Hi Joe

Ever since Australians voted overwhelmingly in the 1967 Referendum which gave Aborigines Equal Rights under the Constitution this Did confer "Equal Rights for All". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Australian_referendum_(Aboriginals)

Even implicitly giving Aborigines a special place, involving a change in the Constitution, would be polarising.

And would it pass all the Parliamentary and Referendum tests? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia#Constitutional_provisions including:

"To pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states).[7] In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum, a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority"."

I know a bit about Queenslanders and WAers. They would likely reject.

Queenslanders and WAers would see the possible "as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states)" rule as the other States and Fed Government ganging up on Queensland and WA.

What a great outcome for Commonwealth unity and peace
- putting on a symbolic Constitutional change...Politically giving Special Place to a designated and particular RACE.

Now this conversation is getting interesting.
Thank you guys!

Dear plantagenet,

I'm not getting it.

The population of Tasmania is around 500,000 while the indigenous population of Australia is around 800,000.

Tasmania has 12 of the 76 Senators making decisions about this country. Some like Brian Harridine have had enormous influence.

Tasmanians therefore wield far more influence than any proposed Voice to parliament.

Why isn't this of deep concern to you? Why isn't it polarising Australians as you feel the voice will?

Given we are still very much struggling to resolve the sins of the past and tackle deep disadvantage within indigenous communities why on earth wouldn't a mechanism prescribed by our indigenous brothers and sisters be given a chance?

Does the definition of competence never come to your minds ? There are people in EVERY Race who could never pull their weight yet, many of you insist that Race is the important criteria !
I've observed white people being in charge of indigenous communities & I know many indigenous who have been given positions in the Public Service.
One lot is put there to keep useless bureaucrats employed & the other are there to fill idealist quota ! Both groups are costing us a dearly in every which way ! The Peters Principle being the clearest example !
The one question I'd like to get an answer to here is;
What is the stumbling block for not making competence & suitability the main criteria ?
I have worked under competent non-whites who were much more suitable than the countless Labor plants who did nothing but set us back one after another. The opportunists among those who identify as indigenous thrive because of this appalling system ! And, of course, much needed resources are again & again squandered into the pockets of bureaucrats of every race represented/involved in that enterprise that is the Guilt industry !

.

First, allow me to say that I’m pleased to see that Foxy is back on board and hope that this signals a welcome improvement in her husband’s back problem.

I find it interesting to see that Scomo and his government have taken to songwriting and that their artistic production is to the taste of the governor general. I suppose they performed it before him during the New Year celebrations, singing along in choir and tapping their feet. A very merry occasion indeed – a little champagne, perhaps ?

Mind you, we Aussies are not of the first freshness. We’re not so “young” anymore. The population has aged as a result of sustained low fertility and increased life expectancy. Our median age has increased by 2 years from 35 to 37 over the last two decades :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1CD2B1952AFC5E7ACA257298000F2E76?OpenDocument#:~:text=3101.0%20%2D%20Australian%20Demographic%20Statistics%2C%20Jun%202019&text=The%20median%20age%20(the%20age,years%20at%2030%20June%202019

So bye, bye “young” and hello “one” !

I still have a problem with the word “Fair”. The OED indicates no less than 38 different meanings and uses of the word ( http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fair ).

Most commentators here seem to think it means “just”, “equitable” or “morally right”. Canem Malum considers it means “beautiful”.

The author of the anthem wrote : “Advance Australia Fair”. He did not write : “Advance Australians Fair”. No doubt he wanted the people to advance, not the continent. But who or what is “Fair” : the people or the continent ? Who or what is “just” or “beautiful” – the people or the continent ?

If “Fair” means “just”, it’s the people. If it means “beautiful”, it's more likely the continent.

The word “Fair” is too ambiguous for my liking. For me, it conjures up another OED definition :

« (of a person) having a light complexion or blond hair : ‘he's very fair with blue eyes’ »

That definition rules out a whole lot of fair dinkum Aussies.

For Scomo, we’re no longer “young”. It’s a pity he didn’t notice that all of us have never been “Fair” and don’t necessarily want to “Advance” in the same direction as those who are.

Vive “Waltzing Matilda” !

.

Rolf Harris, a loyal Australian and lover of children wants to add his contribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D-LmRNdQiQ&ab_channel=mrtibbs6912

Not one for anthems and flag waving myself.