AnswerID: 24204 Submitted: Friday, Jul 04, 2003 at 14:23
Joe
replied:
I’d have to agree with Squid on this – as long as access permit fees go to maintenance of the land and in keeping access for all as a primary focus I wouldn’t care who collected the money.
There are an awful lot of misinformed people out there who believe that any blackfeller can simply go out and collect a new LandCruiser, run it until the fuel tank is empty and then collect another one. If these people had ever been out there then they would know that the lot of most aboriginal peoples is poverty and poor health.
It is certainly true that there are thieves and charlatans in aboriginal communities, just as there are in all other communities, but these money grabbers should not be seen as the norm. In my opinion this is one area where ATSIC has dismally failed. I have my own story of ATSIC greed where three people associated with ATSIC diverted funds to build houses for themselves instead of improving the lot of their people and it is just such stories that hit peoples imagination and make them think that all aboriginals are the same.
As for the seemingly positive discrimination in favour of aboriginal peoples, well I think we should ignore the “aboriginal” part of the discrimination and agree that any group of people that lives with such awful disadvantages needs to be helped to lift them to a standard that we would all consider acceptable.
This would include the other groups currently held in such distaste such as the boat peoples and urban homeless.
The real issue here would be in setting the level deemed to be acceptable and in making this assistance available to all people and not limiting it to particular groups.
As for who owns the land now? Well I subscribe to the old belief that “I conquered it, therefore it is mine”. That has certainly been true for the rest of the world so why not here?
Reply 5 of 5