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.