With a women's jurisdiction alongside the men's a genuine Treaty can be negotiated, the piece of paper often sought, after which all Australians can move forward together and lead the world in governance of global peace and sustainable prosperity in perpetuity. I know this because I've been working on it since the Black Power days of the 1970s when I used to stand outside the Builders Arms Hotel and look down Gertrude Street, Fitzroy at the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, which hosted the opening of the first Parliament of Australia in 1901, and considered the options. The way forward is perfectly clear and relatively free from obstruction.

* In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, do you agree to an amendment to the Constitution to enable equal rights between women and men?

1. The Constitution of Australia is a foundation legal document.

2. In order to preserve the integrity of law, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution must accommodate recognition of customary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander foundation law, where such law can be found to exist.

3. Justice John von Doussain in the Federal Court recognised customary foundation law with the view he was "not satisfied on the evidence before this Court that the applicants have established on the balance of probabilities that restricted women's knowledge as revealed to Dr Fergie and Professor Saunders was not part of genuine Aboriginal tradition". [Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) (21 August 2001):400]

4. Customary foundation law enables governance by agreement between women's and men's legislative assemblies.

5. Recognition of customary foundation law in the Constitution rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

6. A Cabinet of an equal number of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the Parliament and provides leadership.

7. Sovereignty transfers from the Crown to a Council of Governors-General comprising an equal number of senior women and men, with Royal assent.

8. The Courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.

9. Customary foundation law and equal rights between women and men are one and the same.

10. A referendum question on equal rights between women and men in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would receive overwhelming support since equal rights between women and men at law has received overwhelming support, other than foundation law where the opportunity has yet arisen, since the Constitution was enacted.

tbc .. "I'd interpret that as a snub to the whole Coalition" and to the Australians they represent .. you forget as many of the left constantly do, that people voted for the coalition, and still do.

That was my point, the disrespect was not just to Brendan Nelson, but to the Australians the ALP did not stand for, 49.1% if I remember correctly, hardly a landslide for the ALP.

"halfwit rightwhingers" nice .. is that all you've got? Ad hominems?

I guess that's our lot then, to have the left flame everyone they disagree with and not care about any substance, as long as they have hatred to keep them buoyed up, or is that "inflated" ..?

Thankfully the right care enough to intervene when necessary, and I see the ALP continued it .. must have been the "right" thing to do ..nes pa?

You're onto something, Amicus - is it to be yet more gesture and symbol, or genuine improvement and substance ?

It's amazing that it is the Left these days which is so content (generously on Blackfellas' behalf) with the puff and phiz of symbols. In my younger days, the Left had a lot more balls, and wits enough to see through the crap. But then again, it's a different Left these days.

And good luck, Whistler, with your re-run of Don Quixote's labours.

Cheers,

Joe

Discussion of this issue in Melbourne this Friday:

The RMIT Law Students’ Society is hosting a symposium on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition in the Australian constitution facilitated by Mr Jeff Waters, ABC Journalist and author of Gone for a Song.

Is recognition in the Constitution of Australia, reconciliation? Recognition? or just rhetoric?

Speakers on the the proposition will include

The Hon Adam Bandt MP, Federal member for Melbourne and Greens MP
Ms Jody Broun Co Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
Dora Banyasz Allens Arthur Robinson, Member of AAR’s Reconciliation Action Plan
Magistrate Ann Collins, Koori Court
Aunty Joan Vickery AO, Koori Court and Gunditjamara Elder
Munya Andrews, Indigenous Barrister

11th November, 2011. 5:30pm to 8:30pm, RMIT Graduate School of Business and Law Building 13 Corner of Russell and Victoria Streets Melbourne
Bookings: http://rmitlss.eventbrite.com/

I get it,

"I'm still waiting for all the aboriginals who turned their backs on him, political tools that they were, to apologize to him and the rest of us for what was a disgusting display of ungratefulness.

"Do you wonder why most of us just don't care any more?"

Amicus is channeling Brendan Nelson, still deeply hurt by turned backs that only Amicus/Nelson can recall ever happening, so marginal was the incident.

Why was Nelson 'apologising' in the first place? Was it a Coalition apology, or just a Liberal Party apology?

I've already pointed out that Rudd, as PM, had apologised for the nation, for all of us, even those Howard supporters who never-ever wanted any apology offered, and I'm pretty sure that was a CORE promise of Howard supported by the Party faithful.

Really Amicus, from your last post I thought you might have said something positive in your first post that I had missed, I see not.

Just a carping whinge about turned backs and spurned Howard supporters.

Now, how about addressing whistlers demands for a separate women's legislature?

"First up is the requirement for a women's jurisdiction", is this the Indigenous style reform you DO support Amicus, given your obvious deep and abiding concern for Indigenous peoples?