Dear Foxy,

You assert that " ... our Indigenous people are asking for this step to be taken and I personally can't see any reason that it should not be taken."

Well, some Indigenous people are asking, but I suspect that the great majority don't care one way or the other, apart from the office-holders in the five thousand organisations around the country, andctheir relations.

Apart from that, it would be nice to know what we are all supposed to vote on down the track, as Ken Wyatt suggested. If we're talking about a 'Voice', surely Ken Wyatt's will go a long way as Minister ? And without any need to insert some special right for anybody into the Constitution, just maybe a Preamble - win -win !

Then we - all of us, since we're all equally entitled to a 'voice' in those processes - can get onto filling out what is meant by some of the other thought-bubbles: Treaty, Preamble to the Constitution, 'nation', whatever other bubble is thought up.

Love,

Joe

Is Mise,

The ones that did not respond don't count.
That is the point.

Foxy,

"2) I am sure that the majority of voters would
support this.

3) Just as they supported same
sex marriage."

"The ones that did not respond don't count.
That is the point."

Then why include them, or did you really mean that you meant only those voters who responded to the opinion poll?

Poor English usage.

Is Miserable good to see your bitterness is not just reserved for me
Ever given any thought to the chance you are far from as bright as you think?

Is Mise,

You are the one that's including them.
Not me.

Dear Joe,

The US, Canada, and New Zealand have all moved to
recognise their Indigenous people in their
respective constitutions. Australia is still
struggling to do so. Many Indigenous people
want a treat instead. The US government has more
than 350 treaties with Native Americans. Norway's
constitution recognises the country as as -
bi-cultural.

You mentioned the preamble.
The preamble is not part of the constitution and any
change would have no legal consequences.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to why anybody would object
to what is being asked. Reputable journalist -
Jeff McMullen sums things up rather well when he says:

" A glance at the constitution reveals the deep stain of
racism and discrimination. It is one of the few constituions
in the world today with negative race powers allowing
governments to make laws and policy that pointedly trample
the rights of Indigenous people."

What other indigenous people around the world are better looked after by the descendants of their conquerors than here in Australia ?