On this coming Sunday, we will be only six months from the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 Referendum which approved of Indigenous people being counted in the national Census instead of State Censuses only, and for the federal government to make laws specifically for Indigenous people, rather than just the States.

It was hoped that by May next year, the ‘Recognise !’ campaign would have built up enough head of steam to oversee another Referendum, this time on whether or not Australians want to change the Constitution to specifically recognise just Indigenous people.

Indigenous people have their own Flags which one can see every day at schools and post offices, a multitude of organisations are funded for their benefit. Indigenous people are in at least three State and Territory parliaments and the National Parliament. Indigenous members of sporting teams are commonly feted and quite deservedly so.

Clearly this may not seem enough for many Indigenous people. A range of measures have been promoted for public support, but clearly any Referendum proposals would have to have the backing first and foremost of the Indigenous population. In other words, before a national referendum, there may have to be an Indigenous-only referendum, to narrow down the options for the rest of the population to deliberate over.

Currently, they range as follows:

1. No change at all;

2. Mention of the 60,000-year Indigenous presence etc. in the Constitution’s Preamble;

3. A more elaborate clause about Indigenous language and culture within the body of the Constitution;

4. With or without the above, a Treaty either between the Australian Government and Indigenous people, or multiple Treaties with each ‘nation’, i.e. clan;

5. Setting aside land for, and recognition of, an Indigenous State within Australia;

6. The cession of an Indigenous State from Australia and its international recognition as a sovereign nation;

7. The gradual accession of Indigenous power over all of Australia and the repatriation of non-Indigenous people to their home -countries.

If it were possible to organise such a Referendum by next May 27, how would you vote ?

//If it were possible to organise such a Referendum by next May 27, how would you vote ?//

42. Because that is always the right answer when you don't know what the question is.

But seriously, I'll vote yes or no, Joe. Those are the only two options in a referendum. But I'd have to know what the actual question is - not just various proposals for the question - before I collapse the wave function one way or the other.

I've heard it said that Canada is much like Australia, but with more ice and less fire. The non-indigenous Canadians and their indigenous peoples seem to have reached an agreement that both sides are reasonably happy with. Even the Kiwis seem to have managed this better than us.

Would there be any shame in Australia plagiarising from other countries who've got a better answer to the problem than us? Or is it a matter of national pride that it all be our own work, even though we don't seem to have much aptitude for it?

Hi Joe, to answer your list of proposals in a yes/no fashion.

1 No, 2 Yes. 3 Yes, 4 Yes and No, 5 No, 6 No, 7 No and more No.

You did not actually frame a question.

Hi Steele, I know a bit about The Treaty of Waitangi 1840. As it was then, and still is today, Maori and Pakeha are divided on the merits of the treaty. Some agree with it, other vehemently oppose it. Being a one page document, drawn up by men of goodwill, and they were, you would think there would be no problems, but there are numerous disagreements over interpretation, particularly between the Maori and the English versions.

I would like to see a formal treaty with our Indigenous people, but it has to be a fair and balanced document. It should not be some wishy-washy feel good vaguery full of nonsense, or a draconian decree which is biased against 97% of the Australian population. The answer to all that might be 42.

Hi Toni & Paul,

I apologise for not framing an actual yes/no question - I was, in a clumsy way, trying to put forward a range of options, most of which have been canvassed over the past few decades. Clearly, Indigenous people would have to have the opportunity to choose their preferences first - which in any case may well cover a similar range of options.

It would be obviously inappropriate to put any question, or questions, to the Australian people generally until Indigenous people have had that opportunity.

Of course, organising an Indigenous-only process of choice will take time and money, and will probably raise issues concerning who can and can't express their choice. As well, a 'No' campaign would have to be funded as well as a 'Yes' campaign.

Even then, there may be problems with how to 'translate' those choices into a form which all Australians can deliberate over at a Referendum. For example, should the single most popular option of Indigenous voters be the only question for all Australians to give a yes or no to, at a subsequent Referendum ? Or should, say, their three most popular options be on the Referendum paper ?

Whichever option is chosen by the Australian people, by a majority of voters in a majority of States, can then be acted on. This all may take some time. I hope I'm still here to participate in it.

Cheers,

Joe

As I said previously, I would have no mention of race at all.
In some hundred years or so we will all have some aboriginal blood in our DNA.
This is just the same as we all have some DNA of the Kings of England.
There is no point in having a mention of aboriginals unless it is to
enable some benefit. We have that already, aboriginal or Torres Strait.
It becomes pointless.

Rather than add the word aborigine or Indigenous to the constitution, I would vote to remove both from the language, if that is what it takes to fix the mess.

With this done we could then treat all Australians as equals, rather than some as special cases.

just because aborigines were earlier immigrants to this land is no reason to give them special treatment, or indeed treat them as second class citizens.

This would also remove thousands of obviously useless bureaucrats from the taxpayers burden.