The push for constitutional change is just another indigenous make work scheme that won’t work. The proponents know it and the rest of Australia are wise to it as well.
It is designed to be a never ending, rolling national guilt trip, a contrivance, to cement permanently in place a much broader agenda, that once embedded in the constitution, can’t be derailed or dismantled.
They are relying on the forces of political correctness and Australians innate sense of common decency as evidenced in 1967 to get it over the line. But this is not a 1967 type proposition.
This is about dividing Australia by race and cannot be allowed to succeed.
We’ve been here before with ATSIC and programs like Closing the Gap and the campaign this time, tens of billions of dollars later, by the indigenous industry and fellow travellers in academia, the Greens and the left, to enshrine recognition in the constitution is just another slippery attempt to resurrect a prestigious, multi billion dollar make work scheme for the benefit of a select few educated, Aboriginal Lear Jet elites, many themselves of mixed heritage to allow them to wisely pontificate and advise the government like some enlightened indigenous priesthood from their parliamentary advisory council, on legislation.
As with previous attempts at bureaucratically and remotely righting previous wrongs, (both real and imagined) from Canberra, those living in regional and remote areas will derive absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
The mere fact that it would be embedded in the Australian constitution in perpetuity, means that even at some point in the future, after all grievances are sorted, the Aboriginal parliament advising the Australian parliament would still have a place in our national life with a confecteted and conjured indigenous angle overlayed and impacting on all policy deliberations and legislative decisions.
The entire exercise reminds me of the Palestinian issue that’s been dragging on for 70 years. It won’t be solved as long as there are people who really don’t want it solved and keep moving the goal posts as it would see them losing their raisin d’être.
The cause, the rolling national guilt trip, must be kept in play at all costs.
Dear Jim,
I don’t want to discuss the issues for or against a ‘third’ house of parliament which advises on Indigenous affairs including treaties. Rather I wish to discuss the referenda process.
In 1999, one of the referendum questions during the republic referendum was to include the indigenous people as the first peoples, source http://www.smh.com.au/comment/uluru-statement-why-are-our-leaders-so-scared-of-acknowledging-indigenous-history-20170602-gwisga.html. It was rejected.
In fact most referenda have been rejected by the Australian people. The time between the “First Nations Convention” at Uluru and day of the referendum may be a long time. The recommendations by the “Convention” have yet to be put before debate before the Parliament. There is the report to the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, source https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/dialogues. Then there is debate about the legislation required to set up the referendum, the referendum’s questions and the campaign, if any for the ‘yes’/’no’ campaign. It may well be a long time.
Without knowing the words of the referendum questions, prima facie, the ‘desires’ of the Convention have already caused controversy about who, what and how people will be elected to the ‘third house’ and the policies being presented to this new constitutionally legislated advisory body.
While the processes to set up the referendum are ‘under way’, already people are rejecting the referendum based on the prima-facie reporting about the Convention’s objectives. This rejection of the referendum may well persist from now and will intensify up till the date of the referendum.
But then, you also have to ask, what happened to Coalition’s promise to allow the people to change the “Marriage Act” via a plebiscite. The issue seems to have died or is non existent. Couldn’t the plebiscite be held at the same time as the Referendum?
Regards
Anthony from Belfield