Indy you highlight the reason we need to do things differently
Too many whites included make money from leaving it like it is

Belly,
That's vote-buying in bulk & I doubt if any politician has the gonads to challenge that ! The bureaudroids would crucify them as per standard protocol !

Foxy,

I fail to see how a racially based 3rd chamber in parliament would resolve any of these issues.

I would only support a constitutional amendment along these lines if a non constitutional system had been trialled effectively.

Shadow Minister,

I beg to differ from your point of view.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would
not divide us by "race." There are already race
clauses as you must be aware in the Constitution that
divide Australians. Ensuring First Nations have a
voice in their affairs (a voice not a veto) would
create a fairer relationship. It would help prevent
discrimination. It would unify, not divide.

Constitutional recognition is not about the out-dated,
pseudo-scientific concept of "race."

It is about recognising the rightful place of the
First Nations of Australia - the Wik, the Yolongu, the
Yorta Yorta and the Anangu.

It is about acknowledging that there are peoples in
Australia whose pre-colonial heritage gives rise to
distinct rights and interests in their descendants
(these are already recognised in common law and legislations,
such as the Native Title Act) and those people should
have say when parliament makes changes affecting their
distinct rights and interests.

Recognition of Indigenous rights is a reality the world
over, and it has nothing to do with "race".

The Constitution empowered laws and policies that
denied Indigenous voting rights, property rights, equal
wages, and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

A constitutional amendment ensuring Indigenous people a
voice in their affairs would not be a "3rd chamber"of
parliament. It would not divide, it would unify. The
supremacy of parliament would remain. It is simply a way to
address inequality without empowering the High Court.

Hi Foxy,

As you point out, there are already Indigenous-oriented newspapers nationally, and in each state and territory; and already Indigenous-oriented TV and radio stations - in other words, that there are plenty of outlets for Indigenous people to express themselves, locally in each state and territory and federally. I can see that now.

Presumably the highest of the Indigenous elite have ready access to those media, not to mention interview access to various ABC and SBS programs. So they have adequate 'voice'.

So ..... what are we talking about when we go on about a 'Voice' to parliament ? Just like all news media, aren't all those Indigenous-oriented media adequate 'Voices' ? Multitudes of them ?

Any reasonable person would be forced to ask: what's the hidden agenda ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

There is no hidden agenda. Merely a wish to
have a say when parliament makes decisions
about them and things that will impact on
them.

It's that simple. Talking through newspapers and
media outlets is not the same as being able to have
a voice in parliament - and the laws that it makes
concerning the Indigenous People.