For the issue of "first peoples", what if we to find that Australia was colonized in multiple waves of migration, as some studies suggest. Do we then need to devalue those groups that arrived a few thousand years later? Am I less of an Australian than my mate because my parents migrated to Australia in the 80s, while his parents arrived on the first fleet (albeit against their will)?

What I have read in many of the proposed changes to the constitution, is either:

1. A statement so vague and meaningless that is would never have any impact on anyone living in the real world.

or

2. An attempt by some groups to entrench some sort of privilege for themselves through the legal separation of Australians based on race.

Due to the need for a referendum, approach #2 would never succeed. I truly think Australians are open to equal rights, but we do recognize that positive discrimination is still discrimination, and therefore not equal rights. Due to the fact that so many of us are recent immigrants (within a few generations), we don't accept the guilt that so many bleeding hearts want us to feel. Our families came to this country with very little, and often faced discrimination based on race, religion or culture too. Blaming of "white" people for any events in history not only ignores the fact that none of us were even here 200 years ago, but also that most non-aboriginal people are not even descendent from those you wish to blame.

I was born in Australia, and I will never accept that anyone is somehow a better or more important Australian than me due to their race.

Once people can get over this fact, we can start to move on as a country together.

I find the total lack of understanding of the need to, not just 'recognise' the first Australians ie the Aboriginal peoples, but to acknowledge that the whole English occupation of this continent was/is simply unlawful under the Law of Nations in force in 1770 and the more recent International Law, amazing.
That said, the only description that fits the actions of the English is theft and on a grand scale at that. That terminally taints the entire existence of the Australian Nation.
To put that into colloquial terms , if you steal a car and then claim it as your own, it remains stolen property, It really is that simple.
The title to that car remains with the legitimate owner.
The 'Title' to the Australian continent similarly remains with the Aboriginal peoples, putting the Aboriginal relationship with thier Country aside for moment, in European terms, the Aboriginal Peoples owned the land. It was never ceded, conquered by war, or sold.
The only way that that can be rectified would be for the International Court of Justice to hear the matter but the Australian Government would be required to agree for the matter to be heard and to accept the judgement. It is highly unlikely that any Australian Government will ever have the political courage to do what is morally appropriate.
Any restoritive action would produce a dollar amount beyond imagination.

Oh I don't know Growly?

Perhaps if the Constitution could be rewritten to recognize the very first of the first Australians as the original and only legitimate owners, and then only if more than 25% of the first of the first, offered a big parcel of money for a surrendered title and a treaty?

I mean, anybody who followed the first and dispossessed them are no different from the whites, who did the same!

And as some posting here have pointed out, there is no time limit on stolen land or title, which never ever exhausts?

If however, forced or voluntary exile allowed that title to exhaust after say, three generations, then perhaps all the people born here should count equally as Indigenous?

Perhaps what we should argue for is true equality before the law and in opportunity!?

As for granted irrevocable rights being withdrawn at some later date, at the whim and caprice of the power hungry?

Why not place them in the constitution, which would then require a referendum to exclude them? Now that's how you alter the constitution!
Rhrosty.

Hi Growly,

I suggest that the position is vastly more complicated than that. After all, not one Aboriginal person is currently living an entirely 'traditional' life, hunting, gathering, sheltering under a few branches, using stone tools, taking their chances with the widespread and frequent droughts that have always plagued Australia. And good on them for choosing a less traditional path, everywhere, in all groups.

Policies often have unintended and unexpected effects. Here in SA, from the outset of settlement, the rights of Aboriginal people to use the land - to 'occupy or enjoy' it, were recognised from the outset, BUT a ration system was also introduced within days of the 1836 Proclamation. What do you reckon happened ?

It took a while before a Governor, probably George Grey, barred able-bodied people from receiving rations, requiring them to go back out and hunt, fish and gather, or work for local white farmers. Since one could buy grog and tobacco and all manner of goods with money, what do you reckon happened ?

So, while the old, sick and infirm, nursing mothers and young children could get rations all the time - what effect do you think severe droughts might have had on the demographics, pre-Settlement ? - the able-bodied could only receive rations during droughts, i.e. when there was no hunting etc. to be done. What different impact would, say, a steady ration system during a five- or ten-year drought have had on cultural life ?

Within a couple of decades, once a drought hit, people would come in desperately seeking food and water, so the Protector, a one-man 'department' - would immediately send out rations, for the duration, and beyond.

Fairly quickly, people brought their children into towns like Adelaide and Port Lincoln where schooling was provided (and accommodation and food). By 1870 or so, Aboriginal children with access to schooling were more literate and numerate than the average white kid in SA.

[TBC]

[continued]

Yes, the One Big Crime was committed - settlement - and it's a bit late to undo everything, but I'd suggest that no Aboriginal people anywhere would want to do that. I remember, one bitter winter's day, a student I worked with complaining about her air-conditioning. And fair enough, she's in this world too, she's as much entitled to air-conditioning as anybody else.

All Aboriginal people are in this world, a hell of a lot has happened since the Crime, and although it can be convenient to take with both hands while bemoaning history, do we want to write that into a Constitution ?

Joe

Can we also recognise second Australians in the constitution, then first and second will be equal forever and always and we can all be awarded one of those purple ribbons bearing the word "participant" like they do for sports carnivals at the more PC primary schools.
Even though you fell over 50m from the finish and laid on the track having a tantrum you're still a winner!