Prev
Next

Aboriginal recognition: getting from talk to action

Leo Shanahan

by Leo Shanahan

08 Nov 03:00pm

Must Reads

Corby to be released - but does anyone still care? - this is a caption

Corby to be released - but does anyone still care?

72

Washington reacts to news of the Thomson saga - this is a caption

Washington reacts to news of the Thomson saga

38

You’d think she was a plant to destroy Facebook - this is a caption

You’d think she was a plant to destroy Facebook

87

Filed under: Aboriginals, Australian Constitution, Indigenous Australians, John Howard, Julia Gillard, Referendums

71 comments

The Prime Minister has announced that she will establish an expert panel to investigate the best way for indigenous people to be recognised in the Australian Constitution.

Opening ceremony of the Parliament in September. Picture: Ray Strange

Julia Gillard’s announcement is no surprise in of itself. It merely makes good on an election promise and, at least among major political parties, has bipartisan support.

But as Kevin Rudd has showed us, the road from announcing an “expert panel” to something actually getting done is a long one, and there are a lot few issues to be teased out between now and seeing this in the Constitution.

Gillard was very keen to emphasise that constitutional recognition of indigenous people had bipartisan support, and looking at the Coalition indigenous policy statement there’s pretty clear cut endorsement for recognition.

In the dying days of his Prime Ministership in 2007 John Howard had somewhat of a reawakening on the issue, going close to admitting that he had made a mistake in the 1999 proposed preamble by advocating such weak terms of recognition for indigenous people, but he framed his new found advocacy in terms of “practical reconciliation” epitomised by the intervention:

“A positive affirmation in our Constitution of the unique place of Indigenous Australians can, I believe, be the cornerstone of a new settlement.

“I sense in the community a rare and unexpected convergence of opinion on this issue between the more conservative approach which I clearly identify with and those who traditionally have favoured more of a group rights approach,” Howard said just weeks before the 2007 election.

Howard also recognised any referendum would have to be free of the Constitutional “clutter” that characterised the 1999 vote, which was taken on both the republic and the preamble.

Gillard would be free of the more divisive issue of the republic, and combined with bipartisan support – including the words of Howard as ammunition to any conservative opposition - you’d have to like the chances of any referendum succeeding.

But, there remains, very tricky questions about how to word and place the statement. The 1999 proposed preamble committed to:

Honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

The word “kingship” was favoured over “ownership” for fear of its legal implications in the Constitution, albeit only in a preamble. More than ten years on all these complications are still present.

Any time you change the Australian Constitution you’re altering the guiding legal document in this country. All laws, legislation and the common law of the courts, must be read consistently with it. If, for example, a contentious term like indigenous land “ownership” is included in a preamble, arguments would break out about the extent it should influence already existing indigenous land rights laws and how the High Court should interpret these statements.

There’s also the question of timing. Do we have the referendum at the next election to save money, or do it separately so as not conflate the issue in the political white heat of an election campaign?

While bipartisan political and mainstream media support will give the question a massive boost, it won’t guarantee support given our historically conservative attitude towards changing the Constitution. Only 8 of 44 proposed referendums have been carried since our Federation.

Encouragingly one of the few to get over the line was the 1967 referendum which counted indigenous people as part of the population and allowed the Commonwealth to make laws on their behalf. 

So do you agree with indigenous recognition in the Constitution? And how should it be done?

Most commented

353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
309Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
289Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
242They must pay for one's bitter disappointments
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
230Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

71 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Brad Coward says:

      02:15pm | 08/11/10

      By all means, do it !  But recognise every racial group and nationality in the constitution.  At the end of the day, life will not improve for anyone.

      A gesture, certainly. 

      But will it be a token gesture of goodwill, a gesture of goodwill or just a token gesture ?

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      02:51pm | 08/11/10

      “But recognise every racial group and nationality in the constitution.”

      For real?  Come on!  Just recognise one group… Australians.  Lets end the Race card garbage.

      Gillard is so out of her depth, ideas, and reality it beggars belief.

      NO.

    • Christian Real says:

      08:56pm | 08/11/10

      Saskia,
      By all means just recognise one group, the Real Australians, the Aboriginal people whose ancestors were here long before the English and European settlers took over their tribal lands and Country.

    • acotrel says:

      07:09am | 09/11/10

      The Constitution should incorporate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they should apply equally to ALL Australian citizens.  Aborigines should get a special mention, because as newcomers we exert our authority over them!

    • MarK says:

      08:54am | 09/11/10

      Christian that comment of yours is overtly racist and I take great offence to that.

      I am a real Australian just as much as any that claims aboriginal heritage. I see myself as no more and no less Australian and no more or no less deserving of special recognition in the constitution.

      Take your hate mongering elsewhere.

      It is distateful.

    • Ted says:

      09:32am | 09/11/10

      And while we write into the constitution (writing, something the Aboriginals could not figure out) lets also tell the truth. They are do predate European settlement but ARE NOT the first Australians. There is massive amounts of archaeological evidence to show that the aboriginals were at best the THIRD human inhabitants of this land. If they had any shred of integrity they would admit it.

    • Phill says:

      10:34am | 09/11/10

      Christian Real - How does that make then any more real then someone who has only been here 100 years?  They immigrated here, same as everyone else.
      As long as people like you see a difference and have an us and them mentality there will always be racisicm in this country.
      By all means, change the preamble.  Change it to recognise ALL Australians no matter where they are from and how long ago the immigrated to this land.

    • MarK says:

      02:19pm | 08/11/10

      Way ahead of you

        MarK says:

        12:08pm | 08/11/10

        http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-prime-minister-gillard-announces-indigenous-referendum/story-e6frfkvr-1225949402793

        Dog whistle warning.

        But apart from the cringe worthy feel goodness of it all and the further segregation of “indigenous” from all Australians (why can’t we all be Australians?) look at the modus operandi.

        I mean LAWL

        “an expert panel will be set up to lead a national discussion”

        OMFG - another expert panel
        But wait - there is more

        “She said the expert panel would include indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, community leaders, constitutional experts and members of Parliament.

        “It will lead a national discussion and broad consultation in 2011 to build consensus about the recognition of indigenous peoples in the constitution,” Ms Gillard said.


        GO TEAM.

        Lets “build consensus”, also known as group think for anyone not a progressive. You will be made to believe. The committee will see to that.

      Reply

    • jeffb says:

      04:20pm | 08/11/10

      Can you please stop using the term “dog whistle” until you understand what it means.

      Theres no real details at all on the constitutional reforms proposed yet you’ve somehow decided that it further segregates Indigenous Australians? You haven’t considered the removal of section 51 would do exactly the opposite?

      Realistically this referendum will be put to the public at the next federal election, so there is plenty of time to make sure we get this right.

      You’re doing nothing more than justifying the effort Gillard is putting into educating the Australian people about this issue with your blanket opposition to whatever it is you’re opposing. At the end of the day everyone is free to make up their own mind.

    • MarK says:

      07:12pm | 08/11/10

      Oh hai jeffb.

      Sure. I was using it in slightly a wrong way.

      Let us just call it what it is.

      A great big distraction. Gillard is using it to attempt to bring something onto the front page to show she has not lost the ear of the Australian people. She needed an issue.

      You againr, as usual jeffb, to miss my main point. Typically you try to narrow in on “my opposition” of which I have expressed none. The big bad righty must be racist.

      I have expressed that is it is typically cringe worthy for Gillard and Labor to again use Aboriginals in this way. I also stated that I believe anything that differentiates or makes mention of a particular racial group is stupid and ridiculous.

      Stop putting words in my mouth. Opposition to the “plan” or the guide to a draft of a plan that these committees seem to bring out can not be voiced even if valid because nothing has been released.

      But again, just for you because you are lacking in reading comprehension that is not hard if you actually spend the time to look, I am STRONGLY pointing out how typically Labor this whole plan is.

      And how typically stupid it is.

      First we need a progressive goal. Big tick. Anything to get the chattering classes onside with the msm.

      Then we need cover if the working class decide they don’t like it. Hence a committee.

      We also see a lack of conviction.

      Gillard thinks it is a good idea but is too gutless to say this is what we propose.

      See it ain’t hard jeffb.

      Please continue to enjoy this and the many more posts I will happily place on this blog.

      I love how you say educating. It is group think. And you are sucked in. Build consensus .....LAWL….listen to the terms she uses.

      Can you say baa like a sheep jeffb?

    • Matt says:

      07:44pm | 08/11/10

      And I wonder where all these “experts” will come from. Husbands, wives, nephews, cousins etc of sitting ALP members or union hacks. More overpaid, pointless jobs for the boys and girls. 

      Of course it doesn’t matter what it costs or what the benefits may or may not be when we have a Labor Govt. No need for any fiscal accountability. No need for measurable outcomes. Just as long as a few people get a warm and fuzzy feeling the workers of Australia can stump up a few tens of millions or so.

    • nosthow says:

      09:38pm | 08/11/10

      @MarK what a load of codswallop you write MarK - honestly fella for your $3 bucks an hour the Libs are paying you I would expect better old buddy !

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      10:17am | 09/11/10

      Will Cate Blanchett be leading the panel? ? ? ?

    • Sadiq Farris says:

      02:26pm | 08/11/10

      Radical Timetable for Change
      Talk 21st Century.
      Action 23rd Century

      Reply

    • Sadiq Farris says:

      02:26pm | 08/11/10

      Radical Timetable for Change
      Talk 21st Century.
      Action 23rd Century

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      02:31pm | 08/11/10

      I don’t have an opinion on this either way, and in the comfort of the ballot box, would probably abstain because I just don’t care and I don’t think it helps Aboriginal people to have a line in a document devoted to them that many of them can’t read anyway.

      But just as a purely intellectual excerise, I’d love to go work for the No Campaign. How do you sell that message to people? It just boggles the mind. I reckon if you could do that, you could do anything.

      I read something interesting recently from the Rand Corporation about the bilateral nature of negative messaging - that is, a negative message by one party is contingent on a negative or more negative message from another party. Whilst it’s most real world application is in political advertising, as a theoretical excercise there are applications for everything, from modeling school yard bullying in mathematical terms to top level diplomatic negotiations.

      You frame this referendum in those game theoretical terms and it would just be amazing to work on the No campaign. How do you sell the unsellable in the face of positive messaging that actually precludes you from articulating your message… at all?

      Do you run a passive campaign where you assume inherrent anti-indigenous sentiment? Do you go negative on the Yes campaign and question their motivations, paint them as cringing lefties who’re all talk, no action?

      How do you persuade someone to say No to something that doesn’t harm nor hinder them nor cost them a cent?

      Sign me up I’m there.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      04:52pm | 08/11/10

      Is it that difficult to sell the NO campaign?
      My belief is that all recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution will do is segregate them from the rest of the Australian population, inferring that they do not fall under the banner of ‘We, the People’ that every other Australian does, but exist independent of it.

      I think that’s a fairly good sell point, surely even the biggest do-gooders don’t want to further alienate indigenous Australians from the greater population?

    • jade says:

      08:59pm | 08/11/10

      Markus - our constitution does not contain the phrase, We the People anywhere.

    • Gregg says:

      01:08am | 09/11/10

      One way to start selling the No Campaign is to have it put in plain language what the Constitution is, what’s it all about and what is it there for.
      Very briefly it is the document that formed the Commonwealth of Australia from the eight colonies and it lays out the foundation for the federal parliament and how government should function.
      Sure indigenous peoples were in Australia for many centuries before European settlement or the federation and that is not too much to do with the constitution.

      Would it not be more meaningful to have something like a National History document to be commissioned, something to incorporate in detail what can be shown of indigenous peoples since their arrivals and showing the constitution for what it is and that is just a relatively recent step in the history of Australia.

      There are already a number of indigenous museums and cultural centres about Australia, various National Parks indigenous art work and rock carvings with much interpretive documentation but why not bring it all together as an official document to not just be ordained by parliament but also accepted by all indigenous tribes descendents.

    • Catching up says:

      01:47pm | 09/11/10

      Zeta welcome to the 21st century.  You might be surprised to learn there are tens of thousands of Indigneous peole who I suspect are better educated than you are. 

      At least they are not ignorant as you appear to be. 

      There are doctors, scientists, teachers lawyers, in fact they are to be found in all trades and professions. 

      Another fact that might interest you is that a higher percentage of the white community uses alcohol than they do. 

      We cannot change history.  They inhabited this country first and no harm can come from ackowledging the fact. It would not stop me from being proud of my country, why should you feel the opposite.

    • Catching up says:

      01:49pm | 09/11/10

      Zeta, you have a lot to say for a person with no opinion.

    • Greg says:

      03:06pm | 09/11/10

      Catching up. Yes those aboriginals that decided to make a difference have done well for themselves. Those that want to dwell on the past and hid behind a victim mentality that the Left have feed with the billions of dollar handouts and excuses etc have remained in squaller. The onus is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUSLY on the aboriginals to take ownership of their decisions.

    • Chris says:

      03:19pm | 09/11/10

      It is interesting Catching up that I have talked to one of these “educated” aboriginals about the plight of aboriginals in remote communities and to quote him ”how can you have respect for a group of people that while mankind has built the pyramids and flow to the moon, there greatest intellectual development was to throw a stick”. Go figure it!

    • Chris says:

      02:31pm | 08/11/10

      It would be far better to spend the money on educating indigenous Australians so that they could take advantage of the millions now spent on their welfare. We give too much and expect too little in return. It has to be a two way thing.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      07:35pm | 08/11/10

      I agree Chris. There are too many areas now that we give too much and expect too little in return. Mutual obligation is right for both the giver and the receiver. In welfare, education and immigration to name a few.

    • Jack says:

      09:40am | 09/11/10

      The problem is, every time anyone expects them to give something in return, the Looney Left call you racist and oppress the message, thus empowering and perpetuating the victim mentality that keep the aboriginals where they are. Look at the doctor that was attacked because he wanted to half eye problems in the aboriginal community be education them to clean their face with water. Hence again, they are choosing their situation in many ways.

    • The Badger says:

      11:06am | 09/11/10

      I agree,
      Let’s bring them in from the deserts of Australia and send them to board at Geelong grammar so they can take their place within Australian society.
      or
      Would you rather we took Geelong grammar out to them in the bush.
      Unfortunately, the teachers you would have to bring in to the remote communities might not have some place to plug in their laptops.

      How do you propose to educate those in remote communities Chris?

    • Catching up says:

      01:57pm | 09/11/10

      Wht can’t we dio both?

    • Tom H says:

      02:54pm | 09/11/10

      Badger, the answer is simple. If they want the options that the “white” culture provides then they can do what “white” people have had to do. ie get off of their backsides, live in a major township and learn and work, or build the infrastructure themselves. If they want to live in the middle of nowhere, they are following their traditional culture, which at its height of achievement made a boomerang which may have actually come from the pacific islands anyway. The media would be in an uproar if the government ploughed the money into remote communities for ferals at Byron Bay, so where is the difference?

    • The Badger says:

      05:03pm | 10/11/10

      Simple solutions for simple minds

    • Eric says:

      02:41pm | 08/11/10

      Hmmmm, I wonder what suddenly requires a distraction?

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      09:41am | 09/11/10

      Gillard has learnt well from Keating

    • Catching up says:

      01:54pm | 09/11/10

      It is something that has been planned since the Rudd government was elected.  It is something the Greens requested.  It is more overdue than sudden,.  Do not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

    • David says:

      02:42pm | 08/11/10

      I will vote for something like this when we stop throwing millions of dollars in useless programmes at people who have a single indigenous great-grandparent or great-great grandparent and still call themselves “indigenous”.  I am fed up with people getting special consideration when they are more “white” than “black”. I can’t use my Welshness as an excuse for anything even though I speak Welsh at home and many of them do not know a word of anything except English.

      Reply

    • Skippy says:

      03:42pm | 08/11/10

      Nailed it David! We have created a monster, just tick the box on any form and your right of passage is confirmed, you will no longer have to work, follow the law or adhere to the basic standards of decency that the rest of society do - oh and as a bonus we will pay you to live like this, just ensure you keep it up for generations, teach them well.

    • BobM says:

      06:17pm | 08/11/10

      Agree David. Eventually we’ll ALL be ‘indigenous’ -  and then who’ll be left to work to keep us all?

    • James1 says:

      08:47am | 09/11/10

      As the prestigious African-American historian Nell Irvin Painter recently argued in “The History of White People”, it seems rather ridiculous that a person who is fifteen sixteenths white can still be classes as non-white.  It makes no sense to me.

    • JJ says:

      02:49pm | 08/11/10

      It’s an important issue to get right. Handled correctly (not as a political point scorer) it could go down as a tick for Julia Gillard. I do fear however, the debate may descend into high minded soap box hour - too many opinions and not enough action.

      Reply

    • Dale Peterson says:

      02:54pm | 08/11/10

      This sounds exactly like the sort of thing Kevin Rudd would do - a grandiose announcement on some worthy issue, but then shunt it off to yet another committee for endless “consulation”. This is not leadership, it is typical Labor spin tactics. If Gillard wants to show leadership she should take the initiative and just DO SOMETHING, rather than stuffing around with more committees.

      “She said the expert panel would include indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, community leaders, constitutional experts and members of Parliament”. Sounds like another Citizens Assembly.

      And Julia thought Kevin had “lost his way”. More of the same from Labor, regardless of how worthy the cause might be.

      Reply

    • cybacaT says:

      03:11pm | 08/11/10

      Oh no - people have caught on that we’re all talk and no action!  What do we do?  What was the only thing that worked for Kev - his speech about aboriginal suffering.  Ok - let’s do more of that!  Forget practical measures or action, lets get together a summit/committee/think-tank about how we can recognise aborigines.  We can talk about this for years and drag it out, that way no-one will notice aborigines aren’t getting any practical benefit.  Who elected these clowns?  Oh, that right - they’re the Govt most Aussies didn’t vote for last election!

      Reply

    • Bebe says:

      04:05pm | 08/11/10

      No truer words posted herethan those of cybacaT.

    • iansand says:

      03:20pm | 08/11/10

      An expert panel to investigate…..

      That’s buried that for a few years.  Job done.

      Reply

    • mickijo says:

      02:14pm | 09/11/10

      How about a few committees and sub committees and sub sub….......
      That should keep the pot boiling for a year or two or three….when is the next election?

    • Daryl says:

      03:20pm | 08/11/10

      Great, just what we need - another “independent” ALP committee!

      “the committee will enter into a dialogue about the required dialogue to focus us all on moving forward towards appropriate dialogues within the constitution that move us all forwards towards a meaningful real (not fake) outcome that satisfy this the greatest moral challenge of our time”.

      This is a nice gesture. And a great photo opportunity for Ms Gillard. Not sure what it will do for aboriginal living standards but hey you can’t have it all.

      Reply

    • mickijo says:

      03:29pm | 08/11/10

      Will this join the ‘grocery watch’, the ‘whale watch’, the ’ cash for clunkers’ watch’, the ‘global warming’ , the BER’, the ‘pink batts’.  I am out of belief in this government. Cannot trust anything they do anymore.

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      03:46pm | 08/11/10

      I feel that is aimed as a distarction whilst the PM is overseas. When she gets back, Parliament will have its final sitting before Xmas and she will have the next Bipartisan issue with which to belt the Coalition around with. I feel she will hope that that message stays around until the New Year.

      The Greens will bang on about it thus giving it the airtime they hope it will have.

      As for actual definitive action your guess is as good as mine. By the time 2011 rolls around I am sure it will be changed, diluted, left out in the rain and quietly thrown out.

      Reply

    • James A says:

      03:49pm | 08/11/10

      Why don’t people just come out and say that the Aboriginal Community has a huge problem with alcohol abuse - which causes 99.9% of all their problems?

      Address the real issue at the heart and maybe we can stop some of the neglect, bashings, rapes, murders, and destruction of property that is so prevalent in most Aboriginal communities.

      Reply

    • Christian Real says:

      09:08pm | 08/11/10

      James A
      White fellas also have a problem with alcohol abuse, drug abuse and all the other abuses that your white society stereo - types our people of being the only race guilty of doing all these things.
      It is typical narrow minded and tunnel vision people like yourself that turns a blind eye to the Non Aboriginal people abusing these things as well.

    • Glug says:

      10:40pm | 08/11/10

      So does every other group in this country and it causes about 50% of all their problems. As long as every other group isn’t as bad as how they perceive Aboriginals to be, no-one cares as this country drinks itself to death.

    • Sam says:

      09:47am | 09/11/10

      Answer because you are asking the victim to be responsible for his/her decisions. PS, you have now been labeled a racist. PPS you will also here diversionary comments about white fellas with drinking problems which actually work for a living and on the whole contribute to society, but that truth would spoil an excuse for the continuation of the aboriginal problems.

    • Greg says:

      03:57pm | 08/11/10

      In the history of the aboriginal peoples is that they like every other tribe in the world, people groups fought other people groups for land and hunting areas. From what I have read often a whole tribe / people would be wiped out, there body parts were often cut up and part of them eaten so there spirits would not come after the living in the after life. The aboriginal groups we have today are only there because they wiped out people before them.

      Yes it sucks but its what happens.

      The English did what the aboriginals did to othere people groups before them. I dont even know what people group I am from from the colour of my skin Im guessing European, but my father my grandfather, my great grand father they were born here and died here. I dare say that I will my childrens children will live and die here as well.
      I am Australian!!!! I am NOT English or French or Polish!!!
      Can some one recognise me because of my country of birth not because of my skin colour?

      What Im saying is no matter where you where born,skin colour, religion or cred we should be equal we should be Australians first and we should all be recognised in the constitution. I have no other country I call home I didnt force any one off the land. In fact I want to share it with others.

      Reply

    • Francis says:

      04:09pm | 08/11/10

      We need national consensus on this vital, long term issue of national interest.

      We need consensus among political parties.

      But we need consensus in the community even more.
      And it is vital to be clear what I mean by that community consensus.

      I do not mean that government can take no action until every member of the community is fully convinced.

      Pivotal reforms like this are often controversial when they are first introduced.  Medicare, or Medibank as it was then known, was controversial and initially opposed by the parliamentary opposition.

      But the policy was responding to a deeply felt recognition in the community that a new way was needed to meet the health needs of Australians. 

      That support grew stronger as people saw the policy and its implementation.  As it grew, the opposition parties came to the conclusion that bipartisan support was the only reasonable position. 

      When that community recognition and support exists, it means that a choice by a political party to reverse bipartisan support would not destroy the consensus.  Instead the consensus would remain and the political party would be repudiated by the Australian people.

      Our challenge is to answer the community’s questions and develop the community’s commitment to taking the right action. 

      I had a look at the community climate change committee speech and realised they just changed the start and the middle and cut and pasted the middle bit.

      Surely they could try harder???. Some thing else sinister must be brewing.

      Reply

    • Brad Coward says:

      04:14pm | 08/11/10

      How much will it cost for the taxpayer to have this committee to achieve bugger all in large lumps ?

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      01:52pm | 09/11/10

      Not quite as much as keeping the boat people locked up unnecessarily

    • Ryan says:

      06:03pm | 08/11/10

      Something else is going on, this is clearly a distraction from something far more sinister, and lets face it, this is the government of sinister dealings and backstabbing.

      Reply

    • Razor says:

      06:26pm | 08/11/10

      The Constitution is the bedrock foundation of our legal system.  Any change to it and the subsequent opening up of unintended consequences through interpretation by the High Court means that changes should only be made when absolutely necessary.

      It is not the document to be making statements about the Nation’s history.  Where are we goign to draw the line?  Why should only aboriginals be mentioned? Why not explorers and first settlers and convicts and ANZACs and Olympians?  Leave history to the historians.

      Put this in the basket with becoming a Republic - a great waste of money to fix a no-existant problem for no measurable net benefit.

      Vote NO.

      Reply

    • mary wide bay says:

      08:17pm | 08/11/10

      Thanks Leo for rubbing our noses in it, //which counted indigenous people as part of the population and allowed the Commonwealth to make laws on their behalf.// Shameful isn’t it.

      What the? When will we stop discriminating against the Originals and start to accept them as people? How are they different from other Australians in needing a separate ‘special’ mention? Do they smell different? Is it the colour of their skin? What sets them so apart as people that warrants all this special treatment? Is it our collective guilty conscious and can we ever make up for that?
      I vote to treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves just like we treat our neighbours. How about we stop treating them as something ‘different’ and start treating them as people, just like all of us.

      Reply

    • Christian Real says:

      09:12pm | 08/11/10

      Brad Coward
      Being of Aboriginal Origin I will gladly put my hand up to be on this committee and represent my people

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      08:54am | 09/11/10

      Christian,

      Being of Irish origin, I will gladly put my hand up to be on this committee and represent my people.  What is your point, exactly?  Does being of Aboriginal origin give you some special status?

    • Sean says:

      09:14am | 09/11/10

      That’s it Christian keep the separation going, hate for Aboriginals to be considered the same as the rest of us.

    • v says:

      09:52am | 09/11/10

      Do you want to continue the gravy train and excuse aboriginals from the need to be responsible for their actions and choices in life, while blaming Australians for everything?

    • David T says:

      09:20pm | 08/11/10

      I think its a good idea but it would help if we had more details on what exactly Gillard is proposing rather than trivial recognition that doesn’t actually do anything.

      If she is serious about this though considering she has bipartisan support from Parliament she should just skip the referendum make the changes right now.
      Anyone here have a problem with that you better have a bloody good reason why.

      Reply

    • dobbieb says:

      09:56am | 09/11/10

      Gillard or any other Prime Minister has NO power to change the constitution. There must be a Referendum. Thats what is so good about the system. If it aint broke, don’t fix it. Razor has it right. Leave the Constitution alone.

    • Brett Woodhill says:

      10:07pm | 08/11/10

      This is in response to an Election promice of the ALP to formally recognise indigenous Australians within the constitution.  I can’t really understand whether this will inspire the indigenous population to feel more (or less) a part of Australia Moving Forward, or, if this will suddenly deliver on the wholistic approach espoused in managing indigenous issues.

      I am interested to hear from aboriginal people of the importance of this announcement because listening to a red headed white women explaining the significance for the Aboriginal population falls a little flat with me.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      12:12pm | 09/11/10

      I’m Indigenous and I can tell you that unless this increases the standard of living for Indigenous people, its just a political move to deflect pressure from this ailing government.

      I for one consider myself to be Indigenous, but in saying that, Indigenous and Australian are inter-changeable for me.  I can confirm that a lot of Indigenous people don’t feel the same way as me, but hating the “white man” hasn’t benefited us in the past 100 years, and it certainly won’t work for the next 100 years.

      That doesn’t mean that culture in this country should be deemed irrelevant, in my opinion, instead of wasting the time and money in dragging 20 million Australians to the voting booths, why don’t the Government fund more Community based indigenous programs to educate both current Australians and new Australians on Indigenous culture?

      This would be money better spent in my opinion and at least that way, people aren’t forced to decide as to whether or not Indigenous people have a place in the consititution instead they can choose to appreciate our culture for what it is.

      I have nothing but pity for people like Christian who think the world is black and white, sure mistakes were made, but as humans the only way forward is to forgive and become better people.

      This proposal does nothing but divide a country due to the uneducated masses who believe that such a change will be a bad thing, and those who think that such a change will usher in anything new.

    • Hunter says:

      08:30am | 09/11/10

      Hope single mums also get recognised in the proposed constitution change, along with say gays, atheists, boat people, and legal immigrants.

      Reply

    • jim moris says:

      10:07am | 09/11/10

      Having been born here in this fair land should I claim superiority over the people who came from elsewhere? I think not. We are all aussies and lucky to be so.
      Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are completely different peoples so to lump them together just because of skin colour is absurd.
      The obsession with race is so last century. My daughter has brown skin (png) and no-one discriminates against her because she is a lovely girl.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      10:21am | 09/11/10

      OK so “Aboriginals” will be mentioned in the constitution, is that any Aboriginal, or just Australian Aboriginals? ? ? ? I am an Aboriginal of the Netherlands.

      Reply

    • Geoff says:

      11:00am | 09/11/10

      Aren’t you all sick of this stuff.  Everytime the going gets tough for the ALP they drag out another feel good half-thought bubble.  Honestly.  On this one they fail in history and reality and seek to perpetuate a lie in our constitution.  I for one will be voting it down.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      12:07pm | 09/11/10

      “Aren’t you all sick of this stuff.  Everytime the going gets tough for the ALP they drag out another feel good half-thought bubble.”

      Precisely

      Not 1 Aboriginal will benefit in any tangible way from this vote.

      Not 1.

    • Rocket says:

      11:08pm | 09/11/10

      a poor attempt to promote some contrived left wing sentiment and placate the Greens…

      also a poor attempt to try and demonstrate political gravitas of the Kevin Rudd SORRY variety.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 May 12 01:36PM

Awesome headline on http://t.co/IsV33Y2o. "CLUSTER-ZUCK". http://t.co/hPCNEkAi

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 12:54PM

@MickNeven the game is called rugby league not rugby. Just like it's cricket not croquet! Sorry I can't catch ya show.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 23 May 12 12:16PM

@KevCorduroy @ceda_news Cheers, couldn't get on to them but Redmond's office helped out in the end!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 23 May 12 12:12PM

Does half the population really want to close the borders?? http://t.co/cNmpV2qH

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Schapelle has done her time

by Daniel Piotrowski

80

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…

Do women need to know when to walk away?

by The Punch Team

34

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond has sparked controversy over her advice that young women should sometimes…

Who murdered the Arts degree?

by Lucy Kippist

213

Who murdered the Arts degree?

Have we murdered the liberal arts education? That was the final question on Monday night’s Q&A…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed