Australia Day attended by growing controversy

[Stonius (Markus)]

Nah, leave it where it is. On Australia day you want baking sun and beach. Wouldn't be much fun in Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth/Hobart in the middle of winter.

And what will changing the date do? Give it a generation, then *that day will be offensive for symbolising the invasion.

The Left have a way of rebranding or changing the language under the misguided notion that it somehow removes stigma. Think about it. White people have always just been 'white'. How many names for people of colour are there? Many of which were the PC term in their day which has now become offensive. Why should a non-pejorative term for a person of colour be offensive anyway?

The simple solution is just to admit to what happened; you can't reconcile while one party doesn't even believe there's anything to reconcile *for. Yes, we murdered the aboriginal people in a near genocidal event. But we are not our ancestors. So many people think we're being asked to feel shame for the actions of our ancestors, but really it's more about admitting the the fact that it happened at all. The Right seems to want to erase much of this vital part of our nation's history from the history books. We should just own it. Then we wouldn't even be talking about moving the date. We need to own our history, not to wrap it up in rebranding and euphemisms.

Markus

[pmrid (Peter)]

The discussion here about having an Australian as Head of State is meaningless without also discussing the political context in which the HOS operates.

The HOS in many Constitutional models is largely a figurehead - as is the Queen in ours. He/she has little or no independent discretion. Rather, they act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. Just changing the identity of the HOS would achieve absolutely nothing. Nothing would change except the letterhead. The same old 2-party conundrum would still drive our political system and its outcomes.

There is absolutely no point in discussing a new HOS unless you also decide to modify the political model. And that is a decision that needs to come first. There is no way of doing that incrementally. You either move into a republican model in which the HOS has real power or you remain with the figurehead model in which the HOS is a ceremonial rather than substantive part of the political process. The catalyst for that kind of change is - more often than not - a post-conflict reinvention rather than some sort of consensual process. So the likelihood of change of that sort seems very, very small.

What that means is the most likely change will be a reworking of the Status Quo with only a change in the name of the HOS rather than the functions and powers. And that would be utterly pointless.


Peter

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293077]

Originally Posted by torana68

If we decide to elect our head of state, then we will end up with a Liberal and Labor candidate and that will (party) politicise the office....not a desirable outcome, I would have thought.

That is probably the best reason.

At present, the Governer General is a non-political office. It is independent and a safeguard to our democracy.
The ultimate call of a Governer General is to sack a government. This role would be compromised if they were party political, to the point where our democratic system is seriously undermined.

[Astrophe (John)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

The discussion here about having an Australian as Head of State is meaningless without also discussing the political context in which the HOS operates.

The HOS in many Constitutional models is largely a figurehead - as is the Queen in ours. He/she has little or no independent discretion. Rather, they act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. Just changing the identity of the HOS would achieve absolutely nothing. Nothing would change except the letterhead. The same old 2-party conundrum would still drive our political system and its outcomes.

There is absolutely no point in discussing a new HOS unless you also decide to modify the political model. And that is a decision that needs to come first. There is no way of doing that incrementally. You either move into a republican model in which the HOS has real power or you remain with the figurehead model in which the HOS is a ceremonial rather than substantive part of the political process. The catalyst for that kind of change is - more often than not - a post-conflict reinvention rather than some sort of consensual process. So the likelihood of change of that sort seems very, very small.

What that means is the most likely change will be a reworking of the Status Quo with only a change in the name of the HOS rather than the functions and powers. And that would be utterly pointless.


Peter

It's not about simply changing the name of the head of state, it's about changing the reality that as things stand, a foreigner is our HoS. It's about changing that situation....nothing else.....just that.

The history of referenda in Australia, is sad indeed. Very few get passed and to complicate matters by tacking on all sorts of other provisions to any future republic referendum, will ensure its defeat.

[Astrophe (John)]

[QUOTE=AussieTrooper;1293153]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

That is probably the best reason.

At present, the Governer General is a non-political office. It is independent and a safeguard to our democracy.
The ultimate call of a Governer General is to sack a government. This role would be compromised if they were party political, to the point where our democratic system is seriously undermined.

Exactly.....this is the reason a future Australian HoS should be appointed (not elected). This is how the system works at present and it would be desirable for that to continue. That is why I suggested that a future HoS should be appointed (as now) by the PM of the day, but with the small change that he/she would do so, in consultation and in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

I've tried reading a lot of the posts but eventually my eyelids began to droop - and it's only 930am.
We're all in the same boat as far as indigenes are concerned - most UK folks are part of Angle Saxon Hun Gall Roman Greek Sumerian ethnic extraction.
We've all been invaded at some point - at what point do we relax and say what the hell and just get on with it.
Anyone wanting to change the flag must wonder what UK decided to do when it incorporated Wales England and Scotland into the flag.
Anyone wanting Aborigine rights must wonder what the Aborigine meant when they said no one owns the land, we just borrow it and then give it back when we die.
We're selling a lot of it to foreigners as it is - China seems to be in the running for biggest owner.
I just think we should stop messing about and find a way of ensuring our heritage does not become "Tomorrow when the war began" when some foreign power decides they own enough to import their own army to look after their interests.
Revert all land sold to foreign nationals to 100 year leasehold.
We don't need trade deals - we need to get bloody minded and keep our own counsel.
We have sufficient minerals food and energy to be self sufficient.
The flag is nothing more than an icon that we use to denote our national pride - we're mostly Western European or UK expats so let's just keep the thing as it is and get on with being proud of our heritage.
I can't imagine what a **** fight having a president elected might bring, but if USA is any indication, I vote to keep the Governor General

[PhilTas (Phil)]

Well written Jennifer.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by jenchris

I've tried reading a lot of the posts but eventually my eyelids began to droop - and it's only 930am.
We're all in the same boat as far as indigenes are concerned - most UK folks are part of Angle Saxon Hun Gall Roman Greek Sumerian ethnic extraction.
We've all been invaded at some point - at what point do we relax and say what the hell and just get on with it.
Anyone wanting to change the flag must wonder what UK decided to do when it incorporated Wales England and Scotland into the flag.
Anyone wanting Aborigine rights must wonder what the Aborigine meant when they said no one owns the land, we just borrow it and then give it back when we die.
We're selling a lot of it to foreigners as it is - China seems to be in the running for biggest owner.
I just think we should stop messing about and find a way of ensuring our heritage does not become "Tomorrow when the war began" when some foreign power decides they own enough to import their own army to look after their interests.
Revert all land sold to foreign nationals to 100 year leasehold.
We don't need trade deals - we need to get bloody minded and keep our own counsel.
We have sufficient minerals food and energy to be self sufficient.
The flag is nothing more than an icon that we use to denote our national pride - we're mostly Western European or UK expats so let's just keep the thing as it is and get on with being proud of our heritage.
I can't imagine what a **** fight having a president elected might bring, but if USA is any indication, I vote to keep the Governor General

Yes, I agree, and if there was one defining point in history where Australia became Australia, then I'd argue for no change to Australia day, but:

1/ There is no unambiguous defining point
2/ The current arrangement is a significant issue for the Aboriginal community.

As regards the later, Aboriginals can't just "get over it" and that has to be taken in to consideration. They are regarded, by virtually all authorities, to be the first inhabitants of this continent and have maintained probably the longest continuous culture on the planet.

I believe that alone warrants respect and serious consideration of the issue from a First Peoples perspective, if nothing else. European presence here has been a mere blink of an eye in comparison to Aboriginal culture and, whether through ignorance, accident or design, we have buggered up the Aboriginal culture across most of this continent. Maybe we need to make concessions beyond just chucking welfare at the problem.

The problem we have is not going to go away until we deal with it.

[xelasnave]

We could become a kingdom and have a royal family who will be aboriginal and the then king or queen can select a day and a date upon which we celebrate what we have become. That way our royal family will be the oldest in the world and all aboriginals would enjoy a higher self esteem and perhaps forgive the evil deeds of our ancestors.
Alex

[Larryp (Laurie)]

We're selling a lot of it to foreigners as it is - China seems to be in the running for biggest owner.
I just think we should stop messing about and find a way of ensuring our heritage does not become "Tomorrow when the war began" when some foreign power decides they own enough to import their own army to look after their interests.
Revert all land sold to foreign nationals to 100 year leasehold.

At the end of FY2016, land under foreign ownership was 52.1 million hectares, of which 9.4 million hectares, or less than 2o% was freehold, and 43.4 million hectares was leasehold.
The largest landholder was Great Britain, with 52.7%
USA with 14.8%
Netherlands with 5.7%
Singapore with 3.6%, followed by China with 2.8%

Perhaps we should be concerned about a second British invasion

[AndrewJ]

Gday Laurie

Whilst i had heard that the Chinese ownership was small ( but growing rapidly ), what is more concerning is what that 3% is.
10,000 hectares of a Nth Territory station is quite different to 10,000 hectares of prime dairy or vegetable garden, let alone key infrastructure like ports.
It would be intersting to see what the relevant countries have "invested" in by value, not area.
Andrew

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Hi Andrew
I believe more detailed information will become available as new laws come into effect

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Perhaps we should be concerned about a second British invasion

Sounds like a plan to me

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Have U every asked a Kiwi about how NZ settlement started. The ones I asked were quiet unknowing of their history. At least celebrating Australia Day seems have focused people both on Indigenous history and the shared history since 1788.

I would not care if the date were changed. I have probably only twice celebrated the day and when I was a lad, it was not even celebrated on the date. In fact, it was not really celebrated at all. I actually like the idea of Federation Day on New Years Day. Especially since many of the drunken yobos are probably already spent celebrating from the night before.

I rather find some excuse to have a different public holiday during the more pleasant, second half of the year so as to keep the same number of PHs during the year.

Back to NZ. There seems to be no "Big Bang" Event. Just a series of small, private-enterprise whaling settlements, which somehow grew into a colony. If somebody can point me to some NZ history that explains this better; I will be most interested.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by Stonius

The Left

Markus

Define The Left

[PCH (Paul)]

Hi Bob,

There definitely was a 'handing over' deal struck between the Brits and the Maoris. Check out the 'Treaty of Waitangi' - the site of which is preserved beautifully as the location where ownership and control changed hands.

There were a couple of significant differences in the way the handover was negotiated, but I won't spoil it for you. Interesting reading though!

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by PCH

Hi Bob,

There definitely was a 'handing over' deal struck between the Brits and the Maoris. Check out the 'Treaty of Waitangi' - the site of which is preserved beautifully as the location where ownership and control changed hands.

There were a couple of significant differences in the way the handover was negotiated, but I won't spoil it for you. Interesting reading though!

Thanks Paul,

It was an interesting read. Gosh, the colony of NZ was only separated from the colony of New South Wales in 1841.

It really brings home how recent "White" history is on the geological timescale of our lands. And even Indigenous history is a mere speck in cosmological terms ...

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

At the end of FY2016, land under foreign ownership was 52.1 million hectares, of which 9.4 million hectares, or less than 2o% was freehold, and 43.4 million hectares was leasehold.
The largest landholder was Great Britain, with 52.7%
USA with 14.8%
Netherlands with 5.7%
Singapore with 3.6%, followed by China with 2.8%

Perhaps we should be concerned about a second British invasion

The threat of Chinese ownership of rural properties is overblown. It will ebb and flow with crop prices.
The majority of Chinese ownership is in cities. Certainly in my town Melbourne, the most expensive suburbs are becoming increasingly Chinese. Go to an auction in the inner east from Balwyn to Glen Waverley (an expensive part of the city), and you could well be in Singapore. Locals get blown out of the water by what the Chinese are willing to pay.
Likewise, city apartments are largely Chinese now too.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

Have U every asked a Kiwi about how NZ settlement started. The ones I asked were quiet unknowing of their history. At least celebrating Australia Day seems have focused people both on Indigenous history and the shared history since 1788.

NZ is totally different to Australia. NZ has no remaining indigenous population.
The Maori were busy colonising NZ at roughly the same time Columbus showed up in North America. They are just as much migrants to NZ as the British are.
This is nothing like the 40,000 yr history of Australian Aborigines, who were likely this continent's first inhabitants.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

As regards the later, Aboriginals can't just "get over it" and that has to be taken in to consideration. They are regarded, by virtually all authorities, to be the first inhabitants of this continent and have maintained probably the longest continuous culture on the planet.

This has to be (and already has been) acknowledged.
Where we get into serious trouble is where we treat one racial group as different to everyone else. This must never be allowed to happen.
Whilst serious wrongs were done in the past, today is today, and everyone must be treated equal. Anything else is just racism, no matter how you try and camouflage it.