There are no data to support that view.
Are you seriously saying there are no non-indigenous people who are disadvantaged and that no indigenous people are not disadvantaged?
If so, we seemingly have a very different definition of what constitutes being disadvantaged.
I take it to mean someone who, due to circumstances beyond their control, is in practice unable to do things that other people have the option to do or who is actively and effectively deterred from doing so.
Noting that I'm not in any way arguing against efforts to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. My argument is to do the same for everyone in similar circumstances regardless of race.
Those policies are already in place. It's under our social security system, combined with a raft of other policies attaching to the full range of health, housing, education, social and financial support initiatives.
They are however clearly not working, that's readily apparent for all to see.
The metrics of Closing the Gap are not a fabrication.
That is unrelated to my statement that to the best of my knowledge there's no objective proof of racial inferiority being the cause.
How to measure that the gap has or hasn't been closed is relatively straightforward I agree. If we accept "Western" measures of success as the ones to be used then it's relatively straightforward to compare life expectancy, income, marriage and divorce statistics, educational attainment, etc.
Your continuing use of motherhood examples, in this case using just one person, does not cut the mustard.
I think it's obvious that my use of "the child" refers to all children generically not just one actual, specific child.
Except that is completely false unless you think data is meaningless.
Or if I think ignoring minorities is undesirable.
Focusing only on the most common scenario is, after all, what's lead to much of the present difficulties in the first place. Policies aimed firmly at the middle (and above) class in the major capital cities with a few carrots thrown to farmers and miners while largely ignoring the rest is at the heart of much of the issue here.
It's somewhat telling that with the exception of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Fraser, every other Prime Minister we've had since 1949 (excluding short term caretakers) is from an electorate in metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne. Given Rudd's was in Brisbane, that leaves Fraser as the only one not from an east coast capital city although he was still from Victoria.
We have to go back to 1945 to find one from WA, and to 1939 to find one from Tasmania. We've never had a PM whose electorate is in SA or NT.
That Australian politics is so heavily focused on two cities, which are themselves very similar to each other and not at all similar to much of Australia, is itself much of the problem. The further someone is from that in terms of their lived experience, the more they tend to be neglected.
ATSI are an extreme but we see the effect elsewhere too. Australians in areas substantially different to the big two cities tend to have worse health and other outcomes no matter what their race. Hence the lowest life expectancy is in the NT and the second lowest is Tasmania.