Gnads wrote on Feb 15
th, 2023 at 7:24pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 10
th, 2023 at 10:15am:
Frank wrote on Jan 10
th, 2023 at 9:25am:
Why do we need to change our Constitution for a race based advisory body?
Good question. Looking at the constitutional change in 1967:
On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them.So aboriginals are already in the same situation as other Australians, vis a vis the constitution.
The difference on the ground is the egregious gap.
You are correct: we don't need a constitutional change, we need the government to act to eradicate poverty.
So you agree a constitutional change based on race is unwarranted?
Well, after the '67 change, yes.
Quote:So in a thread about a race based voice to parliament your other means of closing the gap are actually irrelevant.
Yes, but the racist views expressed by yourself and others are egregious (black bludgers, etc etc.)
Quote:Not that you haven't espoused them everywhere else....
but technically speaking you haven't addressed the issue .....are you fore or agin?
I'll vote yes, so everyone, including blacks, will eventually have to face the real solutions required to close the gap (ie, non-stop delivery of training, education, and jobs in communities).
If the voice isn't passed, the slow-learners will continue to blame the lack of a voice for the continuing gap.
Interesting views from Andrew Forrest:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/andrew-forrest-says-signing-yindjibarndi...Andrew Forrest says signing Yindjibarndi royalty agreement will lead to Alice Springs style chaos1h ago
He's correct: royalty cash - like 'sit-down money' ("welfare") - is a disastrous alternative to waged-employment requiring sobriety as part of the deal.