By Ray Jackson
another view on the constitution debate, this being from john stone (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/another-divisive-refere...).
for those of you who know nothing of stone (and there is very little reason why you should, unless you're related to him) he was a boffin within federal treasury who hated the hawke govt that much he resigned and stood as a national party senator. this was the time when the 'push for jo bjelke petersen to be pm' was on ( stone thought this a great idea to save australia from the socialists) but it only split the nationals thus allowing hawke to remain in power.
anything aboriginal was and remains an anathema to stone and he raised his whiney voice on many occasions. he has remained true to type and still continues to disparage both labor and anything positive being done for aborigines.
he is, of course, entitled to his view as much as he is entitled to be wrong. again.
i do however agree with his analysis of the proposed 1999 preamble to the constitution meaning nothing and of no use to anybody. aboriginal,tsi's or the other 97% of australia.
his other horror is the influx of muslims and their absolute refusal to integrate to become white-anglo saxon protestants. we are british and christian after all.
stone's article is followed by vox populi, the voice of the people comments. most are pro-stone but this comes as no great surprise. when they are available i always read the vox pops as i believe this gives a good overview of what the majority of our citizens are thinking and how the scraps thrown to them by the right-wing think-tanks and pundits are so easily digested by them as facts.
this country has a long long way to go.
any real positive change to the constitution must give our mobs, including the tsi's, full sovereignty, treaties and social justice or it will be just another waste of time and effort and any minimalist change will be meaningless.
we have enough motherhood statements already.