No need Bazz, in 1901 a bunch of old white blokes got together and started making laws for everyone, aboriginals, women and non-white folk didn't get a look in. The same bunch of old white blokes also wrote a Constitution, which didn't recognise first nations people at all. Then they went on to instigate laws to exclude non-white folk. They would have come up with laws to exclude aboriginals and women, but they were already here, and no one would take em'. What do you say to that? All looks a bit one sided don't you think. I think you would have been love n' it if you had been around in those days

I agree with Foxy. Let's get rid of that racist section 51 (xxvi), you know the section that has the word aboriginal written in invisible ink.

Once that racist clause is gone then we can also legally get rid of:

* The Native Title Act - ie the laws that give aboriginal special rights to land determinations

* ABStudy - ie the laws that devotes public monies specifically to aboriginals. They won't be valid because the race powers are gone.

* Laws that give special medical funding for aboriginals - how racist is that.

* ABA grants

*Special places in university for aboriginals

* Aboriginal education funding.

And a whole lot more.

I'm sure the virtue signallers will be thrilled with that outcome. Perhaps the aboriginals won't be so happy, but who cares, eh?

Foxy,

I sometimes wonder if you read what you say.

A constitutionally guaranteed say in their own affairs that is non-binding is an oxymoron.

A legal advisory body can be easily established via parliament that will more than serve the purpose required.

I cannot see any logical reason for putting this in the constitution.

Good Morning Shadow Minister,

It is a contentious issue. However, Professor of
Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney
Anne Twomey says that Constitutional recognition
would herald the most change because the idea is
to create a body that has gravitas and authority
to speak for Indigenous people.

"It would have political force and authority and
moral standing. If we create a body that is
sufficiently respected it would be a rare
government that would just ignore its advice."

"There are risks in it, but the fact it's created
by the Constitution - the fact advice will be
tabled in Parliament and is to be considered in
debate, starts if off well."

mhaze,

I love your adherence to democratic principles.

"I love your adherence to democratic principles."

That makes no sense in this or any other dimension. You might have to explain what you meant.