Multi-national company lobbyists have been influencing government policy for decades. Why not give the people who have lived in Australia for 60,000 years a go?

Select to expand quote

sgo said..


"As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics."

So we took out a clause that stopped us being racist in any state, and changed it so the gov. could be racist in every state and territory.

I don't understand your logic, you clearly agree that dividing people by race in the constitution is racist, you say as much in the above post.

Why do you support a proposal that would divide people by race in the constitution now.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
Multi-national company lobbyists have been influencing government policy for decades. Why not give the people who have lived in Australia for 60,000 years a go?

Are you suggesting the Indigenous lobby groups don't already exist. I think you might be surprised to find out they already do exist.

Select to expand quote

Tequila ! said..
6 sleeps until a big fat NO

Lets move on there are more important things to deal with like taking the government responsible for real action not this distraction which takes 97% of air time for at least one year.

Yep, I think that's the result. It's been a very good discussion for Australia to have.

I just hope we can lift up our indigenous brothers and sisters when all the dust settles.

I'm a glass half full person on this issue and believe good for our first nations people will come, regardless of the vote.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

sgo said..


"As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics."

So we took out a clause that stopped us being racist in any state, and changed it so the gov. could be racist in every state and territory.

I don't understand your logic, you clearly agree that dividing people by race in the constitution is racist, you say as much in the above post.

Why do you support a proposal that would divide people by race in the constitution now.

The constitution allows for racism now, so why do you think a yes result is introducing racism, as if it's new.
And I don't agree with your point that it will divide us by race.
I suppose it fits in with the panic and fear mongering of the no campaign.
I've yet to hear any positive suggestions from the no side.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Yep, I think that's the result. It's been a very good discussion for Australia to have.

I just hope we can lift up our indigenous brothers and sisters when all the dust settles.

I'm a glass half full person on this issue and believe good for our first nations people will come, regardless of the vote.

I think it will be a very sad day for First Nations People when the No vote wins on a landslide.

There are just too many racists, bigots, elite-haters, party-followers, conspiracy-liars and ignorant folk who just can't be bothered understanding the proposal. And then there's the people who vote no at every referendum regardless of what it's about. I predict no will get 68 percent of the vote. Albanese made a big mistake. When the Liberals get back in, they will introduce the same constitutional change under another name.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

remery said..

Excellent.

Equity only makes sense when actual disadvantage exists. Perceived disadvantage doesn't count.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..

sgo said..

remery said..

Excellent.

Equity only makes sense when actual disadvantage exists. Perceived disadvantage doesn't count.

I'm neither for the yes or no vote but if you can't see disadvantage then perhaps it's time for prescription lenses.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

sgo said..


"As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics."

So we took out a clause that stopped us being racist in any state, and changed it so the gov. could be racist in every state and territory.

I don't understand your logic, you clearly agree that dividing people by race in the constitution is racist, you say as much in the above post.

Why do you support a proposal that would divide people by race in the constitution now.

Probably the same reason conservative racists in the US claim that Obama was the most divisive president in American history.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Are you suggesting the Indigenous lobby groups don't already exist. I think you might be surprised to find out they already do exist.

I'm sure they do. But do they have any impact?

Describe how they are disadvantaged.


The usual list presented are consequences of the way they choose to live. They have every opportunity available to them the rest of us have, in many cases they just choose not to take it.


im not sure if you've ever visited a rural town with a higher indigenous population than the cities, but it's a pretty poor situation. Crime rates are much higher, they live on the streets (they're not homeless, they choose to live on the streets). kids spend very little time (if any) at school. This is despite the fact that they are presented with plenty of opportunity to succeed. School is free, they just have to attend. Hospital visits are free of charge. Government and private business have in some towns built them new housing, only for it to become a dump in the space of a few years. And they are generally given the leg up to get employed for the very rare few that see that life can be better.

The problems they face have nothing to do with disadvantage, they don't lack for opportunity. They have everything to do with the mindset of the majority. They were, and the majority of them still are nomadic. Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them, nor will it ever. No amount of reparation from non indigenous Australians will change the way they are. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Describe how they are disadvantaged.


The usual list presented are consequences of the way they choose to live. They have every opportunity available to them the rest of us have, in many cases they just choose not to take it.


im not sure if you've ever visited a rural town with a higher indigenous population than the cities, but it's a pretty poor situation. Crime rates are much higher, they live on the streets (they're not homeless, they choose to live on the streets). kids spend very little time (if any) at school. This is despite the fact that they are presented with plenty of opportunity to succeed. School is free, they just have to attend. Hospital visits are free of charge. Government and private business have in some towns built them new housing, only for it to become a dump in the space of a few years. And they are generally given the leg up to get employed for the very rare few that see that life can be better.

The problems they face have nothing to do with disadvantage, they don't lack for opportunity. They have everything to do with the mindset of the majority. They were, and the majority of them still are nomadic. Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them, nor will it ever. No amount of reparation from non indigenous Australians will change the way they are. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink

I think its more of a victim ideology pushed by activists and lobby groups reinforcing this intergenerational mindset .The voice will enshrine perpetual indigenous disadvantage.
If this "advisory" group was going to work so well why is it forever ,sounds to me that it wont.
The constitution is for all not divided up by what a persons racial background is.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Describe how they are disadvantaged.


The usual list presented are consequences of the way they choose to live. They have every opportunity available to them the rest of us have, in many cases they just choose not to take it.


im not sure if you've ever visited a rural town with a higher indigenous population than the cities, but it's a pretty poor situation. Crime rates are much higher, they live on the streets (they're not homeless, they choose to live on the streets). kids spend very little time (if any) at school. This is despite the fact that they are presented with plenty of opportunity to succeed. School is free, they just have to attend. Hospital visits are free of charge. Government and private business have in some towns built them new housing, only for it to become a dump in the space of a few years. And they are generally given the leg up to get employed for the very rare few that see that life can be better.

The problems they face have nothing to do with disadvantage, they don't lack for opportunity. They have everything to do with the mindset of the majority. They were, and the majority of them still are nomadic. Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them, nor will it ever. No amount of reparation from non indigenous Australians will change the way they are. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink

"Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them", is that "their" fault or ours?

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Describe how they are disadvantaged.

I think it is a deeper problem.

How are they disadvantaged? Probably the lack of good role models, possibly created by initially treating them as non-human and then never really making an effort to understand their way of life and how to create an environment to let them change for themselves.

I think every single one of us, if we had really bad role models, would repeat the errors of our parents. How would we get out of it? Even if education were free and jobs were easier to get, this would trap us.

A free university place is not much help if you can't see your way through high school and then adapt to a different society to what you are used to.

It is a difficult problem, and maybe this mention in the constitution is a way to acknowledge that more effort needs to be put into it?

But to just look at what you perceive as their benefits and ignore the reality of whether an aboriginal kid can use these is a bit naive.

My grandfather who use to drove with aboriginal stockmen would tell me that they were hard workers and good at their jobs, but seemed to have a problem with alcohol. He seemed to think it was lack of rules on alcohol in their society, because it just didn't exist before white man arrived. Is there some predisposition to being affected more by alcohol than white people? Maybe, but its probably as much a cultural problem.

He also mentioned the part of their society where it is expected that you share your things with others in your community. It would be hard to boot-strap your life if you go off and get a good job and have your relatives mooch off you all the time. I can see how this would lead to you not wanting to make much of an effort.

How do you change all this without stealing the children and doing more damage to these people, yet allow them the realistic opportunity to better themselves? I am sure there are people that have gone off and bettered themselves, but people only think of the stereotype.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Subsonic said..
Describe how they are disadvantaged.


The usual list presented are consequences of the way they choose to live. They have every opportunity available to them the rest of us have, in many cases they just choose not to take it.


im not sure if you've ever visited a rural town with a higher indigenous population than the cities, but it's a pretty poor situation. Crime rates are much higher, they live on the streets (they're not homeless, they choose to live on the streets). kids spend very little time (if any) at school. This is despite the fact that they are presented with plenty of opportunity to succeed. School is free, they just have to attend. Hospital visits are free of charge. Government and private business have in some towns built them new housing, only for it to become a dump in the space of a few years. And they are generally given the leg up to get employed for the very rare few that see that life can be better.

The problems they face have nothing to do with disadvantage, they don't lack for opportunity. They have everything to do with the mindset of the majority. They were, and the majority of them still are nomadic. Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them, nor will it ever. No amount of reparation from non indigenous Australians will change the way they are. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink

"Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them", is that "their" fault or ours?

Yep...wife bashing and hassling strangers completely drunk in the streets is soo culturally enhancing.
Western lifestyle is missing it big time.

Select to expand quote

Tequila ! said..

remery said..

"Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them", is that "their" fault or ours?

Yep...wife bashing and hassling strangers completely drunk in the streets is soo culturally enhancing.
Western lifestyle is missing it big time.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

remery said..

Excellent.

Really, WOW!

Do you think Indigenous people have some inherent disadvantage related to their ancestory whereby they need permanent assistance in the form of the "Voice" in order to achieve equity.

Can I ask you what is inherent in their ancestory that you believe is creating the permanent disavantage.

I don't think one exists, I agree with the Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine, they need education by keeping kids in school, they need to work because no people in the history of the world every lifted themselves out of poverty by not working. I think the DV and family violence needs to stop and I think the victim hood perpetuated by the left so hard needs to stop, it does nothing but keep people down and keep tax payer money flowing (to the activist elites, not the people in communities).

Select to expand quote

cammd said..



Why would anyone vote for race based inequality. I can only think of two reasons

1. You think one race deserves greater rights than all others.

Or

2 You think that one race is inferior in some way and cannot survive and prosper without special rights.

It's dead easy to think of other reasons, like these;

3. The fact that only one race has the same level of disadvantage, and that special rights are the best way to fix that;

4. The historical fact that only one race has suffered the same sort of government-sponsored and effectively government-approved unlawful killing; unlawful deprivation of land; and unique race-based treatment under the Constitution, and special rights may be an appropriate way to make up for that special disadvantage;

5. The fact that only one race that was here did NOT get to have a say in the drafting of and voting for the Constitution. We whites have the Constitution we wanted; indigenous people have the Constitution we told them to take without asking them what they wanted and special rights may be a perfectly logical way of redressing that.

When a nation specifically excludes one group from the creation of its most powerful document, surely it's reasonable to give that same group special rights later.

We do have special rights for certain groups in the Constitution. Each person in the smaller states effectively has the rights to a more powerful vote than each person in the more populous states, for example. That is because of a bargaining process between groups when the Constitution was granted. The same bargaining process

6. The fact that the principle "first person to get something gets to keep it" is widely applied among humans, and the indigenous people were the first people here.

There's no flies on you, it seems hard to believe that you couldn't have thought up more valid reasons.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

The latest poll shows that 82% of no voters are racist red necks, well that's no surprise.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

sgo said..
So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

Seventy university law professors. I suppose that we can assume these are people with a good understanding of the law. Unlike internet forum posters. Perhaps we should pay attention to these law professors.

Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.

Select to expand quote

snoidberg said..

remery said..

sgo said..
So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

Seventy university law professors. I suppose that we can assume these are people with a good understanding of the law. Unlike internet forum posters. Perhaps we should pay attention to these law professors.

Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.

But we should trust randos on the Internet who spout anti-everything-that-isnt-me hate in the Internet?

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

Flying Dutchman said..

The latest poll shows that 82% of no voters are racist red necks, well that's no surprise.

I think you can understand why the no vote is likely to be so high. The actual addition to the constitution means nothing to most people. It is flawed from both sides in that to the pessimists it opens up the possibility of negative outcomes, but to the optimists it doesn't really address anything. One side wants more detail because they are worried about what could happen and the other side wants more detail because it really tells us nothing.

Assuming that it does fail, I would hope that the government re-aligns it's current approach to be more of what 'the voice' should have been.

Select to expand quote

snoidberg said..

remery said..

sgo said..
So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

Seventy university law professors. I suppose that we can assume these are people with a good understanding of the law. Unlike internet forum posters. Perhaps we should pay attention to these law professors.

Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.

What is that referring to? Or are you unsure and just taking shots in the dark?

If a white woman is beaten by her husband does she have to choose between either seeking protection herself, or just sucking it up to protect her ethnicity from racial bias?

And if the child of two doctors chooses to become a doctor, do they stand a greater likelihood of success?

And this isn't really a question of race except the stats don't lie, if a child is abused are they more likely to turn to substance abuse?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

cammd said..



Why would anyone vote for race based inequality. I can only think of two reasons

1. You think one race deserves greater rights than all others.

Or

2 You think that one race is inferior in some way and cannot survive and prosper without special rights.

It's dead easy to think of other reasons, like these;

3. The fact that only one race has the same level of disadvantage, and that special rights are the best way to fix that;

4. The historical fact that only one race has suffered the same sort of government-sponsored and effectively government-approved unlawful killing; unlawful deprivation of land; and unique race-based treatment under the Constitution, and special rights may be an appropriate way to make up for that special disadvantage;

5. The fact that only one race that was here did NOT get to have a say in the drafting of and voting for the Constitution. We whites have the Constitution we wanted; indigenous people have the Constitution we told them to take without asking them what they wanted and special rights may be a perfectly logical way of redressing that.

When a nation specifically excludes one group from the creation of its most powerful document, surely it's reasonable to give that same group special rights later.

We do have special rights for certain groups in the Constitution. Each person in the smaller states effectively has the rights to a more powerful vote than each person in the more populous states, for example. That is because of a bargaining process between groups when the Constitution was granted. The same bargaining process

6. The fact that the principle "first person to get something gets to keep it" is widely applied among humans, and the indigenous people were the first people here.

There's no flies on you, it seems hard to believe that you couldn't have thought up more valid reasons.

Point 3 - Any actual evidence to support that claim, your normally pretty big on evidence

Point 4 - Pretty much every race in the history of the world has suffered unlawful killing, stealing of land etc etc, its not unique, my ancestors suffered it, probably yours too. Actually name some that haven't

Point 5 - Many if not all immigrant groups since WW2 in Australia did not have a say in our constitution, do you support special rights for all peoples that did not have a say in the constitution.

Were there no other races here when the constitution was drafted, ie Chinese or Polynesians or none at all. I find that hard to believe.

Point 6 - "first person to get something gets to keep it" Right right ok, that's why the Romans gave back all of Europe when they remembered the "finders keepers" principle, The Mongals did the same in China, oh and Russia will remember it soon and move out of Ukraine.

Such valid reason, why didn't I think of them.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Describe how they are disadvantaged.


The usual list presented are consequences of the way they choose to live. They have every opportunity available to them the rest of us have, in many cases they just choose not to take it.


im not sure if you've ever visited a rural town with a higher indigenous population than the cities, but it's a pretty poor situation. Crime rates are much higher, they live on the streets (they're not homeless, they choose to live on the streets). kids spend very little time (if any) at school. This is despite the fact that they are presented with plenty of opportunity to succeed. School is free, they just have to attend. Hospital visits are free of charge. Government and private business have in some towns built them new housing, only for it to become a dump in the space of a few years. And they are generally given the leg up to get employed for the very rare few that see that life can be better.

The problems they face have nothing to do with disadvantage, they don't lack for opportunity. They have everything to do with the mindset of the majority. They were, and the majority of them still are nomadic. Western lifestyle simply doesn't suit them, nor will it ever. No amount of reparation from non indigenous Australians will change the way they are. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink

ive never heard it mentioned or quoted anywhere other than an urban fact but perhaps there is something in the theory that they had never experienced alchohol untill 220 years ago. whereas our gut flora etc have been dealing with it for thousands of years. eg. we used to drink beer instead of water. Certainly the inportance of the gut and gut flora is new science.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

Flying Dutchman said..

The latest poll shows that 82% of no voters are racist red necks, well that's no surprise.

And 82% of yes voters in October 2022 lacked conviction?