Yeah it is.  Its below trend but its higher than zero.

Can you even count?

But it's dropping, it isn't rising, which is what I said.

-PB

Govt doing a constitutional referendum 

At some point. Good to see it finally happen. Hopefully they get the wording right and give ample time for both sides to state their cases.

Really isn't too many reasons why it shouldn't happen/pass.

-PB

The constitution needs to unite, not divide by introducing and/or favouring a specific race.

It is worth debate but will NEVER get through.

LOL how would it be favouring a specific race?

Won't ever get through with feeble thinking like that.

-PB

It favour if you gave only one specific race a voice in parliament, or a specific mention in the constitution then you would get resentment.

You either do it for al sections of the community or none.

Between parliament and the senate there are 4 elected representatives that democratically won fairly and squally who are of indigenous background - so there are voices already. No need for a third chamber of parliament which is what it will effectively become. It will NEVER get through.

Get with it silly.

Go back through the speech at the press club and the follow up questions from the press, as to where they stated they were looking to add a "voice to Parliament".

Literally the only people that keep bleating that and bringing it up is SAD.

-PB

He said that in subsequent comments and he did say he wanted the constitution to change to "catch up". The purpose of having a voice, whether it's a third chamber of parliament or just a separate voice in parliament is to gain an advantage and priority. That action will only create division with other communities when we should be looking to create an atmosphere of unity - which doesn't suit the lefties I know.

No, it's to get to having a fucking say on what happens lol.

-PB

You get a say through your elected member of parliament of which already include indigenous. Why want something special, an add on when no-one else gets that privilege?

You don't get it do you or rather don't want to (a lefties way of dealing with it I guess).

....

The privilege of having their homelands invaded and colonized by Europeans?

What?

-PB

Not to mention nearly being wiped out entirely by a combination of European diseases and an effective genocide in the form of the Stolen Generations. 

The indigenous community already have numerous bodies that represent them to advise the government.

Changing constitutions or creating seperate sections of parliaments will do absolutely nothing to repair the past but only create division.

What the indigenous community priorities are is their welfare, jobs and education, not talk. It’s where the focus should be.

Man you bascially spewed Andrew bolt word for word. 

Only division being created is parrots that keep making it like yourself.

-PB

Why have a seperate parliamentary voice based on race? Mending crimes of the past it will not do. What does a “voice” mean anyway, what will it involve and what powers will it have? If there are no separate powers intended what can it achieve that can’t be voiced now? Remember we already have a record number of indigenous representation voicing their opinion in politics / parliament.

Whats next, a treaty when there’s no war with massive compensation to follow?

What about all the rhetoric about white people being solely responsible for aboriginal disadvantage and destitution?  What about the narrative that Australia is a comprehensively racist country?  Or the idea that white Australians are invaders and Aboriginals have greater entitlement to this land?  Are these ideas not divisive?

The first two ideas are 100% correct. Australia is a comprehensively racist country and while people are almost entirely responsible for aboriginal disadvantage. 

Thats like saying that Aborginals are entirely responsible for their own suffering and that racism doesn’t exist, and that such ideas aren’t divisive.  

If you think that the idea that Australia is a comprehensively racist country and white people are largely at fault for the suffering of Aboriginal people are divisive ideas despite the fact that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest these ideas to be true, then you are a snowflake, simple as that.

That’s like saying if you think that Australia has no racism and Aboriginals are largely to blame for their own suffering are divisive ideas despite the fact that’s plenty of evidence to suggest these ideas to be true, then you are a snowflake, simple as that,

No because you’re assuming the two statements are subjective when in reality they aren’t.

It is objective fact that Indigenous people were treated as second class citizens, excluded from society, were the targets of racist legislation and were the victims of genocide.

There factors have had an adverse effect on Indigenous people and it will take generations for them to recover.

You're getting in a tizz over something that doesn't exist, based solely on back bencher whinging and Sky News parrots.

Like a snake biting it's tale.

Poetic, probably a Dreamtime story about that.

-PB

That’s like saying you’re assuming the two statements are subjective when in reality they aren’t.

it is objective fact that Indigenous people have greater access to medicine, have longer life expectancy than pre colonisation times, same legal rights as all Australians and greater access to subsidised education and housing.  

It’s like saying they should be thankful for all of these things and that saying no isn’t divisive because it’s based on objective evidence.

Indigenous people do have greater access to housing, medicine and education and those policies are absolutely needed to help close the gap that was created by the Policies of Australian governments before 1967. The Australian government would be obliged to implement these policies given what it has done in the past.

Indigenous people have only had equal rights to everyone else since 1967 and it’s a massive shame it took so long for that to happen. The way Australian Governments treated Indigenous people before 1967 was disgraceful and imo is the darkest point in Australia history.

I don’t know why you bought up life expectancy as life expectancy has improved everywhere since colonial times. Indigenous life expectancy is still much lower that the national average. This is a massive issue that needs to be addressed and shows that more work needs to be done to close the gap.

https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-life-expectancy

They are all fair points but the idea whites are solely responsible for Indigenous disadvantage and that Australia is comprehensively a racist country is NOT based on objective fact, rather it is more to do with assuaging white guilt, self flagellation and trying to cover up high rates of indigenous substance abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence and crime. In fact it is objective fact that Australia is one of the LEAST racist countries in the world (https://www.good.is/articles/america-isnt-as-racist-as-you-think), furthermore your assertion that whites are solely to blame for indigenous disadvantage is undercut by the fact that others indigenous groups across the world have suffered far worse treatment at the hands of their colonial invaders , yet are more equal in terms of workforce participation, education, health outcomes and socioeconomic status.  So my point is that while you may argue that opposing indigenous constitutional recognition is divisive, the ideas that you raise above are also divisive and dont help with constructive healthy debate.