Both sides agree - but will a referendum happen?

maria says:

08:28am | 19/02/13

Whatever, actions speak louder than words only under a DIRECT DEMOCRACY A LA SWITZERLAND a democratic society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.

A referendum also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal, a piece of legislation which has been passed into law by the local legislative body and was signed by the pertinent executive official(s) or a constitutional amendendement or even have a new constitution.
It is a form of direct democracy.

Switzerland’s direct democracy means that all proposed amendments to the constitution are decided by referendum. Any other federal law can be put to a referendum if 50,000 citizens sign a petition - meaning that Switzerland’s federal system can be changed by its citizens and not just by the political party in power and their cronies.

From: Attorney General –
The Hon Robert McClelland MP
08 July 2010

Dear Mr Thompson,

I refer to your letter received on 10 June 2010 regarding the 1988 Referendum.

In 1988, four proposals to amend the Constitution were put to voters in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution. One of those proposals sought to give constitutional recognition to local government but the proposal was not carried.

The Constitution does not currently recognize local government. Any change to the Constitution to recognize local government would need to be approved by voters at a referendum. The Government will continue to explore reform, including constitutional recognition, to facilitate cooperation with local government.

Yours sincerely

Robert McClelland

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Telephone (02) 6277 7300
Fax (02) 6273 4102

Fiddler says:

09:10am | 19/02/13

and in comes maria, as I predicted (under acotrel’s second comment)

Please, change your tune, it is soo repetitive and irrelevant

A Concerned Citizen says:

12:29pm | 19/02/13

Fiddler (quite an appropriate name).
Actually Maria’s the only person on-topic (as this discussion is- funnily enough- about referendums).

That aside, Maria advocates a practical solution to a problem; a great leap above the bellyaching over “What Abbot/Gilllard are doing”- a riveting discussion that serves no purpose other than allow polarized idiots to beat their chests.

Ted says:

02:49pm | 19/02/13

@Fiddler
At least Maria has a clear solution without any preferences.

What is your solution?

Anyway it looks like a deal between the Godfather Tony and the Godmother Julia as Maria has said a true mafiacracy and they know how to “fiddler”.....

St. Michael says:

03:38pm | 19/02/13

“DIRECT DEMOCRACY A LA SWITZERLAND a democratic society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.”

This would be the same nation where popular opinion was heavily against returning any of the stolen Nazi gold in Swiss banks to their rightful owners, assuming said owners managed to survived the Nazi genocide conducted during World War 2? They had a good 10 million or more in there.

More generally, as I said I’d do, R White’s rebuttal to Swiss Democracy:

“The Swiss are unique in their system. It is extremely complex, with its various votes for members, laws/referendums, and officials. The details vary across the country and in some cantons voting is compulsory. As they still have a parliament of elected members, and still have political parties, their method is, at best, a sort of “half-direct” democracy.

There are about 6 million Swiss voters.  They are called out to vote up to four times a year,  sometimes at the beck and call of pressure groups of as few as 50,000 activists. I’ll repeat that: they vote up to four times a year. Not once or twice every three or four years - four times a year.

The result? Commonly, less than half of them bother to turn out or lodge a vote. *Less than half* . A “direct democracy” that works so poorly that not even a simple majority of voters can be bothered to take part.  That’s nothing like the democratic Utopia that Maria endlessly, uncritically and inaccurately parrots as her opinion.

Might be better to actually consider the real implications of such a system. They range across a spectrum, from mob rule through to paralysis. The difficulties are well-summarised in this even-handed and comprehensive article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy.

Frankly, we’d be far better off simply bending our attention to something we can in fact readily achieve: raising the standard of public political debate. It’s not rocket science. One way to do it is to take the time to call to account sloppy, misleading and deceptive arguments, like Maria’s. It doesn’t take a lot of work.

So let’s have more open, vigorous debate on things that actually matter.  Let’s debate policies and peformance, Left, Right or Centre, fairly and vigorously. Let’s check for facts vs factoids. Let’s hold *all* Parties to the same standards. Let’s hold *all* partisan,  single issue, astro-turfing bloggers peddling shrill,deceptively over-simplified, too-cute misinformation to those standards too.”

Jenny says:

04:32pm | 19/02/13

@St. Michael
DIRECT DEMOCRACY A LA SWITZERLAND a democratic society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.”

So let’s have more open, vigorous debate on things that actually matter.  Let’s debate policies and peformance, Left, Right or Centre, fairly and vigorously…...how ?

gof says:

07:17am | 19/02/13

#acotrel ,
Notice how he’s trying to look down at her! The PM should be relieved that she wasn’t wearing a blouse that day.

Christian Real says:

07:50am | 19/02/13

acotrel
Abbott’s body language is a dead give away, his facial expressions says it all,and his heart definately wasn’t in his gesture of shaking hands.
In other words,he sucked up for the photo shoot , I don’t for a minute believe that he agreed with the changes to our Constitution in recognition of aboriginal people.

ZSRenn says:

07:51am | 19/02/13

A great story and then you two clowns. Where is Christian Real wanting all whites off the land?

acotrel says:

07:58am | 19/02/13

@ZSR
An Australian version of ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’ ?
‘Make love not war’ !

Borderer says:

09:18am | 19/02/13

@gof
Notice how he’s trying to look down at her! The PM should be relieved that she wasn’t wearing a blouse that day.

I think ithrew up a little at that last part of your comment…. errrm he’s taller than she is champ, deal with it….

@Christian Real
his heart definately wasn’t in his gesture of shaking hands.

Can’t really blame him either, she’s been hell bent on using parlimentary privillege to smear his name for the last couple of years, I think polite but tense is as good as you can get.

Now the two of you please get back into your miniture fire engine….

James of Hong Kong says:

06:24pm | 19/02/13

Yes, I see a man who has come to a standstill and is facing her directly in order to engage whilst I see a woman who looks like she is walking on with not a moment of interest in stopping to talk.

This will all be left to Abbott as this is what’s going to happen to Gillard come Sept 14:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZS-CId_hs

The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, and my office worked together to start a grassroots campaign on the preferred wording of a Preamble. In April 1998, with former Senator Bob Brown, we released draft wording which included: 

Hardly looks bipartisan to me. The left needs to understand than in order for bipartisanship they need to engage conservative input also rather than just saying that if you don’t completely agree and accept all our ideas then you are hijackers. This paragraph is so symbolic of all problems left.

Christian Real says:

07:10am | 19/02/13

acotrel
I am affronted enough every time Abbott opens his mouth and his lies and deceit spew forth, I am also affronted enough by those imbecile Auustralians gullible enough to actually believe everything he says.
One only has to watch Abbott’s body language and it certainly does not match up with what he is saying or promising..
But then again Abbott did say that “The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”

Fiddler says:

07:19am | 19/02/13

No, we couldn’t acotrel. As much as you love this, (almost as much as maria loves harping on about Switzerland’s “direct democracy”)

UN Resolution 3314 codified the right to conquest (which even then it really wasn’t as there are Terra Nulius/no recognisable government) and effectively marked the map as being not retroactive.

Also, the International Court of Justice is non binding unless the states agree to it. Oh and it has to be a recognised “state” to exist, something the Aboriginal people are not.

And just to confirm, are you advocating ejecting people from a country that most were born in, simply on the grounds of race? Pretty sure that’s termed ethnic cleansing. If you are, I am sure the punchers here will contribute to a one way plane ticket to NZ on the condition that you don’t access the internet while over there.

marley says:

07:43am | 19/02/13

@acotrel - I don’t know how many times it’s been pointed out to you that your proposal is uninformed nonsense.  Aborigines will not win a case at the ICJ or any other international court because the ICJ deals only with conflicts between states, not with domestic matters.

I thought you were supposed to be a scientist.  If that’s true, then why are your arguments so often devoid of any research or fact checking?  Like this one.

acotrel says:

07:48am | 19/02/13

@marley
How about a dispute between the British Empire and Australia Aboriginalis ?  Sort of like ‘Yankee go home’ ?

Terry2 says:

08:44am | 19/02/13

I’m so glad that we didn’t adopt what can now be seen as a very wimpish and pandering Preamble. By all means we should repeal S.25 and 51 (xxvi) which are clearly spent in their application. However our Constitution is generally in need of surgical intervention in quite a number of other areas, for instance:

59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

We have a lot of work to do on a Constitution that no longer meets our needs and expectations; simple feel good pandering and patching up is not the solution, we need a complete rewrite.

Borderer says:

09:13am | 19/02/13

@Acotrel
How about a dispute between the British Empire and Australia Aboriginalis ?  Sort of like ‘Yankee go home’ ?

British empire doesn’t exist any more, you are aware it is the 21st century?

Jack says:

09:31am | 19/02/13

...We the people of Australia
wrong
...We the mob of Australia
...we decide how to run the country and the circumstances how to run it
...because we have a mandate from you and you the people .....

marley says:

09:35am | 19/02/13

@Borderer - give acotrel a break.  He’s still trying to get his mind wrapped around the fact that it’s not 1950 any more.  He can hardly be expected to get to the 21st century.

Nostromo says:

11:15am | 19/02/13

This is both too sad & too funny for a Tuesday morning-ish Aco.
(see my other post about ‘true Australians’ & this farcical ‘apology-pandering’ the ALP has sunk to).

Stephen T says:

11:46am | 19/02/13

@Christian Real: “ I am affronted enough every time Abbott opens his mouth and his lies and deceit spew forth, I am also affronted enough by those imbecile Auustralians gullible enough to actually believe everything he says.”

I’m affronted every time you post your usual load of Abbott bashing crock,  not once have I ever seen you offer an objective opinion supported by substantive fact.  Eric got banned for repetitive posting, if the moderators had any form of integrity you and a few others who repetitiously post the same diatribe and contribute absolutely nothing of relevance would go the same way.

Christian Real says:

12:05pm | 19/02/13

Stephen T
Are you saying that the moderators should ban the freedom of speech,and deny people freedom of speech just because you don’t like what they have to say.
I have, in other blogs backed up my statements with the news media they have came from, the title of the news story,the journalists that wrote the story and the date and the time as well.

marley says:

12:24pm | 19/02/13

@Christian Real - the issue isn’t with your opinions. It’s with the tedious repetitiveness of your arguments.  I’ve no wish to see you or anyone else banned, but geez man, try a little originality.  And just so you know, quoting some one else’s opinion on something is not quite the same as providing evidence of anything.

Stephen T says:

01:44pm | 19/02/13

Christian Real: “Are you saying that the moderators should ban the freedom of speech,and deny people freedom of speech just because you don’t like what they have to say.
I have, in other blogs backed up my statements with the news media they have came from, the title of the news story,the journalists that wrote the story and the date and the time as well.”

Christian what you have done is to present your opinion as fact in an effort to disparage and damage Tony Abbott’s reputation, now while entitled to your opinion you are not entitled to present that opinion as fact.  Neither is it of any benefit repetitiously reposting the same material day in day out with out presenting objective evidence to support the validity of your opinion, I’ve checked you links on several occasions and in most cases you have either misrepresented the context of the opinion expressed in the link, cherry picked select text and used it out of context to support your opinion or have failed to comprehend the article and foolishly posted the link thinking that it supported your argument. 

I would be happy to read and comment constructively on your posts however you leave little opportunity to do this with the format that you currently employ, I can not even call you a good troll your posts are offensive, repetitious, annoyingly inaccurate and little better than spam.

Ted says:

02:57pm | 19/02/13

@Fiddler
Stop destroying what is democracy the will of the people without any preferences and Switzerland is showing the world how to do it.

In a meantime what has happened to the democrats when they forgot it?

Christian Real says:

07:19am | 19/02/13

Zack
It is good to see this on off bipartisan agreement between Abbott and the Prime Minister, but instead of Abbott and his Liberal opposition being disruptive and bringing Our Parliament into disrepute Tony Abbott and his liberal coalition colleagues should have been working towards more positive solutions in the same bipartisan way.

acotrel says:

07:52am | 19/02/13

What is this ‘bipartisan’ thing you’ve mentioned ? Does it apply to our relations with other Asian nations?

Borderer says:

09:41am | 19/02/13

I don’t think it will get up, the campaign will be based around trying to whip up as much white guilt as possible as the proponents don’t know how to play any other card and the majority of voters will tell them to go screw themselves.
The actual merits of changing the constitution will be sidelined as irrelevant to the opportunity of creating a “legacy” which is what this is really about anyway….
There’s insufficent momentum to make this change at the moment and they will waste tax payers dollars in another failure. Time and effort would be better spent in actually addressing the tangible problems of indigenous people rather than ammending a document that the majority of Australians will never read or even gaze upon.

infamous16 says:

08:17am | 19/02/13

I agree, I sometimes wish that there were no aborignees. Life would be so much better for the anglo Australian.  /sarcasm

Phillb says:

09:33am | 19/02/13

I agree with Tim. 
And Infamous16, sarcastic as your response was, yes it would be simpler if people thought of themselves as Australiana and not Aboriginal Australian, Greek Australian, Lebanese Australian etc….  Funnily enough though I have never heard of anyone refer to themselves as an anglo Australian.  Maybe not all of us see the world in terms of race or skin colour like you though.

Rose says:

09:55am | 19/02/13

In what way would it be better to have Australians denounce their heritage, whether it be Greek, Aboriginal, Irish, Lebanese or whatever?

Tim says:

09:57am | 19/02/13

Infamous,
I’m sorry if I don’t think of people by their race but rather what kind of individuals they are and their character.

Maybe you should try it?

Phillb says:

10:22am | 19/02/13

Rose, I never said denounce their race. Australian is not a race, it is a nationality.  There is no need to think in terms of race at all when refering to yourself as Australian.  Why create a divide when there should be none?

Christian Real says:

10:53am | 19/02/13

infamous 16
Life for some of our Aboriginal people would be so much better if the English never invaded our Ancestors Country, stole their lands, their rights and their Children.
Changes to the constitution do not go far enough though, the English flag should be replaced with the Aboriginal flag in the Corner and instead of our National Anthem being ‘Adavance Australia Fair ’ it could be replaced with ”  I am, you are,we are Australians.”,a more appropriate song for our multi cultural Country.
And last but not least, we could make Australia a Reublic instead of being tied to the “Mother Country”, England and having their Queen as our Head of state.

Fiddler says:

02:35pm | 19/02/13

@CR, really, how would it be better for them, no medicine (tribal medicine doesn’t work, don’t care how many feel good articles claim it does), no education, infant mortality rates, inter tribal warfare…...

Need I go on?

Noble savage is a myth. Aboriginals have benefitted greatly from white settlement. Pity you are too blinkered to see it.

Wayne says:

07:58am | 19/02/13

Call me cynical but it seems to be a means to hold us to ransom, keep the gravy train of compensation, obstruction and demands going indefinitely. There is no way I would vote for this change. All Australians should be treated as equal, not the animal farm way of some being more equal than others.

infamous16 says:

08:21am | 19/02/13

Yeah equality! (Only when it suits the whites). 1967 was ages ago.

acotrel says:

08:56am | 19/02/13

@ramases
Your good looks are only exceeded by your arrogance.  The British were lucky when they invaded Australia, their enemy didn’t know about individual ownership.  When they tried it on with the Maoris they were fought to a standstill.  Even today the Maoris are influential in their own right in New Zealand.  Do you know what the words ‘mutual respect’ mean - the Maoris could teach you about that.

Phillb says:

09:40am | 19/02/13

All right, infamous16, what rights don’t Aboriginals have that other races do?
The right to vote?
The right to work their ass off to pay taxes to support those that dont?
The right to free healthcare?
What rights are they missing out on?  What exactly can’t they achieve (can’t, not don’t.  Big difference) that anyone else can?
Sure they were hard done by in the past, no one disputes that. But we will never move forward while we are looking backward.

Brute Man says:

10:04am | 19/02/13

ramases/Wayne: I agree completely

Infamous16: Tell me, how exactly are Aboriginals not given the same rights as all other citizens of this country right now? In fact, in regards to land title/welfare etc, one could argue that they are in fact, better off in many standpoints.

It’s up to the individual to create their own fortune. Too long, many Aboriginal communities have been crying fowl whilst rejecting or squandering all effort made to better themselves or their community.

Borderer says:

10:10am | 19/02/13

@Acotrel
There was a vast difference between the nomadic Aboriginal people and the Maori’s when the British arrived. The Maori’s had established permanent settlements for one, were absolutely more warlike and most importantly, the British were fewer in number and there were a lot more Maori’s. A treaty was inevitable unless they were interested in a sustained conflict on the other side of the world.
The Maori’s were on a similar level to the various American Indian tribes, though not as skilled in building as the Sth Americans.

Economist says:

11:13am | 19/02/13

There’s a lot of BS in this reponse. If for example the proposal is to put in the preabmble the wording outlined by Natasha is does nothing more than stated; that is to acknowledge our diversity, unity and “Recognising Indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land”. While no lawyer, I don’t read this as giving Indigenous Australians any more entitlements or placing them above any other section of society.

I recall the same scare campaign about the apology that couldn’t be made by John Howard given the potential result of unjust claim by Indigenous Australians to somethign they’re not entitled to, which didn’t eventuate.

Sure I acknowledge that it is potentially to be added to “salve the guilty consciousnesses’, but I ask you do you think that Jews have any rights to apologies from governments and institutions that supported or ignored the Holocaust, I mean after all that was so 1940’s, just get over it Jews / sarcasm.

Yet we then get onto the real issue at hand, as you see it, that you’re fed up with how Indigenous Australians being entitled to something you don’t get and you make some spurious assertions to support this belief.

You claim they weren’t the original inhabitants, but miss the point that they were the population that was displaced, persecuted and treated differently, and could be argued still treated differently today despite laws protecting their rights.

Interestingly you assert that they have been given more than their fair share over the past 20 years, since Mabo, compared with the previous 200+ years of white settlement. Like the “whities” haven’t exploited resources, land and monies and gained massive wealth from this, but by Jesus Indigenous Australians now control every aspect of commercial decisions. What an exaggeration. I suggest you actually understand Mabo, because it’s not what you claim.

Of course it’s all spurious because one time they claimed ‘secret womans’ business that was false, so now every claim is clearly false. 

While today there are laws aimed at reducing discrimination and, I believe, there are laws on land ownership given to Indigenous Australians in many parts of the country that otherwise would have been owned by the State/Commonwealth governments. I don’t see this as something for doing nothing, but the reality and result of laws to protect their rights and help support their independence.

I still recognise that on most socio-economic indicators Indigenous Australians are still disadvantaged and it is in our interest to provide additional resources to tackle these problems. That the problems are complex, that some people do exploit the situation, but not to tar every Indigenous Australian with the same brush. 

I suggest you be more astute in your assessment , more empathetic in placing yourself in the shoes of an Indigenous Australian and recognise that many Indgenous Australian experiecne are culture of disadvantage that is hard to move away from when you don’t know anything differently.

A Concerned Citizen says:

12:40pm | 19/02/13

Sigh- while the British are considering giving the Scottish people a referendum of independence (and have already given considerable autonomy), and Canada has no trouble showing recognition to their indigenous peoples (as well as provincial autonomy), and nobody seems to mind.

Australians bellyache over a simple act of decency in the form of a purely superficial and completely non-tangible nod of recognition to our Indigenous populations.

I personally don’t feel any guilt about our hostile past towards the Aboriginal people at all (as I doubt the English and Scottish feel about theirs)- I simply endorse this process because it’s the right thing to do. It seems the only people who feel ‘guilty’ are the people railing against it.

Phillb says:

12:45pm | 19/02/13

Economist, a very long winded response that means not much.  What, in real terms would be the advantage to your average Aboriginal?  What would be gained from it other then a lovey dovey feeling from part of the population and pissing off another part.? Do you really think a Aborigine living in a remote community cares either way?
There is no advantage in recognising one race if you don’t recognise all the races that helped form model day Australia.

Mik says:

01:23pm | 19/02/13

@ACC,agree. We are not answerable for the past actions of others just as the younger Japanese are not answerable for the atrocities commited by their leaders and forces during WWII. All we can do is try to be decent people together. I remember an old fellow sadly remarking about another old fellow whom he had warred with all his life and who had just died, “He was the best enemy I had, decent, fair, reliable and just. Whatever we fought about, I knew we could work it out in the end.” (Sounds like a lot of those long marriages really).

infamous16 says:

03:31pm | 19/02/13

All I’m saying is that in most of post-colonial Australia, white Australians have enjoyed special rights/better standards of living than those who they legislate out of these rights ie. The aboriginal population and now when our constitution could recognise the aboriginal population as rightly so, white Australians are crying wolf that we attempt to heal deeply held grievances the aboriginal population after years of disenfranchisement and the systematic racism felt by them. And now you want equality after being the benefactor of an unequal society

Economist says:

03:49pm | 19/02/13

Phillb, sure there was some gobbledegook with the spellos and misplaced words. However instead of presuming that is meaningless perhaps you should ask them? The apology was supposedly meaningless by the “begrudging crowd” but was well received. Besides, again it is not putting Indigenous Australians above everybody else simply recognising the fact that they were here before us.

As for the rest of my rant, it related to the fact that Ramases used it as an opportunity to rally against Indigenous rights and Indigenous issues because he believes they’re so ‘privileged’. It was full of sweeping generalisation and pure BS and deserved a take down point by point.

Deluded says:

07:50am | 19/02/13

Sure it is.

Once they are mentioned in the constitution all of the crime, the alcohol abuse, drug abuse, domestic abuse and sexual abuse will disappear overnight!

acotrel says:

07:54am | 19/02/13

If the Aborigines were Maoris, you wouldn’t be saying that.

v says:

01:21pm | 19/02/13

Acotrel, the Maoris earnt respect and are Maoris, not quarter bloods.

Brown says:

07:52am | 19/02/13

If they want a “Can Do” attitude, they should recruit the original and best Can Do man, Campbell Newman…

Too bad he’s kicking arse and taking names in Qld at the moment.

MG says:

07:53am | 19/02/13

There is a lot of one sided commentary here but this one really burns me. Abbott has more experience with the Aboriginal community than any other member of parliament.. Certainly much more than the PM appears to have. You don’t have to like him but he certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt on Aboriginal issues. This sort of comment belittles the work of one of the few MPs who actually does know about Aboriginal needs. There should be more politicians working in remote communities. If you care about this issue you need to cut some slack to the politicians who actually go there and not use it as another opportunity to go off half cocked.

acotrel says:

08:47am | 19/02/13

’ Abbott has more experience with the Aboriginal community than any other member of parliament.. ‘

Just another example of his lack of innovative thought .  Howard also used the aborigines as election fodder. Labor are offering resolution, not exploitation of the problem.

Claire says:

01:20pm | 19/02/13

“Howard also used the aborigines as election fodder.” and gillard’s office used them to organise a race riot on a lie in an attempt to denigrate Abbott. When this failed they pushed hard on the sexist/misogynist lie. Labors hands are putrid on the aboriginal issue.

Smith says:

07:53am | 19/02/13

Agree.

It has crash and burn written all over it.

gnome says:

09:42am | 19/02/13

Too right- the pollies would like to do it without the people, but they can’t change the Constitution.

Every twenty or thirty years the pollies need reminding that they are elected as our representatives, not our leaders.  A lesson coming up soon.

Chillin says:

07:15am | 19/02/13

You mean the one they killed Mungo man for, is that genocide?  War crime?

Ben the lawyer says:

07:20am | 19/02/13

I think you’ll find he likes our constitution just fine. It is you who is pushing to change it.

Our constitution is a practical document - it is not a list of principles and motherhood statements. If you want something like that, go to the US. Or write your own missive that you say every day. Just leave us out of it.

Borderer says:

09:32am | 19/02/13

@Christian Real
If you don’t like the constitution you are free to leave our Aboriginal Ancestors Country at any time,

Errr the article is about constitutional change, not the current constitution, you are aware of that?
It’s not “our” Aboriginal Ancestors Country, it’s the Commonwealth of Australia and it’s constitution. You are clearly confused as to what you’re talking about and possibly even when you’re talking about.

xnl says:

10:00am | 19/02/13

Hahaha look, a men’s rights activist.

Rob says:

11:02am | 19/02/13

No, you are wrong ‘ntl’. Not a men’s rights activists.

And in any case if one was a men’s rights activist, why does that portray some blasphemous connotation, when women’s rights, indigeanous rights, multi-cultural rights, gay rights or any other minority rights creates a celebration.

The narcissists holding all the cards wont brook another opinion and prefer a subjigation of the naturally superior. Subjigation achieved through social pressure or legislation. Why does the bleedin’ obvious upset you so much

Jamo says:

11:38am | 19/02/13

Very good question Rob, why does ‘men’s activist’ naturally invoke some kind of negative perception ? Keenly waiting on XNL’s response. Or xnl thinks that short presumptuous statements is all that is required for constructive debate. The truth ? ........ Ya can’t say that

marley says:

07:53am | 19/02/13

I personally have no problem with recognising the Aborigines in the constitution, and certainly none with removing the discriminatory clauses.  What I do have an issue with, and I suspect this would be the sticking point, is embedding into the constitution the notion that aboriginal peoples should be treated differently than any other Australians when it comes to addressing disadvantage.

Tator says:

07:57am | 19/02/13

Two reasons Gobsmack,
Firstly Australia’s legal system is based on British law which originates from Judeo-Christian law.  Secondly, according to the latest census, around 60% of Australian’s identify themselves as Christian, thus as a majority, Australia is a christian country as no other religion comes near to having a majority.  Now these are statements of observation, Australia has no official religion and has a secular government, but you can’t dismiss the belief system of the majority of the population, even if they are not practicing in their faith.

Tim says:

08:11am | 19/02/13

“The mention of aborigines in the preamble is not racist”

Yes it is. It enshrines aboriginals as different than other citizens based on their race.

“It’s a recognition of historical fact.”

There’s been waves of aboriginal migration to Australia over thousands of years. Saying that the current mix of Aboriginals were the “original” inhabitants is misleading. Saying that they were here before British colonisation is much more truthful and realistic. 

“We get the same bigots insisting that Australia is a christian country.  What gives the christian religion special status over others? “

No, it’s definitely not a Christian nation but we most certainly have Judeo-Christian heritage which has affected the development of our laws and values as a country.

gobsmack says:

08:21am | 19/02/13

@Tator
Thank you.  That is my point.

You cite emprical facts to back up the assertion that Australia is “Judeo-Christian” (although I think British law owes much to early Anglo-Saxon law and Roman law).

That the aborigines were here for thousands of years before the colonisation of Australia by the British is an emprical fact.  I’m not so sure about the “custodian” part though.

@marley

There are currently “special provisions” in the body of the Constitution.  What is being proposed is the contents of a fairly innocuous Preamble.

marley says:

08:34am | 19/02/13

@gobsmack - when the original proposal came out, it went beyond the preamble, to including phrases in the constitution itself addressed specifically at aboriginal disadvantage rather than at disadvantage generally.  That’s where I have an issue.

BTW, the Canadian Constitution does recognise the aboriginal peoples as a founding nation, along with the French and the British, and aboriginal peoples have used that to their advantage in uniting to form a “nation” which speaks with (more or less) one voice to the the government.  I think that’s a better situation than the one here, where no one can claim to speak for aborigines with any authority.  So it’s not that I have an issue with the overall concept at all.

Michael S says:

07:39am | 19/02/13

I think John Howard knew exactly what the result of the 1999 referendum was going to be.
By bringing the referendum on, it ensured the idea of Australia becoming a republic would be dead and buried permanently.

If any government wants recognition of indigenous people to be recognised in the constitution, they’ll wait until they’re sure the idea will pass. They’ll only get one attempt; and if it fails, it’s over forever - like the republic.

Alex says:

08:06am | 19/02/13

Michael, the people voted, and they voted no. Why does someone have to wait to get the result you personally want? Majority spoke and you should accept it.

Michael S says:

08:57am | 19/02/13

I do accept it. The republic issue is dead and buried forever.

My post was in reply to Frank’s, when he asked why the need to make sure the referendum will pass.
The answer is this - if it fails, there won’t be a second chance. That’s why they won’t put it up unless either they’re 100% sure it will pass or they want it to fail.

Greg says:

02:41pm | 19/02/13

Agreed. Bipartisan support amongst politicians only ever seems to occur when the rest of society is opposed to their proposal - like more pay rises and perks for MPs and Senators.

The only reason why the Aboriginal referendum is not being held is because it would be voted down by a vast majority of voters.

There is absolutely nothing in the current constitution that is anti-Aboriginal, whereas there will plenty of discrimination allowed in the revised constitution that victimises non-Aboriginal people.

Ted says:

03:09pm | 19/02/13

substantive changes to the constitution that is the real worry.

An ordinary act of parliament can change and overide it.

I think it’s time you wake up.

Did you read Maria’s comment about local government?

We are irrelevant as she said it in most her comment and direct democracy is the only solution.

Jamo says:

09:58am | 19/02/13

But until then it will be another thing they try to pass off as good and timely for our country, in attempt to distract from the real issues that concern most Australians. Another smoke screen, never going to happen. Where has the common sense politician gone ?

Jenny says:

12:51pm | 19/02/13

The fact is the proposal is a purely racist activity. But why should we be surprised when gillard gets away with sacking a Senator with no compensation because she is not aboriginal. It also says a lot about the aboriginal that took the job given the racist way she achieved it.

Terry2 says:

11:37am | 19/02/13

DaveO, I don’t know about the “posterity” bit : reminds me of the story about a foreign ambassador presenting his credentials to the Queen and ending his speech by saying :

“Your Majesty, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart and my wife would also like to thank you from her bottom”

It’s all in the phraseology !

Gordon says:

11:55am | 19/02/13

I, this Person of Australia, do Seek to form a More perfect language and Escape from Random capital Letters.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:24am | 19/02/13

Forced settlement of Aboriginals in major capital cities of each state would be a partial solution. Either that or abolish the conception of aboriginal altogether.

EC says:

12:50pm | 19/02/13

Still nothing from Acotrel or Christian Real? I thought they lived on this site 24/7.

Sue says:

01:14pm | 19/02/13

Given we know they are not the First Australians it should not happen. If they want to complain, then we should do exactly what they do to us, hold them accountable for the complete genocide of Mungo Man and the Mega Fauna. You can bet that they will not accept responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Hypocrites.

Chillin says:

01:31pm | 19/02/13

Well it’s another search for untold compensation that they feel they are ‘owed’ because three generations before they became lazy good for nothings, demanding compensation for everything, instead of getting a job,  they feel were apparently hard done by, but don’t dare mention they wiped out another race when they got here.  Since ‘sorry’ didn’t work out for them, they are looking for another avenue for free money.

Paul says:

04:53pm | 19/02/13

Save your legs, that’s 4 all the way!
Bravo sir, well played hahaha.