This seminar begins with the idea of three competing principles in Indigenous affairs as an analytic framework. The dominant principle is equality, which suggests that Indigenous Australians ought in some important way to be equal to settler Australians. Different interpretations of this equality principle, ranging from individualised legal equality, through equality of socio-economic outcome to equality of opportunity, lead to considerations of historical and social difference and diversity between groups of Indigenous and settler Australians. This in turn leads to consideration of two less dominant principles in Australian Indigenous affairs. The first of these is choice, freedom and self-determination, among groups as well as individuals. This competing principle sees social and historical difference and diversity in positive terms. The second less dominant competing principle is guardianship, which sees social and historical difference and diversity in more negative terms. Guardianship suggests that some people, identified both as groups and individuals, are vulnerable and not competent judges of their own best interests. It invites external definition of people’s interests by government, or its agents, through policy intervention.

By reflecting on other peoples reactions to this analytic schema, as I have begun to use it over the last three years, I will suggest how the three competing principles apply to both individuals and groups. In so doing I will move from a triangular image of the Indigenous affairs policy space to a more rounded one. I will argue that a fully rounded debate in Australian Indigenous affairs would be simultaneously balancing these three competing principles in the contexts of both individuals and groups.