Dear o sung wu,

And here I was thinking that far from being ornery I had exercised restraint along with at least a dollop of humour, especially given the title is 'There Is No Place For Race In Our Constitution' whereas the thing specifically says it can make laws regarding race.

So I flagged the Austrian comment only to reinforce the point I was making, that the author is clueless.

Anyway aren't you taking this a little bit too seriously? You have employed the odd sly jibe in your time, often to good effect, in fact that is one of things which serve to raise your offerings here above the dross. Keep at it old chap I say.

So, here is a question for you. Let's put a figure on the amount of money which goes into combating disadvantage within our indigenous communities. No one is saying it isn't substantial but many in the know describe how only one dollar in five actually makes it on to the ground. So let's call it 15 billion dollars per annum.

What would you say to having 10 billion of this paid as compensation for use of indigenous land. It would then be distributed to Aboriginal organisations for them to care and sustain their communities. Now it is rent rather than welfare and controlled by the 'landlord' rather than crumbs given to the beggar.

I'm looking forward to exploring this with you so if you could give it some thought rather than replying with a kneejerk reaction that may well serve the discussion positively.

ttbn,

"These blacktivisits and lefties want a ‘special body’ enshrined in our Constitution."

Fear not, ttbn, this is actually good news. Unlike many other policies the elites are able to push through against the will of the people (eg 150000-200000 immigrants pa), this one will actually have to go to the people.

As with Brexit, while the EU was foisted on the nation over the heads of the populace, the people got to vote and voted against the way their 'betters' demanded. The elite was so out of touch with the people that they just assumed they'd win the vote. They're still trying to recover from that shock and overturn the will of the people.

Here also, the people will get a vote. Unfortunately for the elite, the constitution requires that any change must be approved by a majority of people in a majority of states.

Now, when the proposal was to just have a bit of puffery in the introduction to the constitution saying that there were people here for a long time before whites arrived, then it stood a chance to get the required vote since it was just virtue-signalling window dressing.

But that wasn't good enough for the carpet-baggers, and leaders of the aboriginal industry. They want real power and real money to enhance their position and allow them to dole out increasing largess. They just can't help themselves.

And the more they demand, the more power they want to grab, the more insane their screams for 'equality' (remember "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"), then the less likely it is that they'll get anything.

A referendum is a yes/no question. 'Yes' I want to give away all this power and money, or 'no' I'd prefer things to remain the way they are.

The changes this dills want will never get approved. And the more crazy their claims, the less likely that becomes.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I do agree with you. Much of the millions spent on Indigenous welfare and advancement doesn't get to where it's needed. I'm fortunate enough to have a Psychiatrist (Doctor) as a friend (yeah I know, you probably think he should treat me!) and until the last 18 mths., he spent three months of the year being flown around to some of the most depressed settlements in WA & NT treating those who needed him the most. This was yet another C'Wealth initiative, albeit meaning well, again costing millions in light A/C hire, pilots and not counting the Psychiatrist salary.

He told me, many of the most troubled young people he saw suffered from the deepest of depressive illnesses. Including but not limited to, acute psychosis, bipolar and other serious mental illnesses, often caused by petrol sniffing and other dangerous ingestion of drugs incl. Metholayted Spirits. Ordinarily, they should be hospitalized ASAP. Realistically though, he couldn't budge them from their settlements let alone admit them to a specialist hospital who dealt with severe Psychiatric illnesses. His prognosis, before he settled back into private practice, was most depressing.

I have but a mere skerrick of knowledge, compared to the good Doctor!

He continually stressed they believe they've no hope, no prospects, no chance of formal education, notwithstanding it's made available to most of them, but they decline to leave their settlements. They live in utter squalor and despair. Abused during their childhood, the 'white' Brothers ('cast' blacks) selling them alcohol and drugs, taking what little money they might have from Social Security. And yep, the coppers are always on their tails.

The 1967 referendum was successful because the large majority of citizens generously and rightfully believed that more should have been done for aborigines at that time. There was no implication that there should be two systems of law in Australia. It was concerned with removing any differentiation between Australians on the ground of RACE.

Fifty two years later, it would be surprising if voters wanted to approve of new differentiation BASED ON RACE.

Even Malcolm Turnbull, in rejecting the ‘voice proposal, said:

“Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civil rights, all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers or our national parliament. A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle”.

If it starts, it will never end. One contributor to the Uluru Statement wrote: "Indigenous constitutional recognition should be understood not as the achievement of a final postcolonial settlement but as AN ONGOING PROCESS OF CONTESTING AND RENEGOTIATING INDIGENOUS AND SETTLER PEOPLE’S BASIC POLITICAL LEADERSHIP” (My emphasises)

After 230 years, where are the ‘indigenous’ and the ‘settlers’?

There is no place for race in our Constitution?

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not
ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous
Australians. It confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate.

White Australians have always been the predominant
law-makers in our Parliament, and they don't enact
laws that racially discriminate against themselves.

Their ancestors have never been denied equality on the
basis of "race" under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians is lacking.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They are asking for Constitutional recognition through a
First Nations voice in the Constitution. They ask only to be
heard in decisions made about them. A practical reform.
Not a veto, but a voice.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart offers a way to
recognise and empower the First Nations of Australia to
take responsibility for their affairs, while upholding
the Constitution, respecting Crown sovereignty and
unifying the country.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a
racial non-discrimination clause, and calls instead for a
First Nations voice in laws and policies made about
them as a way of preventing repetition of past
discriminatory policies.

The proposal has a long history. Indigenous advocates have
argued for decades for fairer representation in their
affairs.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would guarantee
Indigenous people a say, without transferring power to the
High Court or undermining Parliamentary supremacy.

It presents a way of improving Indigenous policy through early
Indigenous engagement, rather than subsequent litigation.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would not divide
us by "race." There are already race clauses in the
Constitution that divide Australians. Ensuring First Nations
have a voice in their affairs would create a fairer
relationship. It would help prevent discrimination. It
would unify, not divide. It is a way to address inequality
without empowering the High Court.

cont'd ...

mhaze

Yes. It’s not like the voluntary ‘survey’ for same sex marriage. Not sure I like the Brexit comparison, though. The UK governments has done its level best to ignore that democratic vote. However, I would like to believe that the average Australian will know when enough is enough with these people. Irrespective of the result, it’s going to cost us big time. The Morrison government has already set aside $7.3 million to “progress a First Nations (another concoction) Voice to Parliament”. There is also a ‘contingency reserve funding item of $160 million as a provision for the Indigenous Recognition Referendum in 2020-21.

Very expensive people, those identifying with an aboriginal history.