You're both probably right. However I have faith in
the system - or authority as mhaze puts it. I feel
that with so many experts advising on both sides -
they will be able to pick and choose, and will
choose the best options. If we don't try this time -
well nothing ventured nothing gained - and we need
to at least try. As I've said earlier - I'm all
for this project and I'm not demanding all the answers
ahead of time. Especially answers that can't yet be given.
And need to be worked out in time.

Thanks Foxy,

You're absolutely correct, referendums are about the wording of the Constitution, as Patrick Dodson said; "The Australian people are being asked to vote on a principle (an amendment to the Constitution) not on detail."

Arguing with some here, is an exercise in futility, they are not looking for anything in this which would be a positive for Aboriginal people. For their whole life they have been totally negative towards the First Australians, why would they suddenly change? This Forum has an over abundance of old racists white Anglo- Saxon male bigots, "crying in their beer" about everything, unfortunately it gives a distorted view on these matter, but its not indicative of the opinions of the wider community, just the opinions of a few grumpy old men.

For their whole life they have been totally negative towards the First Australians,
Paul1405,
I don't think I have met anyone who is negative towards the First Australians however, I know many who simply had a gutful of the nonsense & disharmony that is being pedalled by those hand-me-down pretend indigenous with less than one dot of indigenous DNA.
You're making it harder by the day for decent non-indigenous to muster compassion for those whom you you so embarrass with every claim that you're one of them.

Foxy,

Albozo has just announced that they have no intention of designing the legislation for the voice until after the referendum.

So essentially the referendum gives them a blank slate to put in place whatever they want.

Maybe you trust labor, but I don't.

That's why we vote in governments, we trust them to enact legislation in the interest of the people. Once this Constitutional change is passed by referendum, then its the duty of government to craft the legislation to give purpose to that Constitutional change.

The 1967 referendum, which was overwhelmingly endorsed, gave the Commonwealth sweeping powers, which previously had only been in the hands of the states, to "make laws" pertaining to Aboriginal people. No actual laws were spelt out at the time. The reality was from 67 to 72 the conservative government in Canberra enacted no constrictive laws for the betterment of Aboriginal people, it was a Constitutional change in name only. Then it was the Labor government of Gough Whitlam that made positive moves to try and better the lives of our First Australians. It was not until the High Court decision on Mabo in 1993 that the Keating Labor government passed the 'Native Title Act'.

Hopefully once this Constitutional change is made, there will be bipartisan support for 'Voice' legislation. It will be the job of the government to introduce that legislation, and only then can it be debated and passed or rejected.

Paul,

The difference is that the 1967 referendum gave the government powers to legislate. Any of the new laws could be reversed by following governments as they were not constitutionally enshrined.

If Labor doesn't define what the "voice" will be in the referendum, there is the possibility that future governments can legislate to change the voice to whatever it wants or block labor's version of the voice being written into the constitution.