I watched Noel Pearson's interview last night.

He addressed the most obvious and fatal flaw in the Uluru statement - its inclusion of sovereignty.

He rightly insisted that any amendment to the constitution must not challenge the sovereignty of parliament (not directly, by implication or by way of unintended consequences).

He has spoken to both sides of the political divide on the proposal to amend the constitution and has concluded that an amendment to the constitution will likely receive the necessary bipartisan support.

He also considers it a step forward in Australia's constitutional progress.

Pearson can be trusted.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 10:25am:


For the slow - New ATSIC would be enshrined in the constitution and would be established at every level of government .... that is the issue, and it must never become an issue.

More jumps and kicks than a horse thief on amphetamines twisting at the end of a rope.... but do try to keep up. More jumps and kicks than a member of the Bolshoi Ballet......

For the simple minded here - would you permit the unrestricted mining lobby to hold a sacred place at every level of government and have that enshrined in the constitution and thus never to be removed without a further referendum? What about the White supremacists that so many of you cry over?  What about the Muslims of all stamps?  What about the housos?  What about the Unions?

Anybody?

The Hawke government held out the same hopes for practical benefit from ATSIC as voice proponents hold out today. ATSIC was a failure. That doesn’t mean something better can’t be tried today. But there is no reason at all for this to go in the Constitution, to codify a fundamental separateness of Aborigines. And if that Otherness and its voice is in the Constitution it cannot be abolished except by another argy-bargy referendum.

Parliament can set up another, better ATSIC without any constitutional change. The effect of putting a consultative Aboriginal voice in the constitution will NOT be better listening to it it will be cementing the Otherness of Aborigines, their complete separateness from everyone else.   And brave will be a government that will not do as told by the voice.  Ratbags like Lidia Thorpes will have a constitutional platform for ever.

Frank wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 10:56am:

It was Pearson's original preference that legislation precede a constitutional amendment. However, he suggested that, as a referendum would take some time to eventuate, there is room for legislative change to occur anyway prior to a referendum.

As for the concept of the otherness of the Aboriginal people, unfortunately I do not believe that can be transcended. As is the experience with the world's indigenous peoples' relationships with non-indigenous dominant cultures, otherness is tenacious and bone-deep - i.e. it cannot be legislated or constitutionally amended away - it is a permanent state of mind.

But something that should be acknowledged about all culture - it is essentially, of course, only a hodge-podge collection of codes of conduct that has been practised for a long time, that has infused itself into a people's fundamental sense of identity but, over time does not necessarily retain its moral value (if it had any to begin with).

For example, should a people who once practised cannibalism be allowed to continue or restart the practise simply because its something the ancestors practised?

Should women still be considered property of men simply because it has been a cultural practise in almost every culture since the beginning of human history?

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 6:22am:


Let me guess, FD, you're against putting dirty Boongs in the constitution, is this correct?

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 11:37am:



It wasn't for deflection at all.

It was as a previously tried & failed comparison.

No racially exclusive body should be enshrined in in constitutional parliamentary law.

Govt. should have the capacity - not just to change who sits on it - but to dissolve it altogether if it were to fail.

Aboriginal organisations already have lobby groups and a representative voice in the Parliament & Senate in the elected representatives who are Aboriginal.

And those representatives do not have to be just Labor/leftist members .....

A cross section of Labor & conservative LNP Aboriginal politicians is all that's required .... & what we have already.

Gnads wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 11:58am:


it didn't fail. A period of corruption doesn't mean it failed otherwise every single large organization in the country would be said to have failed. Corruption was just the excuse that the bigots used to shut down the one decent voice the aborigines had at the time

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2022 at 12:11pm:



It was dissolved because it failed to deliver to Aboriginal peoples the outcomes it was supposed to .....

the corrupt officials were just a part of that.

So you .... stop deflecting.