Okay, thanks, that gets the ball rolling :) So far, we have votes as follows:

Option 1: Two votes

Option 2: One vote

Option 3: One vote

Option 4: One vote

Option 5: No votes

Option 6: No votes

Option 7: No votes.

Informal: One.

Starting to shape up !

Sooner or later, we shall all have to vote in such a Referendum, so it's important to know what we might be asked and for us all to think carefully about our preferences. This process might take another decade, but its implications will set policy for much longer.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm with Hasbeen on this one. I will be voting no. The victimhood status granted by the lefties have already done more damage to the Indigenous people than all others combined.

I will vote no because, if passed, the circus would be administrated by unelected judges of the High Court, who's meddling in politics has already taken the politics out of the hands of the Australian people and lodged it entirely with government. Thanks to High Court interference in politics and their activist, highly fanciful intepretations, our system of Federation has been wrecked, ensuring that more and more decisions and powers are being centralised in Canberrra, totally isolated from the states and the Australian people. The High Court, in fact, has already handed the key of the Constitution to incompetent politicians and their elitist power brokers, beavering away behind the scenes. In the case of Recognise, 88% of Aboriginals see sovereignty as the top issue, no matter what the devious politicions tell us.

Anyone not sure how they will vote would do no better than reading Keith Windschuttle's "The Breakup of Australia: The real agenda behind Aboriginal recognition". The price is a bit steep, but for nothing, you can read a long exerpt on The Quadrant Online, which will give you a fair idea what is going on, and how we are having the wool pulled over our eyes - as usual.

Hi Joe, the reality is no one person can frame the question(s). A very tricky proposition to come up with something of substance, and still achieve bipartisan support, from the moderate sides of politics. Some people have a closed mind and are going to vote no to any proposed change(s), regardless of the question.

Hi Paul,

Yes, that's why it is likely that there would have to be a formal vote amongst Indigenous people first, with a range of options to choose from. [Of course, the range of options may be expanded from my miserable list].

If one option stood out far above any others, then the Australian people could be asked to vote on that proposal. And if, say, there were three or four options with a fair degree of popularity amongst those initial Indigenous voters, then those options could be put up for the Australian people to decide between.

And whichever option was chosen, by a majority of the population in a majority of states, would be the 'winner'.

Of course, some of these options would have to be spelt out well beforehand: for example, if the option of a Treaty was proposed, clearly there would have to be clear understanding of what was IN a treaty, which entities it would be between, how it might be implemented, etc.

Hmmmm ..... a bit of work to be done yet .....

I've been up to Waitangi a couple of times and studied the monument there, with (I think) the Preamble to the Treaty, in Maori and English. My Maori is pretty basic, but the Maori version seemed to differ slightly from the English. It had a very definite purpose, it seems, to surrender sovereignty to the British in return for protection from other tribes - absolutely nothing about land or tenure or surrender of land, by the way.

It's interesting that the great Maori jurist, Hugh Kawharu, wrote two books (well, many really), one on 'Maori Land tenure', and the other on 'The Treaty of Waitangi', and there was little cross-over. Sovereignty, or its surrender, doesn't have to involve land tenure.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, has anyone suggested a sunset clause for the amendment.
It seems ridiculous that it would still be there in 1000 years time.