@Bruce , l think you misunderstood what l said Brucy ?
I meant you ,(the whites,) have nothing to fear about having your property
seized to give to a native,( as in indigenous,) ?
It seems you and l are on the same page regarding your government
dragging its feet in restoring justice to Australia ??
Donkeyman! 
That’s what I said except it is nothing to do with the Uluru Statement, that is to do with Mabo. Native Title only applies to land that an Indigenous group can show a long standing claim to without interruption, I own the deeds to my house which extinguishes Native Title however pastoral and mining leases do not. It is not complicated except that as a legal process proof is needed and demonstrating that is often hard.
Back to the topic:
The Liberal Government had absolutely no intention of doing anything about the Uluru Statement but the incoming Labor Government has it as a priority but they will not put it to a referendum unless it is likely to pass. The second option is to legislate it which might end up as the way to go if a referendum is seen as impossible - it is not the preferred option because legislation can be repealed.
@Bruce , What’s this 1936 Native administration act about Brucy ??
Sounds like apartheid under a another name!
And what about the racist attitudes of the white settlers slowing any
legislation to improve the condition of aborigines ??
I saw this in wikipedia !
Donkeyman!
1 Like
Today is National Sorry Day.
On the 26th of May 1997 the landmark Bringing them Home report was tabled in federal parliament. Bringing them Home is the final report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families and was conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (now called the Australian Human Rights Commission) between 1995 and 1997.
Don’t know, don’t care, doesn’t matter.
Until 1967 Aboriginals were a matter for each individual state, they were nothing to do with the Commonwealth and were not counted as citizens.
domkeyman you are on the right tracks - have a read of this it may explain it in some detail?
similar things were enacted in south africa - it is apartheid
@gumbud , interesting link gummy ,sounds like OZ copied South Africa
word for word ??
Begs the question, " who was the protector protecting" ??
Donkeyman! 
Courtesy of the Daily Express today i learned a new word. Bogan. It seems so apposite to describe probably a high %age of the population.
As I tried to tell you it is not “Australia”, until 1967 each state was responsible for the Aboriginals in their territory. Some states were worse than others, none were good but the law(s) you refer to are State laws not Federal laws. They may be very bad laws and of their time but they are now irrelevant because where there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law prevails.
109. Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Just so you know:
127
In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
So pleased to learn that you have expanded your vocabulary, well done! Who’d have thought you would take the trouble to learn an aboriginal word?
Much celebrated in Bogan Shire and along the Bogan River
hahaha nice one bruce - sounds like he’s blowin air into the wind?
first Indigenous female ever elected by the people [and running with the labor parliament] - to Australias lower house - Linda Burney
The Minister for Indigenous affairs in the previous government was as also an Aboriginal.
Neville Bonner in the Liberal Party was the first Indigenous member of parliament in 1971.
The last but one Chief Minister of the NT was an Aboriginal too.
The new Labor Cabinet has 10 women out of 26 members.
It is not as rare as you seem to think.
@Bruce , Can you explain if these indigenous electees you speak about
were representing white constituencies ?
Or were they restricted to indigenous constituencies only ?
And is Linda also restricted in this way ??
I think this is important !
Donkeyman!
yes and the labor party is far more commited to the Uluru statement than the Liberal/National parties will ever be.
you’re missing the point and the emphasis
There are no indigenous only constituencies. For example Neville Bonner was a senator and represented the whole of Queensland and was thus elected by the whole state (like every senator).
You might find this interesting
Coincidentally today is 30 years since the Mabo decision.
Today marks three decades since Mabo’s fight came to fruition, when the High Court of Australia handed down its decision to overturn the myth of terra nullius, or “land belonging to no-one”.
The historic case set the benchmark for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across the nation to start to regain control and ownership over their lands.