Oops, sorry, I'm misused the terms 'referendum' with 'plebiscite': as Toni Lavis has pointed out on another thread, we need to avoid

" .... confusing plebiscites with referendums. A plebiscite only needs a majority to pass, but it's non-binding. A referendum needs a majority in the majority of states - much harder to achieve - but it is binding. Referendums can only be held on constitutional matters."

So I'm tentatively suggesting that any agreement about 'Recognition' would have to be deliberated first by Indigenous people at a PLEBISCITE - deciding by a simple majority of voters what should be put to the Australian people at a subsequent REFERENDUM, i.e. a change to the Constitution.

Of course this process would have to be funded by the national government, both a 'Yes' case and a 'No' case.

I would respectfully suggest that the elites who have initiated this 'Recognition' issue have a hell of a lot of work to do over the next few years.

Joe

Joe do you recognise that your suggestion is acting as if we have already given just 3% of the population the exclusive right to set the agenda for all.

This is exactly why any thinking person would vote a very large NO to this bit of politicking, if it ever comes to it. This a typically left ploy to start with something that looks harmless, before turning it into something destructive, to use to control & rule all.

I don't know how many will think hard enough to see this for what it is, but expect the Ozzy bulldust detector will be triggered, & will probably consign it to another failure.

//Joe, has anyone suggested a sunset clause for the amendment.//

It dies when you do, Bazz. Or at the very least, it stops effecting you in any way, shape or form. Which is pretty much the same thing.

I don't know if you believe in an afterlife or not, but even if you do I sincerely doubt that you believe it's run according to the Australian Constitution.

Unless you agree with Belinda Carlisle that heaven is a place on earth. But if that's true then the place is clearly the Scottish Highlands, in which case the Constitution of Heaven is British.

//It seems ridiculous that it would still be there in 1000 years time.//

It seems ridiculous that anybody would try to predict the future 1000 years from now.

Hi Bazz,

A sunset clause: perhaps that should be included in any question or questions in a referendum.

Hi Hasbeen,

Any questions so important to Indigenous people would surely have to get their concurrence first, before being put to Australians generally ? That seems to be how their 'leaders' want it anyway.

Hi Toni,

You suggest that the location of Heaven " .... is clearly the Scottish Highlands, in which case the Constitution of Heaven is British."

For the time being .....

Cheers,

Joe

Australian's are and never will be treated equally under the law.
If you are a member of the rich elite.Bill Shorten,Iman Malcolm Turncoat come to mind.
These people are born into a safe and friendly neighbourhood.They have accountants and lawyers willing to advise them from cradle to grave.
They are able to get the best inheritance advise,Tax and legal advise.They are able to join exclusive clubs and organisations both public and secret.
The children who have had to watch their father dragged out of home by the local Police.Then later found out that they were the wrong person.
The children who cannot get a job as they are living in a town with massive unemployment.
The families who struggle to earn enough doing casual work.
These families will never be self funded retirees as they never have any cash left over at the end of the week.
Centrelink will hunt them down if they earn a few dollars on the side. The elite will get an accountant to claim thousands in rebates.
There will never be equality in Australia while the rich get tax breaks such as Superannuation and work related entertainment.
Poor Australians both black and white are discriminated from birth.
They will never get their parents to buy them a home.

Thank you to all contributors to this important discussion. Votes in this straw poll seem to be as follows:

Option 1: Four? votes

Option 2: One vote

Option 3: One vote

Option 4: One vote (for 4 (a), but not for 4 (b))

Option 5: No votes

Option 6: No votes

Option 7: No votes.

Informal: One [or maybe four ?].

Very roughly, it seems that more conservative voters would choose Options 1 and 2, i.e. little or no change; while more progressive voters would choose Options 3 and maybe 4. Options 5, 6 and 7 seem to be well beyond what would be acceptable.

Cheers,

Joe