yes but too much jackhammer work has made you vague? sorry this appertains to another thread and we should try to stick to the point heh?
Yes gummy, you are being very specific this morning.
Itâs a lot more complicated than that, the Mabo Decision by the High Court in the early 1990s ruled that Terra Nullius did not apply to Australia and was a British Colonial fiction, this led to the passing of the Native Title Act in 1993.
fair comment spits - fair comment - the wealth that has been accrued in Australia by australian govts and NOT necessarily shared equitably with the entire nation let alone Indigenous is extremely substantial and at present unmeasurable. However this thread is focussing on the rights of Indigenous groups with in Oz and thus the title. Apologies can be offered by ruling classes but so often empty words - repatriation of of both lands and monies if given willingly and accurately is an inthinkable act by the ruling classes
@gumbud , But, who ARE the ruling classes in OZ gummy ??
Do they specifically belong to certain families or certain schools as is
the case in UK for instance ??
Donkeyman! 
Please start another thread if you want to discuss this. This thread is about the Uluru Statement and the Governmentâs action on it.
1 Like
Itâs just fashionable now SpittyâŠ
The strong have always taken from the weak, this is the way of the world, and the natural order of things.
@Bruce , Have a word wiv gummy then Brucy ??
You havenât answered my first post yet BTW !
Donkeyman! 
Assman the answer to your question is in the Interview with Linda Burney.
@Bruce , Ah, thanks for that Brucy , so there seem to be problems getting
a referendum up and running?
Why the reluctance ?
Donkeyman! 
So what is the point/use of what seems a totally useless thing?
There is no reluctance.
Unlike a plebisite such as your farcical Brexit vote Assman, any changes to the constitution have to pass both Houses of Parliament in the exact form that they will be entered into the Constitution. Only then can the changes be put as a referendum to the people.
That is not the end of the hurdles - the referendum must then pass with a majority overall but also be passed by a majority of the the states (ie 4 out of the 6), this is so the most populous states cannot bully the smaller states (the territories donât have a say in this part of a referendum).
Thus it is important that the wording of the changes are precise and will have the desired effect and that the majority of the population understand and want the changes. Changing a Constitution is not something to be entered into lightly. So it takes time to get to a referendum.
Only 8 changes to the Australian Constitution have been successful out of 44 attempts.
You can read the part of the Constitution yourself it is not long.
128. Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.
And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queenâs assent.
No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.
In this section, Territory means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.
@Bruce , Tanks for the prompt reply Brucy, that makes it all as clear as mud ?
Seems to me all those conditions that have to be met are just there to
make it impossible to ever obtain a referendum in which the peopleâs
voice will be heard ??
Typical tactic of the ruling classes !!
Itâs now been 5 yrs since the Uhuru statement with no changes in sight ?
Donkeyman! 
Yawn.
1 Like
The Indigenous people do have quite a lot of positive discrimination now .
Nevertheless they are still the most disadvantaged people in Australia
all comments here I find interrelated we donât need to be so piccy - the ruling classes are the business elite essentially and in close alignment the liberal/country party factions who believe in God and Queen to rule. the Uluru statement is in a way challenging the tenures of power and eliteism and ownership of this land and thus threatens the control of the country as they see it. I have even had friends of mine ask " but will they take my property from me if they get into power" [they being the Indigenous people of course] - yes the elite are very much part of this complex discussion. Thank you for the question DM glad you are interested!
Nobody actually owns anything on this this planet, we are all merely passing through.
1 Like
keep runnin OGF - ya just passin through!
@gumbud , Yes l am interested gummy, probably coz l emigrated to South
Africa when it was under apartheid , and l eventually left there when the
ANC weâre firmly in control ,mso l have seen the whole process of changing
from minority rule to democracy from the beginning !!
The Australian situation is similar, but not the same, as the logistics are much
different in that the indigenous people in Ozie are much fewer, and so your
problems should be much fewer too ??
The taking over of property argument was used in SA too, and indeed some
black politicians were threatening to do this, but nothing of the sort
transpired ??
What did happen was that the black âeliteâ took controll of all state owned
businessess and local councils and immediately gave themselves huge
pay rises and perks etc, and then slowly got rid of the white policemen and
servicemen and civil servants and replaced them with politicians family
members, which resulted in huge inefficiencies and poor service across
the the whole country ?
I donât think Ozzie will have any of those problems, do you ??
Donkeyman!
Nothing to worry about AssmanâŠ
As experienced by the Mabo v Queensland case, requests for native title often move slowly and can be dismissed after years of litigation. For example, a claim by the Yaegl people was finally put to rest in June 2015, almost 20 years after it was lodged.
A renowned case involving a rejection of a native title claim was put forward by the Yorta Yorta peoples of Victoria in 1994. In 1998 the Federal Court ruled against them, and in 2002 the High Court upheld the decision stating that the âtide of history had washed away,â their connection to land and subsequent loss of culture. The claim was subsequently dismissed.
Those applying for native title must show evidence that they have a continuous connection to the land and have maintained their traditional customs. Communities have found that proving âcontinuous connection to the landâ can be close to impossible in light of their ongoing displacement, the stolen generations and the dismantling of traditional language and culture.