I agree with the majority of the article, especially "the correct position in a just democracy, is to eliminate both adverse and preferential treatment on racial grounds."

However, some of the suggested changes to the constitution are not consistent with this position. Specifically, the recognition in the constitution of a specific group of people based on their race, by definition results in the unequal recognition of other races. To break down the suggested changes to the constitution for those who may not read the link:

1. That section 25 (Provision as to races disqualified from voting) be repealed. - Reference to previous discriminatory practices, I agree.

2. That section 51(xxvi) (power to make race-specific laws) be repealed. - Agree again

3. Addition of new Section 51A, to include:
A) Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
B) Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;
C) Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

These first three potential additions are themselves discriminatory, as no other "peoples" are recognized for their role in the history of this country. How would you feel if descendants of the first fleet wanted specific recognition, or perhaps "White Australians" from before the end of that policy? I know many groups of people who have significantly contributed to this land and country, many of them immigrants who could be defined as "peoples" too. However, these additions are purely symbolic.

D) Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Now this addition is completely contradictory to the principle to "eliminate both adverse and preferential treatment on racial grounds." As the government is required to secure the advancement of all peoples in this country, preferential acknowledgement of this need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not needed. Other than symbolic purposes, this addition opens the possibility of facilitating the preferential treatment of these "peoples" due their constitutionally recognized special "needs".

4. Addition of Section 116A (Prohibition of racial discrimination)
(1)The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin.
(2)Subsection(1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.

Remove section (2) and I will agree. Section (1) is sufficient to remove any future racial discrimination by government law. The only reason to include Section (2) is to ensure the potential for "preferential treatment on racial grounds" which both the author and myself disagree with.

5. Addition of Section 127A (Recognition of languages)
(1)The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.
(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.

I'm not sure if this Section is necessary at all. The US does not have a national language, and the result is the need to produce government forms in multiple languages (usually English and Spanish). Either way, national language is separate from the issue, and Section (2) is again an attempt for another symbolic addition with no foreseeable practical consequences.

I'd be interested in others thoughts on these potential changes. As I see it a referendum on this platform would fail. Points 1 and 2 alone would probably be successful.

There are two self evident contradictions in Shireen Morris' article.

The first is, that she argues for Equality, while at the same time demanding that the Constitution be changed to make people of the aboriginal race more equal than anybody else who lives Australia. Such a position is a contradiction in terms.

It is true that aboriginal people do not have equality under the Australian constitution. If Shireen wants to change that to full equality, then is she prepared to accept that aboriginals must then be considered completely equal with other races? And that the same standards of behaviour and accountability should apply to aborigines as to other races? No, in her article, Shireen is not proposing full equality at all.

What Shireen wants, is equality when it benefits aboriginals, and inequality when it benefits them. This is clearly a racist position where one race is seeking special treatment, and this from a writer who claims she wants to end racism.

Secondly, Shireen parrots the old lefty saying that "there is no race but the human race". But her entire position is that aboriginal people are a special race who must get full equality in some areas and special privileges in others. Aborigines must be a Claytons race. The race you have, when you don't recognise the concept of race.

Shireen, either races exist or they don't. You can't claim they don't exist when you want to, and then claim they do exist when you can get some mileage out of it.

Could I suggest, that the real reason for Shirees article, is that the aboriginal "big men in long beards and black hats" who have consistently been caught with their fingers in the till, are incensed that both Labor and Liberal governments have by passed them and their obvious greed with the "Intervention.? They can hardly explain to the electorate that they want the power back to rip off their own people. So couching it in terms of "aboriginal self determination" sounds a lot better to the naïve, educated whites who are silly enough to take them seriously

It’s a myth, though a widely believed one, that before the 1967 referendum the Constitution “excluded Indigenous people from the census”.

Aborigines were counted in every census since the first one, in 1911, counted 19,939 of them. The referendum had nothing to do with the census. The confusion arises because the referendum rightly removed the section of the Constitution under which Aborigines were not counted for the purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives and grants to the states. Paradoxically, this section prevented states like Queensland, in which Aborigines did not have the vote, from getting more seats and states like Victoria, in which they did have the vote, from getting fewer.

Section 25 of the Constitution, combined with section 24, actually punishes any state that stops people voting on racial grounds by reducing that state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to the number of people excluded from voting. The removal of section 25 would not take away the capacity of states to enact racially discriminatory voting provisions, but it would remove the punishment if they did so – not that their doing is even thinkable nowadays.

At least the author did not repeat the other myths re the 1967 referendum; viz., that it made Aborigines citizens (which they became in 1949, along with all other Australians) and that it gave them the vote (which they had continuously from the nineteenth century in some colonies and in the 1901 federal election in those states and which was fully restored federally in 1962).

This is another example of good intentions that would make a bad situation even worse. After 200 years of failures to solve " the indigenous affairs problem", the way forward is to abolish ALL discrimination, positive and negative. If Shireen feels as strongly as I do about women being bashed and children abused, I challenge her, as a first step, to expose those black and white vested interests who would oppose such reforms.

The aboriginals already have equality, in fact I would go so far as to suggest that in the area of education they have more than equality. They just need to get up off their bums and step up to the plate and have a go like the rest of us had to.

David

Could there be anything more racist than including one race & one race only in the constitution.

Why should being the first immigrants to the continent confer any special privileges on anyone.

If any thing having had longer to adapt to European settlement than any new group, should have conferred an advantage on aboriginals, if they had chosen to take advantage of it. That they did not is down to them.

I'm sick of being blamed for other peoples incompetence, aboriginal & others. Time every one, & I mean everyone, resigned as our brothers keepers, & let people live the live they choose.

Summing up this proposition in one word: RACIST!

Apartheid is a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by government.

Segregation was demanded by left 'Progressive' fundamentalists and black activists in Gough Whitlam's day and the self-management enacted brought down a dense black curtain that enabled corruption and savage abuse of women and children to bloom out of sight and out of mind of the public. The media became self-censoring, bluffed and bullied by black activists and cowering from political correctness.

Let the same interests loose on the Constitution? Not likely!

The Preamble of the Constitution states "Whereas we the people", what this means is all people of the Commonwealth of Australia.

It doesn't state any race, as White, Black, Yellow etc.

Whereas we the people means all of the people throughout the land of Australia.

Australian governments have attempted to change our Constitution on 6 previous occasions and have been defeated each time by the peoples referendum.

Do you realise why they want to change the Constitution? Perhaps if you actually understood the true reason behind their motive you will think twice.
They want more power and more ways to force us into involuntary servitude.

They want local municiple councils to be recognised as local government, if the was passed councils could make laws and develop new ways to make local bylaws and fines and charges.

I would suggest that before voting on the referendum do research as I and many others have done.

Advocates for a referendum simply do not understand the extent to which the political elite is currently despised by the people, and referendums, particularly those supported by both major parties, are one of the few ways that they can express it. The 1967 referendum is now widely regarded as a con, as the real plot was to secure the abolition of the nexus, and a motherhood referendum on aboriginals was added in the hope that it would carry the other one with it. In the current climate the status of the elite is so low that the only issue likely to have an easy passage at a referendum would be one reducing politicians' salary and expenses. A similar situation exists with the republic, where the current situation (that the Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative) pleases many who despise the elite. If the major parties would only appoint perfect politicians (the people would really prefer ones a bit better than perfect), the situation might improve. We look like having a referendum in September on recognising local government. All that is likely to happen is that some $8 million will be wasted submitting it.