High Court Citizenship case

Remove this Banner Ad

Mofra said:
Disappointing if true.

I wonder if there is any government mechanism to change the working definition of 'recognised as' to 'raised as', as I doubt the intention of the recognition of aboriginality is something that you stumble across in your 20s.
Click to expand...

Richmond's Shane Edwards only found out in 2013 (at 24yo).

There isn't any reliable DNA test so the system relies on word of mouth, which is ripe for exploitation.

It all points to race-based legislation being fraught. I think we are heading in the wrong direction.
 
Mofra said:
Disappointing if true.

I wonder if there is any government mechanism to change the working definition of 'recognised as' to 'raised as', as I doubt the intention of the recognition of aboriginality is something that you stumble across in your 20s.
Click to expand...
You definately do there are numerous University scholarship and jobs that are for aboriginals only that require confirmation from land council's, in many cases this is the first time people have to apply for recognition.
This is not to say most of these people are not deserving but it could be open to manipulation
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sainteric said:
You definately do there are numerous University scholarship and jobs that are for aboriginals only that require confirmation from land council's, in many cases this is the first time people have to apply for recognition.
This is not to say most of these people are not deserving but it could be open to manipulation
Click to expand...
In the case of Dusty's dad it does seem like a case of manipulation (opportunism), hence my interest in mechanisms to tighten the definition criteria.

The rationale behind a policy should drive the implementation of it. I don't see how someone stumbling across a part of their ancestry in their 20s either helps those in aboriginal communities suffering from intergenerational poverty to help themselves escape it via access to education and employment, nor serve to protect the cultural heritage of the the various mobs.
 
Mofra said:
Any evidence of that? The mobs I've known wouldn't even consider anything like that.
Click to expand...

Dusty's dad an example of that with two groups signing off and subsequently revoking their representations?

I guess we will have to wait and see, given the high court ruling is fresh. Perhaps ever migration office should be run by an aboriginal group? Guaranteed results!
 
Mofra said:
In the case of Dusty's dad it does seem like a case of manipulation (opportunism), hence my interest in mechanisms to tighten the definition criteria.

The rationale behind a policy should drive the implementation of it. I don't see how someone stumbling across a part of their ancestry in their 20s either helps those in aboriginal communities suffering from intergenerational poverty to help themselves escape it via access to education and employment, nor serve to protect the cultural heritage of the the various mobs.
Click to expand...

the courts have expressed this "tightening" of definition is one for the legislator not the courts. This isn't entirely true as although the legislator should lead, no doubt the issue will end up being challenged in the courts.

Where this becomes a political mess, is science has moved away from the concept of race, so DNA is out from the "prosecution" perspective and hasn't been adopted in the past. Further DNA may prove they are or likely to be aboriginal, it doesn't prove they are not.

This will be a political nightmare if the requirement is documentation. As we all appreciate, aboriginals were denied so much pre 1967 with the federal government not keeping records or having power in regards to aborigines. This includes basic record keeping or documentation.

Meaning a legal challenge is easy, highlighting the same government that denies my identity as an aboriginal today, was the same government that denied my identity as a human in the past and failed to keep proper records because of my heritage as an aborigine.

The best we have is a criteria open for abuse.
 
Mofra said:
In the case of Dusty's dad it does seem like a case of manipulation (opportunism), hence my interest in mechanisms to tighten the definition criteria.

The rationale behind a policy should drive the implementation of it. I don't see how someone stumbling across a part of their ancestry in their 20s either helps those in aboriginal communities suffering from intergenerational poverty to help themselves escape it via access to education and employment, nor serve to protect the cultural heritage of the the various mobs.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. People claiming dubious heritage for personal gain under this easily exploited means of determining aboriginality is not a victimless fraud as resources are diverted from those whom the schemes were set up to aid. At a political level the "waste" of taxpayer dollars results in pushback and could see such schemes wound back or scrapped altogether. Can anyone expand on what are the supposed limitations of DNA testing in this circumstance?
 
Mofra said:
In the case of Dusty's dad it does seem like a case of manipulation (opportunism), hence my interest in mechanisms to tighten the definition criteria.

The rationale behind a policy should drive the implementation of it. I don't see how someone stumbling across a part of their ancestry in their 20s either helps those in aboriginal communities suffering from intergenerational poverty to help themselves escape it via access to education and employment, nor serve to protect the cultural heritage of the the various mobs.
Click to expand...

It might help the government with closing the gap.

If successful people make claims of their ancestry, despite having little connection. This helps the government cover over the actual issues expressed in the gap.
 
An objective assessment of the repercussions of the High Court decision by someone working toward constitutional change (Chris Kenny, Senior Advisory Group for the 'indigenous voice to government' project).

Court on the horns of an indigenous dilemma (paywalled)
[Judge] Edelman ... saw what is not written in the Constitution. “Since settlement, Aboriginal people have been inseparably tied to the land of Australia generally, and thus to the political community of Australia, with metaphysical bonds that are far stronger than those forged by the happenstance of birth on Australian land or the nationality of parentage.”

If you think “metaphysical bonds” are a constitutional stretch, he went further, adopting bizarre new-age language to place race at the core of citizenship rights and alien status. Edelman found that the “genealogy and identity” of Aboriginal people included a “spiritual connection forged over tens of thousands of years” between that person and “Australian land, or ‘mother nature’ ”.

The co-opting of “mother Earth” and “spiritual connection” into legal and constitutional matters is deeply disturbing. These are concepts beyond codification. We must now look for constitutional law in the feelings of High Court judges — quite literally, “the vibe” of the thing. Life imitates art.
Click to expand...
 
Ron The Bear said:
An objective assessment of the repercussions of the High Court decision by someone working toward constitutional change (Chris Kenny, Senior Advisory Group for the 'indigenous voice to government' project).

Court on the horns of an indigenous dilemma (paywalled)
Click to expand...

Dangerous grounds we are returning to with race and a two tiered system.

Anyone remember pre 1967 anyone remember nazi Germany?

Racial recognition should be removed from our constitution, not further cemented.
 
Mofra said:
I don't see how someone stumbling across a part of their ancestry in their 20s either helps those in aboriginal communities suffering from intergenerational poverty to help themselves escape it via access to education and employment, nor serve to protect the cultural heritage of the the various mobs.
Click to expand...

Bang on. I'm also intrigued why people choose to identify with being (say) 25% Indigenous ahead of anything else in their heritage, where they're not actually brought up in that community. It couldn't possibly be due to some kind of personal gain right?

Opportunities for people of Indigenous background should be used for people that have grown up in Indigenous or disadvantaged communities where they could see very real benefits, not someone who's grown up in middle-class Melbourne and has a distant relative who happens to be Indigenous.

Martin's dad trying to use this as a loophole to be allowed back in is exactly the kind of unintended consequences of this High Court decision that was always going to happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

owen87 said:
Bang on. I'm also intrigued why people choose to identify with being (say) 25% Indigenous ahead of anything else in their heritage, where they're not actually brought up in that community. It couldn't possibly be due to some kind of personal gain right?

Opportunities for people of Indigenous background should be used for people that have grown up in Indigenous or disadvantaged communities where they could see very real benefits, not someone who's grown up in middle-class Melbourne and has a distant relative who happens to be Indigenous.

Martin's dad trying to use this as a loophole to be allowed back in is exactly the kind of unintended consequences of this High Court decision that was always going to happen.
Click to expand...

I take a slightly different view. As I fear only rewarding the disadvantaged and those that stay in a community, means we are trapping people rather than encouraging people to participate in the broader community. By doing so, we deny them education, employment opportunities, the opportunity of entering into relationships outside of their community. In the worst communities, we are locking them into child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, violence and crime.

Coming from the mining industry, seeing the billions paid to aboriginal groups (which is a good thing). However, those entitled to the royalties must demonstrate a continued connection with the land. Meaning if they get on with their life in a modern way, seek education elsewhere, seek employment and start families away from their traditional land; they are risking their entitlements.


There is no doubt Australia was built by dispossession of property from aboriginals. Then we denied them citizenship meaning they couldn't get bank loans, buy property, own a business etc. Compensation to all aborigines, should be equal to all aboriginals and measured on the total loss. Whether they have successfully integrated into society, successfully remained in their communities or have become complete basket cases should be irrelevant to the concept of property rights and compensation.
 
Power Raid said:
I take a slightly different view. As I fear only rewarding the disadvantaged and those that stay in a community, means we are trapping people rather than encouraging people to participate in the broader community. By doing so, we deny them education, employment opportunities, the opportunity of entering into relationships outside of their community. In the worst communities, we are locking them into child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, violence and crime.

Coming from the mining industry, seeing the billions paid to aboriginal groups (which is a good thing). However, those entitled to the royalties must demonstrate a continued connection with the land. Meaning if they get on with their life in a modern way, seek education elsewhere, seek employment and start families away from their traditional land; they are risking their entitlements.


There is no doubt Australia was built by dispossession of property from aboriginals. Then we denied them citizenship meaning they couldn't get bank loans, buy property, own a business etc. Compensation to all aborigines, should be equal to all aboriginals and measured on the total loss. Whether they have successfully integrated into society, successfully remained in their communities or have become complete basket cases should be irrelevant to the concept of property rights and compensation.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear on the point you're making here to be honest; you're talking about giving compensation to people who in some cases are 200+ years removed from the time of settlement for a start, so what's the line you use to decide who should receive compensation, how 'Aboriginal' do they need to be? What's the long-term strategy and purpose for standard of living for people in remote communities? For better engaging with Aboriginal & TSI people in broader Australian society?

You talk about giving aid (e.g. additional uni places available to Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders) locking people in to a lifetime in communities; but the aim should be to either improve the standard of living in communities such that staying in them isn't exposing people to child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or violence and crime. A compensation 'payment' doesn't achieve this in the long run, is likely problematic in the short term (large influx of cash in to a community not really equipped to use it for long term benefits), and difficult to administer in any kind of fair way. Additionally the 'loss' of Aboriginal people will vary drastically depending on where their particular mob was located, it wasn't a single contiguous society that was dispossessed of a block of land each for example.

For the mining example, the basic premise would be to compensate these groups for the use of their land I believe? Where that land would otherwise be free and available for them to live their lives as they see fit? Are you suggesting that if someone moves away and studies in Sydney, gains a degree and employment, that they should receive royalties for 30 years or beyond because of where they happened to have been born?
 
owen87 said:
I'm not clear on the point you're making here to be honest; you're talking about giving compensation to people who in some cases are 200+ years removed from the time of settlement for a start (this is consistent with international and Australian property right law protections), so what's the line you use to decide who should receive compensation (blood line is the usual method but that is impractical so an equal share basis), how 'Aboriginal' do they need to be (no limit but ATSIC methodology is most appropriate for this situation)? What's the long-term strategy and purpose for standard of living for people in remote communities (There should be no strategy unless they are self sustainable)? For better engaging with Aboriginal & TSI people in broader Australian society (treat them like any other person and promote employment and work for the dole)?

You talk about giving aid (I didn't mention that but we should support people who help themselves be it black, white or other) (e.g. additional uni places available to Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders) locking people in to a lifetime in communities (unlocking people from failed communities is my position); but the aim should be to either improve the standard of living in communities such that staying in them isn't exposing people to child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or violence and crime. A compensation 'payment' doesn't achieve this in the long run, is likely problematic in the short term (large influx of cash in to a community not really equipped to use it for long term benefits), and difficult to administer in any kind of fair way (agree and creating a purpose in people's lives and employment is the key but that doesn't remove our legal obligation to address property right infringements). Additionally the 'loss' of Aboriginal people will vary drastically depending on where their particular mob was located, it wasn't a single contiguous society that was dispossessed of a block of land each for example (agree and thus acknowledge a one size fits all solution is only about being practical).

For the mining example, the basic premise would be to compensate these groups for the use of their land I believe (kind of, aborgines have no rights to the ore but they grant rights of access. Mining companies currently have no obligation to pay but they do. The issue is they only pay the local group rather than those that have sought a better life)? Where that land would otherwise be free and available for them to live their lives as they see fit? Are you suggesting that if someone moves away and studies in Sydney, gains a degree and employment, that they should receive royalties for 30 years or beyond because of where they happened to have been born (no, I'm suggesting they should receive the benefit as this is what would happen to a white person if they were entitled to property right benefits handed down by their family)?
Click to expand...



I guess there are a number of different reasons to identify aborigines and thus the current different methodologies to identify them.

In regards to compensation, under Australian law we have the concept of indefeasibly of title other than in the case of fraud. Terra Nulius was declared which we now understand was a methodology of dispossession through deception. It is impossible and unfair to remedy under our current laws, which is to simply take title away from the current owners without compensation and hand back by tracing the lineage of rightful owners. Thus I propose ALL aborigines share the spoils equally.

In terms of my position on communities, I believe in integration rather than apartheid. This has to be the choice of individuals in communities but I don't want to see people feeling trapped in communities by losing property rights because they chose education, employment or new relationships and families.



Also refer bolded inserts in your post
 
Power Raid said:
I guess there are a number of different reasons to identify aborigines and thus the current different methodologies to identify them.

In regards to compensation, under Australian law we have the concept of indefeasibly of title other than in the case of fraud. Terra Nulius was declared which we now understand was a methodology of dispossession through deception. It is impossible and unfair to remedy under our current laws, which is to simply take title away from the current owners without compensation and hand back by tracing the lineage of rightful owners. Thus I propose ALL aborigines share the spoils equally.

In terms of my position on communities, I believe in integration rather than apartheid. This has to be the choice of individuals in communities but I don't want to see people feeling trapped in communities by losing property rights because they chose education, employment or new relationships and families.



Also refer bolded inserts in your post
Click to expand...

Agree on many of your points, it's problematic to find a suitable solution that doesn't have some issues in various ways.

For me, I think we often apply the expectation of integration in many proposed solutions, where in many ways modern Australia and life in remote communities (and a shared, communal type lifestyle with no real sense of ownership) are fundamentally incompatible. Gaining an education, employment, owning a house; these are all things that require individual attainment.

We view success as going to get an education, be gainfully employed, eventually raise a healthy family, buy a house, and so on. Thus the idea of work for the dole and such is forcing people in to a situation where they must integrate in to what we view as an acceptable way of living.

The current solution where we just throw money at communities and largely let them do what they want is clearly not working - long term health outcomes and life expectancy are drastically lower for a start - but I'm not sure a welfare type solution is necessarily going to appeal to many people living in remote communities.
 
owen87 said:
Gaining an education, employment, owning a house; these are all things that require individual attainment.

We view success as going to get an education, be gainfully employed, eventually raise a healthy family, buy a house, and so on. Thus the idea of work for the dole and such is forcing people in to a situation where they must integrate in to what we view as an acceptable way of living.
Click to expand...

Yes, and a percentage of Aboriginals have made it abundantly clear that they don't aspire to these things. Some are waiting for lawyers to hand over the keys to the nation, and not without encouraging signs. Aboriginal sovereignty is the goal.

When we were young, most of us learned a variation of my old man's crude homily, delivered when asked why he had to go to work: "If you don't work, you don't eat; if you don't eat, you don't s**t; if you don't s**t, you die." It's difficult to communicate on an equal footing with someone who hasn't absorbed that simple observation.
 
Ron The Bear said:
Some are waiting for lawyers to hand over the keys to the nation, and not without encouraging signs. Aboriginal sovereignty is the goal.
Click to expand...

There certainly does seem to be some people for whom this is the outcome they want. For a lot of people who contort themselves to feel guilty and shame others for the plight of the Indigenous, I wonder where they'd draw the line on this. Presumably their willingness to give up things and sacrifice for the sake of closing the gap, changing the date, or a treaty, extends about as far as where it starts to impact their own lives.
 
owen87 said:
Presumably their willingness to give up things and sacrifice for the sake of closing the gap, changing the date, or a treaty, extends about as far as where it starts to impact their own lives.
Click to expand...

Suspect you're right. When I issued a challenge to a swarm of critics on this forum to donate to Aboriginal education and promised to match it dollar for dollar, I got no takers. Not one.
 
owen87 said:
Agree on many of your points, it's problematic to find a suitable solution that doesn't have some issues in various ways.

For me, I think we often apply the expectation of integration in many proposed solutions, where in many ways modern Australia and life in remote communities (and a shared, communal type lifestyle with no real sense of ownership) are fundamentally incompatible. Gaining an education, employment, owning a house; these are all things that require individual attainment.

We view success as going to get an education, be gainfully employed, eventually raise a healthy family, buy a house, and so on. Thus the idea of work for the dole and such is forcing people in to a situation where they must integrate in to what we view as an acceptable way of living.

The current solution where we just throw money at communities and largely let them do what they want is clearly not working - long term health outcomes and life expectancy are drastically lower for a start - but I'm not sure a welfare type solution is necessarily going to appeal to many people living in remote communities.
Click to expand...

agree

throwing money at dysfunctional communities is extremely dangerous and counter-productive. We work with one aboriginal community where the healthy elder generation is approaching 90yo and strong as an ox. This generation was raised on cattle stations as under paid labour pre being kicked off in the 70s.

Everyone between the age of 35 an 90 is dead.

Those 20-35 yo are the walking dead, with diabetes. Perhaps the limping dead as some already have their legs amputated. Those under 20 are in Kal or jail running amok, living a lifestyle that will see them rejoin the community with diabetes and other health issues.



Fair pay for fair work, in the 70s, was a decision made with the best intentions. The implementation was totally wrong and in my opinion 99% of the reason the gap is what it is today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Jackie Lambie refers Australian Defence Force senior command to the International Criminal Court.
Replies
1
Views
327
Big Papa Ted
B
nut
Why do countries with high union memberships have happy countries?
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
GreyWind
GreyWind

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top