This has become ridiculous !
The whole idea falls in a heap if you do not define;
"What is an aborigine or Torres Strait Islander ?"
The intention of the voice is to enable compensation and/or the
endowment of rights in one form or another on the 2nd people.
The 1st people have barely survived but some I believe still reside
in Tasmania.
However be that as it maybe, the ATSI will demand something.
Should a person with 1/16th be awarded 100% compensation or 1/16th ?
Should the rent payable be 0% or 15/16th% payable.
However this is all decided these tick-a-boxers will cause real
argument between the 2nd people and the 3rd and 4th peoples.

It does not matter in the least whether the statement is one page or
26 pages, we all know what is the intent .
You would have to be under the blankets not to know.

Thank you for reminding me.
When I was at school, we were taught that the original inhabitants were likely what we know as the Tasmanian aboriginal.
Then another 'tribe' followed, and dispossessed them.
So the very original 'tribe' travelled south, and 'tasmania' was about as far as they could go.
The newcomers spread out and occupied the rest of the land for a longish time.
Eventually, the sea level rose, and 'tasmania' was isolated.
I wonder if the present 'mob' are willing to give it all back to the few remaining Tasmanian aboriginals?
After all, their ancestors took it from them by force.
And the Tasmanian 'mob' should have it back now?
Oh, I forgot.
They don't own it, so won't be able to give it back.
It belongs to a rather large and well organised group now.
There is no intent to be defamatory in anything I have written.
I have tried to use words I was taught at school, or those heard regularly when this subject is discussed.

Dear Indyvidual,

«the multicultural people who have migrated from different parts of the world to Australia are in favour of this referendum and intend to vote 'YES'.»

Please do not include myself.

It is hard not to consider a racial element at play.
Steeleredux,
Sounds fair enough but is it ? These vast properties have & are & will contribute to the relative cosy lifestyle of this Nation by the products harvested with input & effort. Do the indigenous or traditional land owners contribute ? Yes, there are a number of indigenous enterprises registered for entitlement of negative gearing & subsidies etc etc but do we have information on such enterprises actually being vital or just token ? I'm asking because the Qld Labor Govt has poured a lot & I mean a lot of our Tax Dollars in property buy-back of working enterprises which now seem to be idle. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong. Have the buy-backs created an economic viability in the way that subsidising has eased ?
I'd love to hear that these buy-backs are more than simply 'giving back land' !