The grand debate about Aboriginality/First Nation-as any junior debating team will tell you, define your facts first. The Drittes Reich had precise rules as to who might be classified Jewish. Dr Verwoerd had equally strict rules as to who might be classified coloured. In Australia, we adopt the approach that if you feel you’re aboriginal then you are, even if you have a pedigree as perfect as Prince Charles. So the first question for definition is who actually is an aboriginal? The second question is should the taxpayer continue to make welfare payments and cultural grants to aboriginals solely on the basis of their aboriginality? If aboriginality was determined by location, only 24% of those who call themselves indigenous would have an entitlement because on 2006 figures, that is how many live in remote Australia.The High Court abolished the legal principal terra nullius as it applied to Native Title but as it so inelegantly has been put: ‘banging sticks together and leaping about’ seems to sum up aboriginal culture. Perhaps he meant to say that the Australia we know today was created ex nihilo. Out of the $376 billion budget cake we will spend $131 billion on welfare. So the question is how long does the taxpayer fund welfare, will it run to infinity?