More climbs will be banned

You can’t fly over the rock as such, there is (or atleast was when I did it) a set distance they need to stay away from it when doing those flights. Having done both the climb and the view from above it by chopper, I much preferred climbing it myself....could take the time to just sit there taking in the views from various locations a top of it.

As a dog owner you aren't banned from national parks at all, only if you have a dog with you is there a restriction applied to the dog, not you. You don't even have to own the dog. Go to national parks, enjoy, just don't take the mutt.

Ayers Rock is a natural thing to be appreciated by all. Opera Houses aren't nature. Why would you want to climb the Opera House anyway?

Perhaps the proposed chair lift up Uluru and the coffee shop at the top will attract the folk back again, seeing the Mititjulu community don't appear to benefit from the ones who run the resort and Rock township. Perhaps if there was equity in the proceeds of the tourist area, the Elders may have been amenable to the rock being climbed. Might be all economics and not cultural at all!

Ok Rumpig, "flew around Uluru" then. Happy?

RMD
" Why would you want to climb the Opera House anyway?"
Many have over the decades. My point is, it isnt allowed by the authorities. No different Uluru now.
I respect the decision. I dont have the view that I can do as I want, where I want.
If you owned a farm with a distinct hill that attracted hill climbers you'd expect they obtain permission to climb it yes?

If you owned a farm with a distinct hill that attracted hill climbers you'd expect they obtain permission to climb it yes?

I think that is part of the problem some people have....when we gave the rock to the aboriginies, we "other" inhabitants didn't have a say in it being given away.
Some may say their has been aboriginies living there for X amount of years and they are entitled to that piece of land.....and I don't agree or disagree with that assumption, BUT, the aboriginies living there get a pittance of the royalties generated from the tourist dollars. If "we" gave it away, why didn't we give it to them ?

Sure, Opera Houses aren't nature. Nor is the coathanger, but they have made that a climb accessible to the public. It doesn't have to be "nature" to be an interesting climb.

eaglefree, being a dog owner just get one of these drop in puppies for national park travel.

Drop in Dingo pup.

Gronk


There was a very good story a number of years ago on, from memory, 60 Minutes.

Millions of dollars was given to the community from Royalties, but siphoned off by corrupt elders , while the general community there got nothing.

When they tried to interview the person, he spat the dummy and demand the police arrest them for being in the Community. The police were powerless to do so, as channel 9 had all the correct permits, had a police escort into the community, as they expected trouble, and even invited there by other Aboriginals, who knew the money was being rorted.

When I say rorted, they were talking over $10 mil.

So to answer your reply, the Aboriginals at Ayers Rock do get very good royalties

Stephen, it is pretty common for money not to get to communities. There is a great big gravy train public service just waiting for it to arrive and local elders that are in charge can be pretty good at it.

Good read link

So, according to that report, they get 25% of royalties from the gate fees. Where does the other 75% go ? Into someones back pocket ?

A piece of land here in NSW on the coast was given back to a tribe ( not the tribe that used to inhabit the area, but because they didn't claim , another "outside" tribe was allowed )
Then they sold the land to a developer for 50 million....4 yrs later there was an enquiry as to where the 50 million went ? Disappeared, and to this day it hasn't been accounted for .

About 18 months ago I was operating a Sydney-Ayers Rock flight (yes, it's called Ayers Rock airport). We picked up some late freight, which put us over our landing weight by about 500kg, and we had already refuelled. I decided we would burn the extra fuel along the way, rather than cop a delay waiting to de-fuel.

About 20 miles from the airport I diverted over and did an "Ayers Rock scenic". A left-hand orbit over Ayers Rock, then across to The Olgas for a right-hand orbit, then back to the airport 100kg below max landing weight.

We had 170+ happy customers :) Everybody got a look at either landmark.

Awful big difference in being 'banned' from climbing a MAN MADE object such as the opera house or bridge and a NATURAL rock formation ......

What IS the difference? Man made or natural, it is about respect.
Many sites in The Grampians are closed off for safety, cultural and preservation reasons. I climbed the Rock 30 years ago, saw the crap left by tourists and was ashamed of the disrespect. The Rock isn't just about you... If you feel the need to climb it, ask yourself 'Why?'
Then build a bridge...

I climbed it last year and saw no rubbish at all, so fail to see the point of a 30 year old reference to rubbish you saw there back then. The fact traditional elders had no issue with people climbing it is why I had no issue doing it, anyone that feels upset about that can build a bridge as far as I’m concerned

Can build a bridge but won't be allowed to cross it.

Do you know why? Or does no reason justify it so you wont mention it?

Claimed to be sacred. The Qld government said it will not happen.

Don’t recall exact reasons eaglefree, was something about a birthing place or something along those lines for one of those mountains..... just half saw it mentioned on the tv news.. It wasn’t a new call though I recall hearing, atleast one of those mountains they’ve been calling for the Qld government for a while now to close it to climbing.

There was a total ban on climbing in the Grampians in certain areas, it caused that much opposition from climbers that the Gov and aboriginals decided that the climbing groups had to be accredited before they could climb certain areas. A lady climbing instructor who went on social media to oppose the decision has been excluded by the authorities and banned from being accredited. That how rotten the system is. I myself have climbed Ayers Rock ( I refuse to call it by their name as we have a history too) thirteen times since early 1972 and spent all day up there walking up to the east end and I never got sick of it. This is when locals could not care less and and the locals had no community there only a few hanging around the old store. I am glad I have been to many areas that you cannot go today. This country is being manipulated by noisy minorities. Some people should read a bit of history written by early explorers and listen to what people like Peter Severin from Curtin Springs.
Lindsay.

Here's a balanced report on Grampians climbing issue.

Grampians Climbing Ban

Doesn't seem anything "rotten" about the system, although some might argue that chalk and pitons would have little effect in many areas.

Not a chance, too many white fellas doing that walk for it to be shut down...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Baz

Aboriginals get far more benefits than white people.

One such benefit regardless of how much they earn.......Closing the Gap

This is just one of many that white Aussies can not claim

It was posted on this forum last year sometime by a member, that the indigenous community Australia wide receive thirty BILLION dollars a year in welfare and handouts - thirty BILLION !!!

I can't remember whether it was Noel Pearson or Pat Dodson - said that the white fella must stop giving handouts to aboriginal people because the more you give them the more they want and expect - and it's time they started looking after themselves !

Help them for sure I say but surely twenty billion a year would suffice - saving Aussie taxpayers ten billion a year !


Off to work now so I can contribute to the 30 billion :)

Cheers

Gazz

If having a statistically far lower health and life expectancy is a benefit then I'll pass thanks.

Australia’s welfare system is extremely generous and benefits all, regardless of your skin colour.

Personally, I’m pleased that we have a system that puts a safety net in place for those that need it and I’m happy to contribute.

Michael’s comment is spot on...


Cheers, Baz - The Landy

It was Warren Mundine that made the quote about $30 billion being spent on indigenous welfare, and whilst the quote was correct a delve into the ‘detail’ reveals a very different story.

You can read more about it here.

Warren Mundine Fact Check

For those not inclined to read the report, it was summarised in this way.

“Warren Mundine’s statement uses the most accurate and up-to-date estimate of government spending on Indigenous Australians – about $30.3 billion, according to the Productivity Commission.

However, only a small proportion of the overall Indigenous expenditure is on Indigenous-specific programs. The rest comprises the cost of providing mainstream services, such as schooling and health care, that all Australians enjoy...’

The old adage, never let the facts get in the way of a great story rings true here.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Baz, there's a huge difference between a safety net and a CARGO NET.

How much is a continent and two centuries of persecution and discrimination worth I wonder Zippo? I'll bet good money plenty of indigenous people have contributed far more to the nation than you or I. I'll also have an educated guess that the cost of supporting us is every bit as much and probably far more when everything is factored in.

$30B pales into insignificance compared to the $90+B welfare given to gas developers/miners. That number is for ADDITIONAL tax concessions provided by Howard and Costello alone, it doesn't include billions more in government provision of infrastructure, geological and geophysical data and scientific expertise.

Your knowledge of the "discovery" of this continent and its early white history is appalling. Is there any nationality or race you don't have a problem with? Ironically though if any of the earlier visitors (the many who actually got here first) had colonised this continent we wouldn't have to read the implicit and explicit racism which unfortunately regularly appears on Exploroz.

Bazooka
If you knew some history you would realise what was meant there. How you determine racism from my comments is puzzling. It is only what happened earlier in history. If it had been Australia the indigenous people would not be here. I am not against any colour or creed. Stop being virtuous, it is an epidemic in Oz.

RMD, your reply suggests you are saying that if the French, Spanish, or Dutch had colonised the continent, those nationalities would have been more successful in the genocide of the First Nations peoples?

'If having a statistically far lower health and life expectancy is a benefit then I'll pass thanks', states Michael.

It's their choice to live in subhuman ways that give the results you speak of.

Mate, we've had around 10,000 years to adapt from stone age existence to our current lifestyle. They've had a few hundred years, some a lot less. You have to have a bit of give in there somewhere unless you just want to sit back and let them self destruct.

Banjo
"It's their choice to live in subhuman ways that give the results you speak of"

Thats a deplorable comment but not unexpected. As stayed indigenous people didnt need modern advancement nor our industry to survive quite happily and successful in life.
The "sub human" is based in your mind comparing their lifestyle to ours, the white man. For many indigenous people playing catch up to the white mans levels of capabilities in a handful of generations is really unfair and disrespectful.
No wonder I'd prefer a conversation with a proud aboriginal than some grumpy grey hair judgemental whites.

You likely know that the English were far from the first Europeans/Asians to set foot on this continent RMD but reading between the lines you appear to know very little about the many massacres perpetrated by early white settlers on this soil. I'm not sure why you suggestively singled out the French, Dutch and Spanish because if you trawl through history you'll be hard-pressed to find any group/nation which hasn't been involved in mass violence towards, and inhuman (ironically quite human) mistreatment of, others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing with threads like these is that they bring out the very worst. Too many posts are replete with misinformation, rumour, inuendo, ignorance, extremely simplistic comments, and occasionally clear racism. They rarely if ever mention any of the very same issues we have in our own society, and that's telling. Comments like "subhuman way" are bloody offensive and show gross ignorance to say the least. Suffice to say that 175 years ago Charles Sturt thought very differently, and thankfully most reasonable people still do today.

It's odd that some people find it horrendous indigenous Australians should exercise rights we take for granted eh? No mention of mining lockouts and the myriad other restrictions imposed by non-indigenous owners and managers. No mention of the multitude of misappropriations/frauds regularly perpetrated by our own. Indigenous Australians have a long way to go to match some bankers surely? If you want to see welfare on a grand scale simply look at mining and oil industries , farming and superannuation. Simplistic? Without a shadow of doubt but no more than many of the comments on this thread. Having looked at our very selective industry welfare you could then read about corporate and individual tax avoidance - some of the legal avoidance stuff is classic welfare for the wealthy. Very comfortable people able to get a partial aged pension - primarily to get access to subsidised health care and other benefits - hard to top that for rorting of welfare. As Baz has already shown if you actually delve into any topic in depth you'll soon get closer to the facts and hopefully develop a better appreciation and understanding of the nuances involved. Snowflake's chance in hell in some cases though.

I don't want to give some of the comments on this thread any more oxygen than they deserve but a few things come to mind when I read them. Walk a mile in my shoes......There but for then grace of God go I.... and as JS Mill once mused (in different words): the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do [say] nothing.

but reading between the lines you appear to know very little about the many massacres perpetrated by early white settlers on this soil.

There is no denying the massacres that happened, and no doubt that some were in retaliation to attacks by aborigines on the new settlers.

Did the white man have any right to be here in the 1st place ? Who knows, but it happened a long time ago and you can't change history, but you can change the future. But if you don't look to the future and only dwell on the past, you'll be stuck in no mans land.

Lord Vestey no doubt wished aborigines had that attitude back in the day. The first people of this nation are changing their future by not forgetting the past and asking that we also acknowledge past mistreatment. Thankfully newer arrivals from a range of nations and cultures are now getting a much better understanding of the real history since 1788. But you're correct in one way - aborigines have often found themselves in no mans land - told their culture is backward and that they must adopt ours, told that they're worthless, treated as second class citizens, abused verbally and physicslly, some robbed of their childhoods and families.

aborigines have often found themselves in no mans land - told their culture is backward and that they must adopt ours, told that they're worthless, treated as second class citizens, abused verbally and physicslly, some robbed of their childhoods and families.


That is the dilemma......what's the answer ?

There is only a very small percentage that still know their culture and / or still care.

And it's a bit hard for city folk to understand them when all they see is the town dwellers who abuse themselves ( with alcohol, drugs etc ) and abuse each other and who refuse to work.
How do you change that perception of them ?

Mind you , to put some perspective here I’d suggest a read of some of the more recent ICAC reports, plenty of ‘white fella’ corruption happening day in, day out.

My point, we can all find examples to suit our arguments and opinions...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

How come the pilot was in on the conversation between the elders and the locals?
I wouldn't be showing a pilot my cash.

Like most anecdote I doubt very much it happened as claimed but the bottom line is that most the money probably ended up in the pockets of white businessmen. What's the bet they didn't give a fig about where the sudden wealth came from.

Like any land claim or payout.....the stakeholders use a lawyer..or two...and a few " experts " in the field....who just happen to be white fellas ( indigenous lawyers etc are pretty thin on the ground ) who are in it for the money...and throw in a few high up positions on the take ( both sides of the fence here ) and you have a recipe for money disappearing in the system.

I have some acceptance of what you're saying cseajay but there is other examples...
There is dozens of coastline locations around Oz that the Australian Defence force have locked up as bases that contain places desirable to visit- but you cant. Do you complain about that?
Want to go anywhere you want? Would you go to past Atomic sites? No.
Regardless of the "its a free country" tag, its a fallacy.
"Other countries". Try holding up a placard in China criticizing the Govt. Or just being merely present in Iran. Or being a friendly white guy taking a stroll in an east Chicago street.
My view is this country is one of the top 3 in the world and we are not that precious as white people we cant live in harmony and respect the indigenous caretaker views of their land that we steamrolled them for 200 years ago.
Plenty of places left to visit.
You and everyone else here is entitled to your views, and I mine.

Eaglefree.
Obviously understand government or unsafe sites. You are drawing a long bow to bring that in.

Not for once do I imply not having respect and harmony; But I (and family) encounter numerous natural assets that are off limits to us on the basis of being of European origin 200 years ago (general tag of being a white fella) never mind how many generations we have called Australia home for.

I thought it is pretty obvious the types of places that I am referring to. Indeed you have your views.

CSeaJay

I can think of many examples where other countries charge a fee to enter an area of interest...

I won’t list them, as way too many.

So that is a bit of a ‘throw away line’ for those willing to take the bait, perhaps designed to elicit a specific response.

But hey, try parking at a beach these days without having to fork out some cash for the privilege. Nothing to do with land rights, just the local council with its hand in your pocket.

Examples abound and most of them not a result of charges imposed by indigenous groups.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

While a section of Australia is locked away from the majority by a minority because of skin colour or birth , racism will continue to thrive .. are we not all Australians ?

Sorry to say but being a citizen of Australia does not grant land rights. All land in Australia is either freehold, or non-freehold/Crown land although Native title can co-exist alongside other land tenures so its a complicated system. Generally the landowner has discretion about how their land is managed, who can access their land and what activities are permitted.

If you grew up in Australia, you were also probably taught the glossed-up version of Australia's history and colonisation so this had led to generations of people that have struggled to tolerate the changes that came with the Aboriginal Land Acts and Native Title.

Following on from Michelle's post, I would ask the question: Do aboriginals require a permit to enter aboriginal-held land as "white fellas" do? (I don't know the answer, which is why I am asking ...).

If not, the reverse scenario - white fellas allowing white fellas freedom of entry but requiring aboriginals to obtain an entry permit - would be howled down as racism.

Hi Zippo, do you mean to ask if an Aboriginal from another community mob wanted to enter land owned by another mob? Yes they would most certainly request access - that is always part of their tight connection to country and there is a whole complicated system that governs movement between communities but if they did they wouldn't use white mans system but would go about it their own way.

Which countries did you have in mind CSeajay? Norway is one of few with relatively unrestricted access but then again they're much more mature and respectful of their country. You can't just roll up and camp wherever you like in most European countries, ditto in NZ, USA, Canada.... And I said elsewhere you can't camp on or access private land, mining leases etc in this country without invitation and/or paying a fee. It's L-A-W.

I'd love to know what precisely a majority / minority has to do with the fundamental right to control your own land Alloy c/t. The Australian Parliament granted land rights to our indigenous people for reasons easily understood. No doubt some of the descendants of the First Australians find that ironic. Are you seriously suggesting that only white people should have those rights? Racism is born of ignorance, entitlement and the lottery of birth in some cases. The latter is something cossetted people should try and contemplate before they pass their narrow-minded judgements.

Zippo, the answer is yes.
Sometimes my aboriginal wife needs a permit to enter aboriginal land.

Yes Zippo

An Aboriginal friend that I knew, Archie Barton from Ceduna had to go up to the APY Lands.

I asked him I bet he did not need a permit, and surprised to hear him say, that he had to get one

" You can't just roll up and!camp!wherever you like in most European countries, ditto in NZ, USA, Canada...."

Dead wrong with regard to the USA. Free, dispersed, primitive camping on public lands in the West is quite legal. I do it all the time and have for years.

Those are designated lands Candace. Same sort of arrangements can be found in Canada.

Free Campsites USA/Canada

I don't know but I very much doubt that you can visit or camp on native American lands without permission and/or a fee

CSeaJay wrote.

Take as a simple example my family trip to Cape Leveque; while there we went for a day drive to One Arm Point timed to be mid-tide so I can shown the kids what I taught them the night before about tides (11+ m tide movement there).
Only to be told no, I am not allowed to enter before paying a fee per vehicle and/or per person.

Isn't this the same as paying a toll on a freeway or tollway? You can;t drive on them without paying a fee, just saying.

It's very easy to see only one side of the story.

Steve of Kakadu , awful big difference in paying for a toll road / freeway [ thats an oxymoron ] bridge or in fact ANY other MAN MADE object and paying some one for some natural geographic area ..... Yes you make your living by taking tourist to areas in Kakadu but why should anyone else be deprived of seeing the area ? Did you make the Falls ? No , did you make the rivers ? No ... But guess what , every other Australian has 'PAID' for the roads and tracks to get there in some form or other.

I have to pay some white guy to enter Wilsons Promontory and cape Otway !

Where on earth did you get the impression that you can simply walk/drive onto anyone's property without invitation if you think there's a nice feature to be seen or enjoyed Alloy c/t?

Good post. Handouts to churches via not being taxed is the same.

This "locking up" phenomenon will go full circle imo. Many that will get closed gollowing the Uluru climb will reopen some time down the track for various reasons
Eg tourist resorts in National parks is a latest change coming that we'd never thought allowable.

Ayers Rock banning a one off ? Doubt that very much , its the start of the wedge that creates a divide on RACIAL lines and will continue to do so , now here's a thought , how is it not Racism that currently on TV we have a political drama made and shot partially in Winton QLD , Production Company is 'BLACKFELLA 'productions yet we are deemed racist if I call someone black , as always its not deemed racist however if an actual Blackfella calls me a 'white #$%# ' ......seems there are 2 rules for what is supposedly 1 country ....

Of course it is a one off - just as you can determine who comes onto your land and what you do with it, indigenous owners can do the same.

As far as other "sacred sites" and other places are concerned, if they are not owned by indigenous people then they are just another interested party just as you an I are. They can lobby the owners, just as you and I can and relevant authorities will make determinations.

The only reason the climb on Uluru/Ayres Rock was closed was because the 'owners' closed it, just as you can lock your own property to visitors if you chose too.

It's only a wedge if you believe that your rights should be superior to someone else's, moreso if you start from a position of extreme prejudice. Your comment about Blackfella Productions is puerile. It's not in the least difficult to understand that there's a huge difference in how different races/skins refer to themselves versus how some (only some, plenty don't actually care as long as you aren't being intentionally nasty, despite your rant) want to be addressed by others. Ernie Dingo uses the term blackfella all the time - obviously not in any derogatory way. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with the latest preferred labels (aborigines, first Australians, indigenous Australians..) but it's a pretty pathetic adult who at least doesn't try - not that there's many occasions where someone's race or colour needs to be addressed in any case. I played footy and worked with many indigenous people. Oddly enough they were called by their names. I wonder when the referendum was held to enshrine that principle? Yes that's sarcasm.

I think we all need to go back to pommy land and leave it to them. There were aboriginal atrocities against whites also.
Lindsay

Speak for yourself...(on going back to England)

I’m sitting under a Pandanus Tree on Noosa Headland looking out to sea - wouldn’t trade our country for any other place on earth.

But each to their own, and I guess if you’re into having a whinge from time-to-time you’ll fit right in over there.

Just check before you leave that they’ll take you back, after all they were shipping us out here in balls and chains a couple of hundred years ago...

(Tongue firmly in cheek - enjoy your day)

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

More than a little supposition there Lindsay. This country may have been colonised by the English - as a penal colony - but it has welcomed people from many nationalities and cultures since. Your aside regarding atrocities implies something which largely ignores history and certainly the context of clashes even though we know that aborigines did indeed kill Europeans. If you need an explanation as to why then perhaps you need to read more Australian history. If you do decide to leave these shores don't forget to take your obvious prejudice with you.

Nail in the coffin? Your hyperbole and pessimism isn't shared by tourist operators it seems Lindsay :
Tourism Operators Not Concerned

I see why you didn't post the link to your news though. No rise for 16 years apparently. Your comment is exactly how erroneous anecdote circulates.
Uluru Entry Fees To Rise

Bazooka, a bit of selective reading there.

The article dated October 16, has the tour operators all bulldust and bluster toeing the Parkes line that things will be fine. This is prior to the closure on October 26.

In the article dated todays date the Tour Operators are clearly concerned at the increase in fees of 52%.

"One of the big concerns that we've got [is not] steady increases, pretty much everybody accepts those — when a price goes up 52 per cent in one year, that's when people start to feel the pinch a bit," he said.
He said tourism operators were particularly worried because it was standard practice to sell travel packages years in advance.
"We've got a lot of operators that have got their prices out in the market currently, that have been set on the prices as they are — and those prices are current as far as April 2021," he said.
"We have operators who certainly between November and April next year are going to have to be wearing a significant cost per person themselves."

If you can't see by reading that article that the Tour Operators have got concerns, I want some of what you have been drinking.

Regards

Love your work there Rowdy. Tour operators are apparently wrong and bowing to Park mgt in the first case - which if you read was about the effect of the climbing ban irrespective of your date plucking - but they're right about the cost increases. Plenty of cherry picking jobs around Young for the experienced if you're keen. Both have potential impacts on tour operators livelihoods so I doubt they'd be rolling over on either issue myself. Suffice to say that Lindsay's "nail in the coffin" line is a gross overstatement, which was my point to begin with.

I'm well aware of what was in the second link. I posted it without fear or favour because it does raise legitimate issues for small tour operators but also explains the reasons for the rises - no increases for 16 years !!!!! plus increased management costs, which are entirely understandable even ignoring cost of living increases over the period.

The % looks big but the actual costs are quite modest, nevertheless if operator prices have been set and seats already sold based on previous entry fees per head then that eats into margins. Unlike pessimists and those simply looking for negatives I'm sure those involved will work out a satisfactory compromise. I haven't been for many years now but I'm also sure from reading that tourists are better catered for than they were 16 years ago when the fees were set.

Rowdy6032

The tourism industry was given the mandatory 18 months notice of the price increase, if a tour operator hasn't planned ahead that is their fault .

We have the same deal in Kakadu, if there is a change that will effect tourism, tourism must be given 18 months notice for the very reason you have put in your post.

It is written into the plan of management, a document that is passed by parliament and made into law.

Too many arguments are leading towards (bigoted?) simplistic racial jealousy. Stick to the issue of The Rock - which is aboriginal land and managed. They haven't banned anyone from going to see it or walk around it; just asked you not to climb it. Respect.

I'll give them respect when I get it first, from them.

Being called a "white dog c****", and various other forms of vile abuse, by Aboriginals on a constant basis, just from doing something as simple as walking past them, means my respect for them is pretty much zero.

I'm getting pretty sick of groups of people being separated as a protected species where you can't say anything about them without being labelled sexist or bigotted. True equality means not being protected from criticism and respect is earned not given.

If all the aboriginal activists, many of whom are sus in their degree of aboriginality, stopped the divisive protests and attitudes against Australians, they could spend their time and efforts in making sure the yearly money from all taxpayers, was used by all related entities and administered properly to help ALL Aboriginal communities. There would be no need for closures of natural places. Mutual Respect would flourish. The Activists don't want that it seems, they are everyones' enemy, even against those who they claim to act for and not prepared to yield to anything but their own ideals.

I seem to have been on a never-ending loop responding to the same misinformed and obviously loaded comments on various forums on similar topics so I can't be bothered picking your comment to pieces Ron. Suffice to say two things - (1) there is ZERO evidence of earlier occupation in this country, and (2) there are bastards in every race, creed, nationality. Make that three things. I thought you were better than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment RMD, unsurprisingly littered with racially-targeted, misinformed anecdote, is absolute tosh. The old throw away line about "degree of aboriginality" is bottom of the barrel stuff. Almost a match for your comment about the French, Dutch and Spanish above. but not quite.

Please enlighten us though - WHICH OF YOUR ACTIVISTS ARE, TO USE YOUR WORDS, "sus in their degree of aboriginality"? Naming half a dozen should be a simple task even if defining aboriginality isn't. Here's some reading for you on that topic. Enjoy: Defining Aboriginality in Australia. Keep in mind it's just one view, albeit a well-informed one.

Despite reminders above you also appear to have conveniently forgotten the huge mismanagement and mal-adminstration in your own community. No surprise there. You've also again conveniently overlooked the fact that plenty of individuals, companies and industries have closed off "natural places" because they are entitled by law to do so and have chosen to exercise their rights. Will that always be the case with aboriginal lands? Probably not because times and circumstances change and later generations may take entirely different views.

The notion that "mutual respect" would just naturally occur because you and your brothers in arms were permitted to climb Uluru and freely roam on aboriginal lands is a fairy tale of epic proportions. Without activism and growing acceptance of the legitimacy of their own skin, culture and rights aborigines would have achieved nothing.

Empathy, the most apt word for this whole thread. Empathy, to "walk in anothers shoes."
To wake up one night with intuders in your home, to place you in a need to defend your family and land you've owned for 65 000+ years with immense spiritual connections. To be treated sub human because your race had no need to advance. To even read signs on pubs "white men only" even up to a few decades ago. Yeh, equality ha!

Couple of years ago we got to Kathrine. Our friends with us were warned about aggressive indigenous people there. We attended the all night supermarket. A mob of indigenous guys were outside the entrance. Our friends, scared, reained in their car. The group went silent as a new face approached. Breaking the ice I said "respect to you and your elders fellas". Many thanks one replied.
Conversation flowed. No problems.
And here we are on this thread with the poor little white man having his climb of Uluru (oops, sorry, Ayres Rock to the stubborn that needs to own everything) taken away. That the traditional owners are fed up with us trampling all over their spiritual place.
Empathy. Being reincarnated into a black fella preferably prior to 1990 would be the only way many a white man would have any hope of knowing what its like to walk a mile in their shoes.

We've expected them to hold their liquor that we introduced, to work in white mans industry, to play catch up in 200 years from a clever cave man to our living standards we've developed over centuries.
Thankfully most grumpy old racist men will die off soon and leave the next wave of reconciliation to the new generations that have a better grip on that word..."empathy".
No more climbing their rock? Big deal.

In the last few years, the recognized time in Oz by indigenous people has apparently gone from 40,000 years to 65,000years. I wonder how long it will be next week?

RMDs assertion of aboriginal originality goes to the crux of the problem.

Aboriginal people know who they are, where they come from, and how they fit in within their community.

It has been ‘white fella’ law of how an aboriginal person is defined that has struggled with the concept, noting there has been about 70 (odd) classifications used by successive governments since white settlement to define ‘aboriginality’.

Colour of skin might be an obvious indicator, but how you identify and acceptance by Elders and the community in which you live is just as important...

For those interested in some of the issues faced by aboriginal people, especially the Yolngu people of the Arnhem Land, I recommend a read of the book ‘Why Warriors lie down and die’ by Richard Trudgen and published in 2000.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Beautifully said eaglefree. I'd add understanding. Some actual knowledge wouldn't go astray in a few cases. There are no simple answers to indigenous problems but in my lifetime many things have changed for the better, not the least of which is white understanding. acknowledgement and acceptance.

Would it be too much to ask that instead of wondering and inventing your own version of history and definition of aboriginality RMD you do some reading? I'd ask what your latest comment means but I think we can safely infer from the tone. Ain't science and the thirst for knowledge in general wonderful? From my hazy recollection there was a short period in recorded western history where a few apparently intelligent men - they were pretty much all men - believed they knew everything there was to know in one area of science (I can't remember which discipline that was at the moment, perhaps geology?) . With what we now know and the huge amount of information that is readily available to most (not all) it's gobsmacking that anyone would think that we've reached the end of the knowledge continuum and the books can finally be closed forever.

There Bazooka , you have just hit the nail on the head 'degree of Aboriginality ' .... What is that ? Where does it start , or actually STOP . Is someone whose great great great Grandparents left Ireland 200 odd years ago still Irish after previous generations married an Englishman , the next a German Etc Etc , 25 MILLION Australians of which LESS than .005% are in fact FULL blooded Australia Aborigine ..... 1600 hundred years ago some of my ancestors were Vikings , does that give me 'Native Title' to parts of Sweden and Denmark ??

No because you cannot prove continuous habitation and dare I say "ownership" of land in Sweden and Denmark.

There are requirements for claiming aboriginality among them official endorsement from elders of your mobs elders.

You can google it.

A 'newly 'proclaimed 'Elder' out our way , 23 , blond and blue eyed ,has about as much Aboriginal blood in him as you could fit on the head of a pin , had never been outside of Brisbane in his life ,would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a kangaroo and an emu yet he has become an 'Elder' ......??

Blonde hair is very common among the indigenous population.
Oh the hatred.

Ive seen many a white person fradulently claim workers comp, TAC claims and worked cash in hand when they werent suppose to.
Fraud is in every group. Tainting a whole race over one alledged elder - doesnt seem fair to me.
But its your prejudice not mine

You need to concentrate better Alloy c/t, that was not my term. It was a racially loaded statement by your brother in arms RMD who is hopefully working on supplying the the names of his many "sus activists" to this forum. Read the link I provided if you actually want to learn something about that topic. It's complex, which is why amateurs - especially those with clear biases - need to leave it to experts to determine. They might get some decisions wrong but they will at least have gone in without a predetermined outcome.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous question to you. It was simple enough but I'll repeat it for you. Should indigenous landowners have the same rights of exclusion etc as other owners? If not why not?

Bazooka , There is a major difference in law for ownership of land that you seem not to understand , we have an actual conflict , we have here 2 sets of laws , 1 for indigenous and one for non indigenous , at the very very best one could only describe 'native title ' as squatters rights ....come on explain how suddenly a piece of land becomes 'sacred' and 'owned' by a people who had no such concepts and still today in the passing on of tradition continue to say they do not OWN the land but only pass over it ...

The following book, written by Adrian Day, is a great read for those with an interest in the interactions between white and black Australia mid last century...

“Adrian Day was a Native Welfare Officer in the ‘50s and ‘60s. His story is of the people, black, white and brindle, good, bad, and indifferent.”

A great read for those willing to view issues from numerous angles...

Wadjelas - The Memoirs of a 1950s Patrol Officer

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

I understand at least the basics of the law Alloy c/t, you by your reference to squatters' rights obviously don't. Your comment on the concept of ownership among indigenous Australians has been dealt with numerous times. Suffice to say you are badly mistaken from a legal perspective, AND your knowledge and understanding of indigenous culture needs a lot of work. The Mabo and PDF links below (especially p202 of the "Adverse Occupation" PDF) should help in regard to your squatters' rights comment. The whole area of Native Title, land rights etc is VERY complex with numerous offshoots establishing tribunals and methods of dealing with claims, compensation, rights etc. As with almost everything in life there is no black and white.

After years of the "activism" and advocacy, Whitlam's intervention, and the highest court in the land finding for Mabo in a 6-1 ruling, the Australian Parliament finally granted "land rights" to the first peoples in 1993. The Native Title Act has since been amended more than 30 times, but its backbone remains essentially the same . Terra nullius, which you appear to still believe exists, was found to be invalid and as the saying goes the rest is history. Wik subsequently determined the extent of native title in irrespective of other (supposedly) "better" title, thereby creating a workable compromise.

There's some decent summaries on some of the many issues/topics here if you're interested: Native Title

At this link you can find a simple outline of Mabo, with further links on related topics: Mabo Decision

As many won't be bothered to follow the link here's part which should interest you:
"On 3 June 1992, six of the seven High Court judges upheld the claim and ruled that the lands of this continent were not terra nullius or ‘land belonging to no-one’ when European settlement occurred, and that the Meriam people were 'entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands of the Murray Islands'.

In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. They had been dispossessed of their lands piece by piece as the colony grew and that very dispossession underwrote the development of Australia as a nation."

..... "The new doctrine of native title replaced a 17th century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished."

"There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia:
1 Reviewing the implications of Australia’s settled status.
2 Applying the principle of non-discrimination in the enjoyment of property rights.
3 Explaining the operation of the Crown’s sovereign radical title.
4 Recognising native title and the source of rights in Indigenous law and custom.
5 Asserting the power of the state to extinguish native title rights."
----------------------------

One the basic tenets of Common Law, known - ironically if you think about it in light of aboriginal occupation - as "adverse occupation", was used in part by one of the Mabo judges, Justice Toohey.
Here's an interesting discussion on that topic :Adverse Occupation

The question still remains. Your attempt to wave it away by claiming your opinion should trump numerous legal rulings and Acts, enquiries, debates and discussions doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.