy is at the gates?

Should be an interesting spectacle if he isn't the GOP nominee. He will most likely trash whoever is nominated and sink the GOP's chances of winning the next election, irrespective of who becomes the Democrat candidate.

Stop donating now, you blokes. I've got my tickets and any more competition is going to reduce my chances even further.

I'm less charitable. I hope he does.

I don't see how you can help the Alice Springs lot unless they want to change, and by the sound of it most of the parents and children living in and around the town are too dysfunctional to be likely to respond well to any form of intervention, even if the necessary resources were available which they're clearly not. Tennant Creek is also notorious, and there are other places too. On the other hand there are plenty of decent and well educated Aboriginal people around who are also frustrated by what's going on in these communities. The Voice is not going to solve anything quickly but it will at least make a representative (we assume) group of Aboriginals part of the solution in the long term. Hopefully they can also be a conduit to mobilise local Aboriginal leaders in these communities to try and build change from the ground up. It will also need the various Governments to spend money and commit resources wisely - another very tall order given the long track record of past failures judging by the annual `Closing the Gap' assessments. That's the only way I can see that change might happen. Piecemeal external intervention by non-Aboriginals is just a waste of time and money. Sadly, for many of the individuals in these local communities, it's probably already too late but you have to start somewhere. It will take a massive effort to achieve anything though.

The problems highlighted in that article are so entrenched and intractable that it’s hard to see what action could be taken to reform the community short of OME’s suggestion of forced separation. If there is a solution it will take generations to wash through the aboriginal community in Alice Springs and no doubt other places. In that sense a Voice that can potentially maintain a consistent message across a succession of governments isn’t a bad idea if it works.

Agreed. In the context of a person born and living in Perth but descended (in part, presumably) from a tribe in the Pilbara, how could you claim that you are accepted by the (Aboriginal) community in which you live, when they don't live where you do. Even if you did live in the community, what are the standards for demonstrating `acceptance'. Do you need to a majority of the elders to sign off in some way?

She's Professor Helen Milroy, who was born in Perth, graduated as a doctor in 1983 and traces her ancestral lineage to the Palyku people of the Pilbara Region. I've got no idea whether she meets the current three-part definition of an Aboriginal, but I found this Australian Law Reform Commission extract interesting given the number of people apparently claiming they are Aboriginal. Legal definitions of Aboriginality Early definitions 36.11 The legal historian, John McCorquodale, has reported that since the time of white settlement, governments have used no less than 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person.[9] 36.12 The ALRC discussed the definition of an ‘Aborigine’ in its 1986 report, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws.[10] The ALRC noted that early attempts at a definition tended to concentrate on descent, without referring to other elements of Aboriginality. Problems arose in deciding whether descendants of unions between Aborigines and settlers were to be regarded as Aboriginal for the purposes of various restrictive or discriminatory laws (for example, disentitling Aborigines from voting or enrolling to vote). In applying these restrictive laws, tests based on ‘quantum of blood’ were commonly applied.[11] 36.13 The Commonwealth Parliament obtained the power to legislate with respect to people of ‘the aboriginal race in any State’ in the 1967 referendum. The Commonwealth subsequently enacted a number of statutes for the purpose of providing certain rights and privileges for the exclusive benefit of Indigenous Australians.[12] These statutes have generally defined an Aboriginal or Indigenous person as ‘a person who is a descendant of an indigenous inhabitant of Australia’,[13] or a member or a person ‘of the Aboriginal race of Australia’.[14] One commentator has observed in relation to the latter definition: The three-part definition 36.14 In the early 1980s, the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs proposed a new three-part definition of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. 36.15 Federal government departments adopted the definition as their ‘working definition’ for determining eligibility to certain services and benefits. The definition continues to be applied administratively in relation to programs such as Abstudy funding for tertiary students.

Hopefully it will, but just having a Voice doesn't mean the politicians will take any notice of it unless they are compelled to in some way.

He will probably be booted off again before long.

I suspect the referendum may get over the line, mainly because most people are likely to feel that some acknowledgement of the fact that the Aborigines were here first should be formally recognised in the Constitution, even if they have no idea what the Voice is about or how it's going to work (or more likely not). What makes it even more confusing is the obvious disagreement between different Aboriginal individuals about whether they even want a Voice, and the persistent talk about a Treaty of some sort. However despite their justified confusion, most people are likely to think that doing something is better than doing nothing and vote yes.

Yea and verily.

Wishful thinking.

Possibly poorer but no wiser too?

On the other hand, did he mean uncommon low-life?

He looks good but she looks a lot better. Wonder what happened to the other three.

As long as I don't hear about my passing, I'm not worried.

An example of modern digital manipulation of modern phone images?

Probably the most believable part of the show.

Fatal stall then?