Abstract

The Constitution should be amended, but with great care to know clearly what is intended, and great care to ensure that it is properly defined.

Article

It is important, fair andjust that aboriginies receive acknowledgement in the Constitution.  It is also simply a matter of fact.

It is equally important that the nature of the acknowledgement be strictly defined and understood.

To the present, only amorphous and ambiguous expressions have been employed in the discussion, which cannot advance until the details are clear.  The opposing sidesmay be addressing two totally different things, and a clear definition which manifests its ramifications may help to resolve the differences.  At least it should inform everyone of what is intended by the proposal.

Silence on this issue isincompetent, unworthy, and even dangerous. It is useless to ask the electorate to vote in a referendum on a matter which is explained only in general and vague terms.  It would be doomed to failure, even if it deserved success.

Bluntly, any dispute will centre upon whether on the one hand the proposed terms to be inserted will afford sufficient to provide just acknowledgement to the aboriginal people, which itself is to be defined; and, on the other hand, whether it might be abused to privide excessive privileges to them.

The former should be properly investigated in order to ascertain their wishes, and the supporting reasons for them.

The latter cannot be supported on any reasonable ground

It would be necessary to consider whether any privileges sought under the former are reasonable and fair.

In any case, it would be necessary to ensure that the drafted proposals are clearly and strictly encompassed and circumscribed.  Once the words are in the Constitution, strange constructions of them may be advanced andif theyare not properly drafted, possibly upheld, with an effect far different from what was intended by the voters.