List of Council members that Malcolm Turnbull thinks is "broadly reflective of the Australian people". Check to see who 'reflects' your views.

Known: Patrick Dodson, Andrew Demetriou, Mick Gooda, Kristina Kenneally, Natasha Stott Depspoyja, Amanda Vanstone, Galarrwary
Yunupingu.

Not known: Mark Leibler (Lawyer, Native Land Title Law); Pat Anderson (Alyawarre woman); Megan Davis (Law Prof, UNSW,Cobble Cobble woman, Chair Permanent UN Forum on Indigenous Peoples); Tanyia Hosch (Torres Strait Islander, Joint director 'Recognise', Director Australian Indigenous Governance Institute); Jane MacLoon (big business, was company secretary BHP Billiton); Michael Rose (CEO, Allens); Murray Gleeson (ex High Court judge); Dalassa Yorkston (Torres Strait Islander, CEO Torres Strait Shire Council).

Now Senator, Dodson, Prof. Davis, Mr. Gooda, Mr. Leibler, and Mr. Pearson also served on 2010 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians who's 2012 report was too radical even for the Gillard Government. Remember, the Constitution is for all
Australians, not just minorities. It is not meant to contain cultural matters.

Hey ttbn,
Let me add a link for this thread.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/constitutional-recognition/referendum-council

G'day AC,

Thanks, I have that one stored away. Apparently the next utterance from the Council will be in 2017. If you are interested in the other side of the story try the Recognise What? website. There is also a small book, edited by Gary Johns with 13 essays from contributors, of the the same name available from Connor Court. Two of the essayists, one New Zealander, and a Canadian advise what happened/is happening since their dalliance with recognising their indigenous people. The problems lie not so much with recognising the existence of the first occupiers - not that even that has anything to do with a Constitution, which states how the country must be governed, and nothing else - but with the recognition of 'culture', which apparently leads to discrimination against the majority, and a lot of interference by un-elected judges.

Hey ttbn,
It's honestly hard for me to hold a position on this one.
I really don't truly understand what it's truly all about.

Whilst I do have indigeonous dna from my grandmother who was half indigeonous, I don't have any indigeonous culture in my family, as my grandmother died in a car accident in western Sydney when my dad was 12; and even then he was brought up previously to this by his grandparents.

Whilst I accept a lot of the "don't want to help themselves" criticisms, I also accept that they were here first and were historically subjected to some unfair and discriminatory treatment.

Also we've forced them to change their traditional ways, by taking away all their traditional hunting grounds and the best lands which they previously lived.

In some ways we made them drunks and angry resentful abusers with mental issues and havent really gone far enough to help provide them better opportunities for the modern changing world we live in.

When it comes to the kids in custody, I don't know if they were unfairly treated by police or others or that the government has in some ways let them down.
Maybe they shouldn't be there in the first place, but I won't object to someone having a spit-mask placed on them if they are going to play up.
If I was to spit at police, I'd be locked up, the law should be the same for everyone.
It doesn't matter if it's a kid or not, it can be a transmission of things such as hepatitis.

So there's pro's and con's, etc and I still don't understand what it is exactly that they want or hope to achieve moving forward.

AC,

I believe that you are able to claim Aboriginal heritage, even though you seem to have more European heritage.

There is no denying there were injustices done to indigenous people, and some undesirable things were introduced by Europeans, but that was over two centuries ago. In my view, no person now living has anything to apologise for, and many, many people of Aboriginal backgrounds don't see what the fuss is all about. I'm pretty well convinced that it is the elites of both European and Aboriginal communities who are behind this push, not just for recognition that Aborigines were the land's first people - which everyone accepts because our knowledge of history doesn't go back far enough to prove otherwise, and they were here 30, 40, or even 60 thousand years before Europeans arrived - but also the talk about recognising Aboriginal culture; neither of which will help the few Aboriginal people who could still do with help. But, once these things are recognised in a constitution, it has been proven in other countries that have taken the path, that the judiciary, bureacrats and elites soon take decisions out of the hands of elected politicians. One commentator has said that people wanting constitutional recognition are trying to do exactly the opposite of what was done in South Africa to break the yoke of apartheid. If we start legislating for one section of the community, we are in big trouble as a nation. Yes, we are being confused by the ruling class. And they have not said which parts of Aboriginal culture should be recognised - some of it is horrific.

Hey ttbn,
I've only actually known about my grandmother being half-indigenous for a couple of years. For most of life all I ever knew was she'd died in a car accident when dad was 12 and he never really knew her very well because he was mostly raised by his grandparents. He got on ancentry.com a couple years ago and was building the family tree when he was then contacted by another family from my grandmothers side of the family who connected up my grandmothers side of the family onto our family tree.

They sent him a book which covers my grandmothers side of the family.
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Gungarlook.html?id=s2T8ZwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

My grandmother was half Irish, half indigenous.
Her Irish grandfather/great grandfather (not sure which) came to Australia on a convict ship called the Boyd in 1826.
They lived where the Warragamba dam is today.

So I've never really thought of claiming aboriginal heritage.
I'm not in any way ashamed of my indigenous heritage though.

I also only found out about 5 yrs ago that my great grandfather (on my mums side) was a Lieutenant Colonel (pronounced leftenant) at Gallipoli, and was promoted to CO on the battlefield after his CO was shot.
I've looked him up online, but it only has his rank as Major.
I'd like to see his war record.

[cont]
I agree with you that no living person has anything to apologise for as far as the past is concerned, but I do think the person who represents our government should apologise, not for what we have done, but what our government that represents us did many years ago.

- And that has happened.

I don't fully understand the problems you're referring to that have occurred in other nations, but I accept your argument that problems have resulted and I do believe that there should be one law for everyone.

I recognise them as first Australians as I think most people do.
But I'm not sure what sort of a can of worms would be opened if they were legally accepted as first Australians.
(I'm not saying that in any way to be insulting towards them - I just don't understand the finer details or potential results of what this would mean.)

I'd like to see the indigenous have more opportunities and a chance at better lives (though I'm not sure how many are willing to embrace those opportunities) and as I said earlier I accept the criticism that in many cases the indigenous don't want to help themselves.

Which pretty much brings me full circle back to a place where I'm really not sure what position I should have on this issue.
Honestly, I'm not close enough to seeing or understanding all the issues as they are out in those remote communities or to know how they really feel to have any sort of worthwhile opinion on what is best.

The Constitution was written by white men for white men. It is not an all inclusive document at all, and reflects the thinking and values of the European ruling class in the late nineteenth century. By omission the constitution discriminates against our indigenous people. The time is now overdue for that discrimination to be removed once and for all.

ttbn you said "no person now living has anything to apologise for" that is not true. To give you one example;

<< In July 2006 Aboriginal Elder Matilda House and her daughter-in-law Antoinette House applied to join the radio station QBN-FM 96.7, near Canberra. Their application was refused because they ‘lived at different addresses’

Leaked draft minutes from the station’s board meeting told a different story.

The minutes recorded the station manager as saying that the women ‘wanted to take over the station’ and that ‘the Aboriginals were fighting on street corners’. A board member was minuted as having suggested to ‘kick them all out’.

A complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was unsuccessful because there was no prospect of settlement by conciliation. It took the Federal Magistrates Court to decide in February 2007 that the two women were unlawfully rejected membership.

The court ruled $12,000 in compensation plus court costs to be paid by the radio station.>>

Are these people still living? This is only one example

To simply brush off discrimination as ancient history. or blame governments of long ago for acts of discrimination is a way for many to absolve themselves, and the rest of society of any culpability. Then to dismiss the whole exercise as insignificant or irrelevant, and not reflective of the majority view, just say it is being driven by some unnamed elite, who have their own private agenda.

Paul,

There are adequate laws to deal with discrimination against anyone for race, gender, sexual preference - you name it,there's a law; and we have zealots at the HRC, slavering to get into it. Recognition in the Constitution would be institutional discrimination against the majority. The Constitution is not meant to speak to culture, but to the powers politicians should have permitted by the people.

AC,

Nobody should be 'ashamed' of having Aboriginal heritage. The people who should be ashamed are now dead and forgotten. People closer to now who should have been ashamed of themselves, but were not, were Gough Whitlam and 'Nugget' Coombes, the architects of the 'noble savage' idea that indigenous Australians should live there lives separate from the rest of us; a living museum, botting on welfare and living in squalor, as it turned out. All of these "progressives" want people dependent on them so that that can control them. Aboriginal separation and dependence is just the beginning of it. The rest of us will be getting similar treatment if we just sit back and ignore what is going on. Other people who should be ashamed of themselves are Dodson, Pearson, Gooda and the rest. Who would they be without the Aboriginal grievance industry? They live the affluent lives of white people, and use the real black fellas to keep them there. Stan Grant is another poser and user. Have another look at the Council list. Which of those people does not live a life of privilege using other people to get and keep them there. Cynical parasites the lot of them.

On discrimination: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders receive twice the government money per head than other Australians do. In 2012-2013, $3O billion was spent on them - 6.1% of government expenditure for 3% of the population. Add more "positive discrimination" by fiddling with the Constitution, and the poor old black fellas, most disconnected from their elites, will really be pariahs. The price will continue to rise, and who knows what unelected judges will be able to lever out of government coffers after changes to the Constitution.

"That was over two centuries ago...".
Until the 1950s, Aboriginal people in NSW were moved into reserves, sometimes by force. At one level this was for their own 'good', as big stations were they had been able to remain on their land and work in the pastoral industry were broken up into small family farms. But life on the reserves especially the larger ones (ironically called Aboriginal stations) was coercive. White managers could ban people, teachers at Aboriginal schools did not need qualifications, and girls in their early teens were 'disposed' of (the term used) as servants to anyone who asked. If they were mistreated and ran away, they were generally refused readmittance to the Aboriginal station.
Some of these people are still alive. Their children and grandchildren are still alive and remember what happened when they visit the graves of their relations in the old reserve cemeteries.
What happened two hundred years ago was just the start.

Cossomby,

OK. Please explain to me how recognition in the Constitution would right wrongs from 200, 50, or 20 years ago. When little has changed after billions of dollars have been spent, how will recognition help a single Aboriginal Australian who is not already helping himself or herself now, just the same as the rest of us? What do you expect to happen if special conditions are created for 3% of the population, which already gets more money and assistance than 97% of the population? Do you know that Zimbawe and Chile recognise their original people? And look how kind and caring they are, compared with democratic Australia without recognition. There is a lot to think about on this question before the elites come up with questions that could change a Constitution owned by 100% of the population, which includes those identifying as Aboriginal.

The constitution is the rule book for government and is forever.
Aboriginality was for 1 or 2 hundred years ago and perhaps for the
next 2 hundred years. After that there maybe no aboriginals.
Their DNA will still be around but like the celtic DNA it will be
fading out. Likewise, our African DNA has faded to low levels.
We all, have some Neanderthal DNA but it is almost gone.

So what is the point of aborigines expecting special rights, grants etc etc.
It makes the sovereignty claim to be total nonsense.

The law says to be "Aboriginal" you need other "Aboriginals" to back up your claim. So where are we? Who is is going to be classed as "Aboriginal" and how? This is such silly nonsense I do not know how serious adults can bother discussing it.
As for all the Billions wasted the professional aboriginal classes should hang their heads in shame and we should be discussing the phasing out of the racist "Aboriginal" and Torres Stait Islander" terms in Australia.
No one will suggest the use of DNA to prove these race claims that would be far too difficult lol.

Ttbn: I was commenting on your statement
"There is no denying there were injustices done to indigenous people ... but that was over two centuries ago. ...no person now living has anything to apologise for..."

Pointing out that injustices were done to Aboriginal people much more recently. Not only are many Aboriginal people who suffered injustices in the 20th century still alive, but so are some of the perpetrators. So I disagree about no living person having anything to apologise for.

Re: 'little has changed after billions of dollars have been spent' - well there's an assumption that all that money went to Aborigines. It didn't - most went to non-Aboriginal businesses/agencies were contracted by government to do things that politicians thought up. There's a parallel with the pink batts saga: thought up by politicians, administered by public service, carried out by businesses who jacked the prices up because it was government money, or invented themselves or expanded to do so, using untrained staff, with fatal consequences. In the pink batts affair, the blame was correctly put on government/public service for the way the scheme was set up and mismanaged. The householders got the pink batts were, correctly, not blamed. They hadn't requested them; if they had been asked they would have had much more important needs. Aborigines are in the same position, they get a lot of stuff imposed on them but then they tend to get the blame when money is wasted and things don't work.

Those billions of dollars identified as spent on Aborigines were in fact a giant windfall benefit to the non-Aboriginal business economy.
(Cont.)

(Cont.)
Q. How will recognition help a single Aboriginal Australian who is not already helping himself or herself now, just the same as the rest of us?
A. It will give a feeling of self-worth to many so that they can also help themselves. A lot of the depression and self-harm is because many Aboriginal people have internalised the negativity they hear about being Aboriginal.

Q. What do you expect to happen if special conditions are created for 3% of the population, which already gets more money and assistance than 97% of the population?
A. See previous comment, they don't get more money and assistance; most of the money for Aboriginal projects goes to non-Aborigines; some special funds eg education grants are designed to save money later by getting people educated and into jobs. Recognition in the constitution is just that, if does not mean 'special conditions'. We could add to the constitution preamble recognition of the men and women who served in the defence forces, but that would not automatically mean they'd get any 'special conditions'.

Q. Do you know that Zimbawe and Chile recognise their original people? And look how kind and caring they are, compared with democratic Australia without recognition.
A. Just because other countries stuff something up doesn't mean that we should not do it. Are you suggesting that if we formally recognised Aboriginal people, we would suddenly behave like Zimbabwe and Chile? Do we say: Outer Fandangistan has heritage laws and still lets heritage buildings be knocked down! So Australia shouldn't have heritage laws! I use that example because we generally do a good job in this area - see quick action over illegal demolition of Melbourne hotel.

I agree there is a lot to think about on this question. But it would be good if the debate could avoid red herrings, unbased fears and inaccuracies.

Finally, re the current "Constitution owned by 100% of the population, which includes those identifying as Aboriginal". I think the issue is that those identifying as Aboriginal actually don't think they 'own' it or that it incudes them.

A few words in the Constitution will not make Aborigines feel any better, or be of any more practical use to them than 'Sorry. The only thing that can make any people, black or white, feel good about themselves is self-respect, brought about by working, paying their own way, providing for their families, and being part of the greater community. Many thousands of Aboriginal-Australians are achieving these things as well as any of us. It is only a few people who have VOLUNTARILY isolated themselves from the mainstream who naturally feel that they they are not part of Australia, which, is what they are - and it is their own doing. Most of them wouldn't know what a constitution was.

Where did you get the idea that Aboriginal money went to non-Aboriginals. Are you claiming massive corruption? If you really expect anyone to believe what you say you will have have to provide evidence. You need to do much more reading on the subject. Your failure to understand my reference to Zimbabwe and Chile indicates that you have a lot to learn.

I think its now time for the Indigeneous elders to apologise for misspent billions, epidemic crime and failing to deal with domestic violence and child abuse so prevalent in communities. They could also thank the Europeans for hospitals, police, schools, running water and electricity.

Ah well it now seems like sovereignty is on the agenda.
If the aborigines get sovereignty, think how much money we will save !
It will be billions.

Both Abbott and Turnbull, poor fools, saw amendments to the Constitution as 'completing' the document and bringing everyone together. The Aboriginal industry does not see it that way: emboldened by ludicrous land rights decisions for areas of Australia no modern Aborigine has any connection with, they are indeed, Bazz, looking for sovereignty over the entire country. How about that? About 3% of the population lording it over the 97%! I wonder who they think is going to keep the ball rolling on the economy, health, defence and so on?

Perhaps they see another South Africa, completely over looking the fact that the blacks in that country are actually in the majority.

I will definately not be voting for any changes to the Australian Constitutiuon simply because something smells rotten about this whole agenda.

Why does the govt want this referendum regarding aboriginal pre-occupation of Australia? To do justice to aboriginal people? I dont think so. Somewhere in the way the questions will be worded will be and excuse for skullduggery with the Australian Constitution.

Already there is no mention of local govt in the constituion but we have local govt according to Sue Maynes:

1. There is no such body as the Australian Government mentioned in the Cth Constitution

2. The people are to vote only for a Ch I Parliament - to be known as “The Parliament” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth”

3. There is NO constitutional vote for Ch II Executive which is the Government of the Commonwealth.

4. There is no such entity as an Australian Citizen in the Cth Constitution

5. There is no such thing as compulsory voting

6. There is no such thing as political parties or party voting.

7. All the Aust Gov’t agreements are not constitutionally bound. In the Australian System of Governments, the people:

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/referendum-councils-sixth-meeting

"The council’s digital consultation process, which will complement the dialogues, is due to go live in November. The digital platform will provide information about constitutional recognition and an opportunity for people to put forward their views.

Given the complexity of the issue, council members emphasised the importance of helping people to better understand the options being explored for constitutional change so they are well placed to provide input when the council calls for formal submissions next year.

Members also discussed the latest iteration of the public discussion paper, which sets out the options and issues for constitutional change to help guide community discussion. The paper, which will also be available in a number of Indigenous languages, will be published next month."

The very fact that the push is bi-partisan, in itself is very suspicious.

If you look at New Matilda, June13, 2015, you will find a piece titled; ' A 7th State: Michael Mansell On Another Way Forward For First Nations Self-Rule'.

They are comparing themselves (3% of the population of one country) with '80 new countries' that have 'become free to to rule themselves' since the UN came into being. A map of land under Aboriginal title is shown. Keith Windschuttle says that 851, 654 sq. Kms. (larger than NSW) is already under Native Title, with another 1,488,337 sq. kms.under consideration.

Mansell's 7th State would be autonomous, be 'free to send delegations to various international forums, have its own flag and anthem, and even negotiate for full recognition of Aboriginal passports and an Aboriginal Olympic team.'

The state could be legislated for by the Commonwealth, and would not require a referendum.

If you look at 9. 'The Question of sovereignty' from the 2012 report of the 'Expert Panel' to the Gillard government, you will find that 18 pages are devoted to the subject.

88% of Aboriginal and Torres Islanders rated sovereignty as the most important issue. It is an issue that has been pursued since the 1970s.

Beware of the boulder rolling our way from out in left field - Treaty. There's a head of steam being built up by racist activists up to press for a treaty. A treaty would mean areas marked out as sovereign Aboriginal land. Any person not Aboriginal would need its administration's permission to enter it. The corollary has been overlooked by those pressing for a treaty: there would also for reciprocal justice need to be treaty-defined land (where? the rest of Australia?)for non-Aborigines, which Aborigines couldn't enter without permission. Think of the implications of THAT!

Emperor Julian,

The treaty idea is one held dear by Warren Mundine. He believes that all clan and language groups should be given territory, and the government should enter into agreements (treaties) with EACH of them separately. Michael Mansell plumps for a 7th. black state stretching from Gippsland to the Kimberly; and Noel Pearson is going for "several" black states. All this is possible if Australian voters allow even the simplest of 'recognition' phrases into the Constitution - thanks to the notoriously activist High Court, which will come up with all sorts of imaginative interpretations of the words. 3% of the population could end up owning 60% of Australia, which would preclude the 97% from entry without permission. The 'nice' do-gooders likely to vote for recognition are blissfully unaware of that. Whatever questions the Council recommend, they will be innocently worded to hide their true purpose. Our dopey politicians will either be unable to understand that, or they will collude in the deceit.

No one seems to realise if this sovereign and treaty idea gets off the
ground that it will be necessary for anyone claiming to aboriginal will
have to undergo DNA testing. If that is not done and a percentage
established, then in a generation or two almost everyone will be able
to claim both aboriginality and to be of British Royal decent.
Looked at from today towards the next hundred years or so the whole
idea becomes ridiculous.

In 300 years or so the aboriginal DNA will be so widespread that it
will be meaningless. Equally Scandinavian and Celtic DNA will be
equally meaningless. In a thousand years it will be at the level of Neandethal DNA.

It seems that race based constitutional changes are meaningless.