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.