cont'd ...

ALTRAV,

To continue with the explanations given by Anne Twomey,
Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
She further says:

Are any of these bodies mentioned earlier a "third house of
Parliament?" Of course not. None of them have the power to
initiate a bill in the Parliament. They can neither vote
on the passage of legislation, nor veto it.

None is a constituent part of the body that makes laws. It
would be exactly the same for an Indigenous voice in
Parliament. It could not be a third voice of the Parliament.
Simply because it would have no power to initiate, pass,
or reject bills. Its role would be to simply give a
voice to Indigenous views that could be heard within
the Parliament, in the same way as these other bodies also
speak to and inform Parliament.

If we are comfortable with the Auditor-General reporting
to Parliament and advising about the issues of financial
prudence and accountability then it is difficult to see how
we would not be comfortable with an Indigenous body
informing Parliament about matters that could improve the
effectiveness and utility of its laws in Indigenous
affairs and the efficient targeting of its expenditure.

The Houses of Parliament are not obliged to implement the
advice of the Auditor-General, but will
give it respect if it is sensible,
well-reasoned, and wise. It is hard to imagine that
anyone would argue that it is better for Parliament to be
ignorant and ill informed, its laws ineffective and its
expenditure wasteful. There can be no harm in listening to the
views of others and using them to improve out comes.

Why then do we need a constitutional amendment to give
effect to this proposal, when other
bodies already fulfil a similar role under
ordinary legislation?

cont'd

cont'd ...

ALTRAV,

An important aspect of the proposal is the moral
authority of the people. If, as in 1967, the vast
swathe of the Australian people voted in favour of
Indigenous Australians having a voice about the
laws and policies that affect them, then it would
not only provide a profound reconciliatory moment
in Australia's political history but it would also
impose sufficient political pressure to prevent
future backsliding.

Governments would be forced to make the new system work
and focus upon how to get the best out of it. It could
not be abandoned by neglect.

While the Commonwealth government was initially unsettled
by the Uluru proposal, it has allocated money in the
most recent budget to develop the detail of that
proposal further. This suggests that it has recognised
the underlying merit in it and is prepared to contemplate
it more seriously.

Perhaps with further consideration, both at the political
level and across the country the Uluru proposal which
at first seemed so confronting to some, will grow in
familiarity and be seen as a natural part of Australia's
evolution.

Just as the Australian people voted in support of the
inherent fairness and justice they saw as underlying
the more technical 1967 referendum proposal, they mauy
recognise the same essence in the Uluru Voice From
The Heart.

We should continue to have a provision whereby the Federal Government can legislate on race, there may come a time when a particular race is threatened and there may be no way of protecting its members.

Politicians are only interested in one thing: getting re-elected.

The Whites stole the land from the Aboriginals and marginalised them as misanthropes. The only way to truly reconcile Aboriginal people with the Australian political system is to give them their land back and let them have control over their destiny.

But instead the politicians, bureaucrats and business community are bringing in millions of Chinese (and now Indians as well) to displace the Whites as well as the Aboriginals. Well at least the Whites will now know how the Aboriginals have felt about the great dispossession that destroyed their people, lands, and cultures.

The fact that someone is dark-skinned imparts to him no special virtue, just as the fact that someone is Caucasian saddles him with no special liability.

Foxy,
WOW!
Talk about an emotional and passionate submission.
I have to give you full marks.
There is no doubt you 'wear your heart on your sleeve', and good for you.
But Foxy, you do know that there are the 'thick heads' as you would put it, like myself who do not agree with those who you promote, nor their promotions.
Where you promote goodwill and benevolence, I promote caution and vigilance.
You cannot simply set aside those people who disapprove of the things being proposed for the blacks.
We are suspicious of their true agenda or intent.
This suspicion is well founded by history and records.
The sad part is that the bad guys are mostly the whites, disguised as the ones helping and assisting the blacks in their quest for recognition.
Then there is the bulk of the population who feel that the Europeans settled here, and in doing so are in control.
Then there is the others like myself, who do not recognise the blacks as anything of note.
As a result I/we are offended by any attempt by anyone who would try to gain any kind of advantage over the rest of us, especially when there is no real or justifiable reason to do so.
As you keep reminding us, history is in the books and archives for all to see, if they wish.
The problem is we don't care, and any attempt at changing the status quo is seen as a threat to our very being.
Foxy no matter how many ways you or Twomey put it, it is offensive to make demands on the rest of the population when they are well and truly, over represented in every sector of society, from the parliament down.
I strongly suggest, those pushing the black cause, to look into all the groups, bodies and performance of same, and find the rot and kill it, so they can fully avail themselves of the myriad of offerings already in place.
As for changing this place into an ABORIGINAL STATE, forget it I/we will never allow that to happen.