The Government, with the conivance of the Opposition, is spending our money on television commercials to convince us of the necessity of holding a referendum to 'recognise' the 'first inhabitants' of this continent. What would happen in the future if advances in science showed that the current claimants were preceded by others is too nightmarish to consider.

In another example of diminishing democracy in Australia - beginning with Malcolm Fraser declaring the country to be 'multicultural' without consulting anyone, let alone the citizens of Australia - there is to be no funding for the case of not causing another division in society.

Do we really want to see more divisions in society brought about by self-agrandizing, dictatorial politicians unwilling to have a proper debate? Do we really think that meddling

with the Constitution the way they want to will make one iota of difference to ordinary aboriginal Australians? Or, are we just about to experience another divide-and-conquer operation?

I have to admit that I don't know much about
this issue. However, I've come across the following
links that explain quite clearly what Indigenous
Constitutional recognition means and why it is
important to go ahead with this recognition:

http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-means-31770

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/about-constitutional-recognition

Surely aborigionals exist without a referendum, or is it going to prove that they appeared from nowhere.
There is a big danger in referendums in AU, how many actually get up.
A referendum now would prove that we are a mob ostriges, to the rest of the world.

If we are going to recognize the first comers to what is now called Australia, that would be the Tasmanian Aboriginals, about 70000 years ago. They came via the Southern Indian route.

The 2nd. "Invasion" came down the Malay Peninsular from the Northern Indian Route about 40000 years ago.

Then the 3rd. "Invasion" came from Southern China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Borneo, New Guinea about 20000 years ago.

The 4th. Invasion , that didn't have much impact came down from New Guinea about 12000 years ago. The first inhabitants got pushed & pushed until the ended up in Tasmania & got cut off from the Mainland with the same Global Warming that caused the Sea to rise & cut Australia off from New Guinea about 10000 years ago.

Then came the Europeans 255 years ago in a 5th "invasion."

With that I take it Australia has had a history if invasion for 40000 years.

Just who do we recognise? Do we have to recognise any individual "Race" or people? If we do, would that be "Racist"? It's putting one group of people ahead of another for a gain.

If there is some change to be made to the Constitution then some change of wording to recognize everybody in Australia, Past, Present & Future would suffice.

This all has to do with Political Correctness & you all know where I stand on that issue. Some Goody Two Shoes have nothing better to do with their time than find fault with everything. Then the City Aboriginals who would know one weed from another stirring up trouble so they can get more free stuff off whitey. That's the motivation behind it all.

Foxy,

They will come up with all sorts of reasons why recognition is ' important'. As an individual well out of the tangle of current political intrigue, I do not think it is in the least important; in fact I think that it would set a dangerous precedent and, most of all, it would be divisive and cause bad feelings against aboriginal Australians merely to give kudos to self-appointed leaders. I have nothing against people of aboriginal descent, many of whom work and play with the rest of us, and enjoy the good society that is Australia. They don't need to be to be patronised. Admittedly, some do not do so well, but no po-faced, politically correct vote-motivated changes to the Constitution will make any difference to their lot. We will never hear from the average black man or women; just the professionals who make a living out of racial discord, and cynical, self-serving white politicians.

Dear ttbn,

I haven't made up my mind about this issue
simply because as I said - I don't know
enough about it. Reading the links on the web
good arguments are being presented. However,
I don't know what the rest of the population
think and we've had problems with our
Referendums in the past - so this thing may not
even pass.

Anyway, I'll see what others have to say on this
issue. I hope quite a few will contribute to your
discussion. It would be interesting to read what
other posters think.

A 1 hour program contains up to 20 minutes of commercials. I have noticed most commercials are attempting to sell products people don't want. I have no incentive to buy M&Ms or any other grocery products advertised on television.
I would say commercials are a psychological conditioning, to condition television watchers to turn off the instant commercials come on.
As education punished teenagers' curiosity to the point of teenagers hating to learn anything new. The instant someone tries to teach a skill to teenagers and less so with adults, potential learners become easily distracted and generally turn off. Commercials do much the same, as to condition viewers and listeners to become easily distracted.
Societies workforce after leaving education, you would think teenagers would try to learn a work skill other than spending their time watching football.
I believe society needs more truck drivers and manual labourers than skilled thinking workers. The idea that television keeps people dumb can be considered when you next watch a television advert.

I had previously heard of a pre-Koorie "invasion" but knew no details.
I had previously heard that the 2nd wave pushed the 1st into Tasmania.
Perhaps the 1st wavers should demand recognition.
Hey, doesn't our Tasmanian Senator Lambie look a little bit Indian ?

However if you talk to genealogists you will quickly learn that the
very idea of mentioning any race in the constitution is ridiculous.
In a very few hundred years everyone will have aboriginal ancestry.
Then we can all claim their special privileges, whacco !

It is likely that 25 to 50% of the present population have an
aboriginal in there somewhere.
So what is the point ?

Isn't that what got Andrew Bolt into trouble ?
Hope they don't come after me !

Foxy,

What problems have we ever had with Referenda?

I cannot think of any.

I've got a pretty soft spot for our Aboriginals, but I really don't see a need to make any constitutional adjustments to accommodate them any more specifically. Our recognition that they're our original occupiers of this great continent is sufficient I would have thought ? What they do need, is much more material assistance in terms of health, education and employment. Moreover, they need to be RESPECTED, not mocked or ridiculed as drunks or whatever. I admit, some of them are, and it's a sad case.

And by 'material assistance' I don't mean more money ! Money is more often than not, squandered by some of their alleged leadership groups. We should be proud and immensely honoured, to say that we Australian's, have one of the oldest racial groups known to mankind, stretching back for thousands of years.

And, a bit off Topic - if I had my way I'd immediately close down that rat infested area known a 'Everleigh and Holden' Streets, Redfern or place it under the direct control of a responsible 'Aboriginal' leader !

Dear Bazz,

I doubt that you need to worry about "them"
coming after you. Unless of course you
trifle with the facts in a deliberately malicious
and provocative manner.

Dear Is Mise,

Since Federation in 1901 only eight out of 44 proposals
to amend the Constitution have been approved.

OSW: What they do need, is much more material assistance in terms of health, education and employment. Moreover, they need to be RESPECTED, not mocked or ridiculed as drunks or whatever. I admit, some of them are, and it's a sad case.

Which Aboriginal people are you talking about here? The ones around Redfern aren’t interested in Health (hygiene) education or employment. They just want their Goonies & Drugs. The Country/Townies do need jobs & will work. The Reservation ones need Health/hygiene training & the Bushies just want to be left alone.

Foxy: Unless of course you trifle with the facts in a deliberately malicious and provocative manner.

The facts as provided by” them.”

The "Constitution" has to be a non-racial impartial all-encompassing Document

The reason referendums fail is because politicians get ahead of the
population and their backers are so pumped up with their own importance
and their superiority over the unwashed pops that everyone switches off.
However politically correctness is so pervasive especially in the schools
that it may well succeed because aboriginals are black.
So for racial reasons it may succeed, hmmm is there a contradiction there ?

I can remember about three Referendums. The way the Questions were phrased made it extremely hard to know whether you were voting for or against Motion.

The Referendums must only be one short sentence, such as;

Allow Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution. Yes/No
Allow Boat people into Australia. Yes/no
Allow Abortions. Yes/no
Allow Terrorists to leave Australia. Yes/No
Allow Gay Marriage. Yes/No

w, come on JB, that would let the government word it how they liked !

Foxy,

"Since Federation in 1901 only eight out of 44 proposals
to amend the Constitution have been approved"

So what?

Referenda cannot fail because by their very nature they are designed to ascertain the will of the people, this they always do.

Ergo they cannot fail.

Is Mise: Referenda cannot fail because by their very nature they are designed to ascertain the will of the people, this they always do.

I both agree & disagree, more on the agree side though. How the Question is put is the big problem. A large confusing paragraph designed to elicit a "No" vote ensures Politicians get their way. Take the last Republic Referendum. Most people wanted to vote for the President. The Politicians wanted to pick the President from among their ranks & they worded it that way. That's why the Referendum failed.

If they would have asked;

Do Australians want a Republic or a Monarchy? Republic/Monarchy

Should the Politicians pick the President or the People? Politicians/People

I should imagine the result would have been much different.

Politicians design the Question to Succeed or Fail depending on what "they" want.

Dear Is Mise,

The Australian Constitution can be changed only
by a law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and
approved by a majority of voters across Australia and
in the majority of states. This process is called a
Referendum. Since Federation in 1901 only eight out of
the 44 proposals to amend the Constitution have been
approved by the majority of voters across Australia
and in the majority of states. Including the last one
on becoming a Republic - which many voters said no to
because of its wording.

If you don't believe this you can contact:
the - Attorney General's Department in Canberra.

Foxy: Including the last one on becoming a Republic - which many voters said no to because of its wording.

Thank you Foxy.

The BIG problem in voting for a President is that you get a

POLITICIAN !

Not just any politician but a committed campaigning politician.
You automatically generate a new political power centre away from
parliament.

A president should be appointed by some form of consensus vote by all
parliamentary members.
A qualification could be no previous political service.
That would leave it open for ex military officers, Judges, people like
some of our recent governor generals.

That's what we need not some retiring PM or treasurer or other minister looking for a nice sinecure.

Am I the only one who sees the danger in electing a President ?

Howards referendum was a doosy of how to word a referendum, stacked to the eyeballs with Howardism. It ain't good when you have the Labor party saying do not vote in favor of John Howards referendum.

Abbott's referendums would be equally untrustworthy as well. He can't lie straight in bed, let alone letting him loose with the constitution.

I don't see the need for a referendum, surely they can be recognised as the first Australian's without constitutional change.
They vote, i am not sure how that was handled.

Foxy,

It's so simple even you ought to be able to grasp it.

A Referendum is held to determine the will of the people on a particular proposal.
Whichever way the vote goes then that is the will of the people.

So a Referendum cannot fail because it always delivers the will of the people.

See?

Bazz: A president should be appointed by some form of consensus vote by all parliamentary members.

That's what happened last time, without your proviso & the people voted "No."

Bazz: "A qualification could be no previous political service."

That would leave it open for ex military officers, Judges, people like
some of our recent governor generals.

Bazz: That's what we need not some retiring PM or treasurer or other minister looking for a nice sinecure.

I agree, Bazz.

Bazz: Am I the only one who sees the danger in electing a President ?

In an Australian Republic, only, "the people," should elect a President, "with," your proviso.

No JayB, it is the popular vote by all that generates the power centre.
In a crisis, real or imaginary, the person elected can say I have the
support of the people, they elected me, so I am taking over the government.
It is a very dangerous situation as many Africans have found.

Being appointed by parliament means the President holds his position
by the gift of parliament.
This is the situation in the Westminister tradition.
The King is King by the grace of parliament, that was sorted out a long time ago.

Dear Is Mise,

No. Not if politics comes into play.

Many people would undoubtedly have voted for a Republic
and they didn't because of the way it was worded.

Therefore, I am somewhat suspicious about the current
proposals that will be put forward. It all depends
on the wording and the timing. And the fact that only
8 out of 44 proposals have been approved - shows that
something is perhaps not working as well as it should.

Still, its a question of perception.
You don't see it as a failure of the system.
Fair enough.

WFYB!

TONY Abbott will reveal this week that the long-promised ­referendum on acknowledging indigenous Australians in the Constitution will take place in 2017, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the 1967 ­referendum.

Somehow there is a bill of rights bundled up in it somewhere. Same sex union is not on the horizon.

Bazz: the person elected can say I have the support of the people, they elected me, so I am taking over the government. It is a very dangerous situation as many Africans have found.

Ok, now I see where you are going.

You have to remember, this is Australia, not Africa. Different sort of people altogether. Naturally it would only be a Token Position, Like the Governor Generals position. I would envisage that the Presidents position would just replace the Governor Generals.

If the Parliament picked the President they could be controlled by the Parliament. If they were picked by the people that control shouldn't happen.

Foxy: Therefore, I am somewhat suspicious about the current
proposals that will be put forward. It all depends on the wording and the timing.

I am, once again, with you all the way on this, Foxy.

Dear Jayb,

Thank You.

Dear ttbn,

I had an interesting conversation with my German born father in law last week.

He was railing against aboriginals getting “special treatment”. When I asked what he was referring to he talked about 'vast tracts of land' having been set aside as 'aboriginal reserves' where ordinary Australians could only enter with permission from the indigenous owners. This to him was an an anathema. 'We should all be equal as Australians, with no one being treated differently'. He said he felt deep resentment at having to seek permission to go into tribal areas.

So I put the following to him. Kerry Packer owned a vast stretch of land (larger than most Aboriginal land holdings) across Queensland and Northern Territory when I spent 6 months doing the block. The only way I could get on to that land was to ring up the manager and seek his permission. I asked my father in law did Packer have to right to exclude me, an 'ordinary Australian' from his property? 'Of course he did' came the reply 'because it was his private land'.

So I pressed, the only difference is that the Aboriginal lands are owned by a community rather than a single man. He reluctantly conceded said yes but retorted some in those communities might only be 1/16 aboriginal by birth 'so why do they get rights above ordinary Australians?'

I then talked about the Kidman family who currently own over 100,000 square kilometres of Australia. Not acres mind you but kilometres. Those who marry into the family are granted access rights that are not available to 'ordinary Australians'.

My father in law replied 'We shall agree to disagree' and I said 'No, I consider to position to be racist'.

We do get on pretty well mind you.

Was I wrong?

You remind me a little of him.

I'm fine with any recognition of race in law or in the constitution.