The "treaty" in a neighbouring state

has, if media reports are correct, now resulted in a situation where any law must also be approved by the members of an unrepresentative minority group before it can become law. 

The "treaty" between "indigenous" members of the community and everyone else has resulted in a situation which is potentially very, very dangerous. It is, if correctly reported, the way apartheid once worked in South Africa.

Why on earth would anyone give so much power to such a small group? Don't misunderstand me here. I still believe there is far too big a gap between the lives of some indigenous people and the rest of the population. I also believe there is a rich and diverse cultural heritage there that we will be the poorer for losing. Those things matter.

What does not matter is the alleged disadvantage of many urban "indigenous" people. I put "indigenous" in inverted commas here because I do not believe that having a single great-grandparent who was "aboriginal" disadvantages you. It is much more likely that, unless you claim to be "indigenous" nobody will even recognise you as such. They will walk past you in the street and not see it. Yes, it might be important to you. You are welcome to feel it is an important part of your heritage. It is. It is not however so important in every day life that you should feel or are disadvantaged by it. It is much more likely you are disadvantaged by other life choices, those of your own as well as your parents.

And yes, it is some of your own direct ancestors who have contributed to the very disadvantages you now claim to have. The blame for all these things cannot be placed at the door of other people. That you should now be able to choose how the rest of the community will be governed, under which laws the community will operate seems wrong to me. I know the "that's not the intention" and "that's not the way it will work" arguments but put a test case to the courts and it is very likely it is the way it will work. The courts will look at what the legislation says.

In this state there is a "voice". It was brought into being by the government after the people of this state voted against a similar voice at federal level. It was a deliberate attempt to go against the wishes of the electorate. The government did not go so far as to try and bring in a "treaty" or give similar powers to the "voice".  It was not democratic however. Only "indigenous" people could vote to be part of it. 

It has already shown signs of failure. The vote to be part of it was voluntary. Only ten percent of those who were eligible bothered to vote. There are forty six members of the "voice" and some were "elected" with no votes at all. (They are females and just being on the ballot paper was sufficient.) Others received just fifteen votes, a few just twenty-three. There was plenty of publicity about the vote, about the opportunity to stand for election. It was a very expensive exercise and perhaps done with the best of intentions. It simply did not work. 

Indigenous people I know were mostly opposed to the entire idea. They do not see such things as necessary or likely to work. One or two might grab the idea of being able to dictate to the rest of us but most  would see it as ridiculous.  

My friend M... refused to be part of the process. He does not believe it is right or necessary. I have yet to talk to him about the law in the neighbouring state. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.