And, statement of bias, might have posted this before, my first wife shot through with a Liberal politician, so might be a bit biased.

"And the affect of an indigenous voice to parliament on private land holdings? This is shit simple, and not hidden and has been put out there: none. This was settled in the original high court decision on native title. Granting of freehold title extinguishes native title. No exceptions. Done, dusted decided years ago by the highest court in the land".

Can you point out to me where this judgement is reinforced in the constitutional change proposal?

It may have been refuted previously, but this is a whole new proposal that we have not been educated on. The high court will be ineffective against a passed constitutional change after it has been ratified. If it was legislated, appeals to the high court can legally sort out disputes.

If there is no detail regarding the constitutions change before the vote, there can be no vote. Nothing less than full disclosure of change will change my mind. It's the "So on and so forth" that is of concern.

Hoody, you're right  there isn't anything in the proposed amendment that reinforces that it doesn't affect freehold title. That's because they don't include what it doesn't do, only what it does. When the tried to get rid of the communist party in the 1951 referendum, they said that it was a change to abolish the communist party, without going on to say that it didn't affect the Navigation act of 1920 or the Commonwealth's ability to make laws about lighthouses, or any of the other stuff it didn't affect.

The current proposed change is carefully worded but pretty plain, to set up an indigenous voice to advise parliament. If the referendum is passed  they are limited by the constitution to doing just that, what people have voted on.

The constitution only protects freehold title indirectly, by mentioning in article 51 (I think, it's been a while) that the commonwealth can only compulsorily acquire title if they offer just compensation. The real protection comes from English common law.

The idea that native title could affect freehold was never refuted, it was contained it the High court decision in Mabo vs Qld #2 1993. Before that native title wasn't even a concept, the court decision that recognised it existed said that it existed only for crown land. There were some differing opinions about if it affected commonwealth leased land, but absolutely no thought that it applied to freehold land. The commonwealth then had to put the concept of native title into legislation, which they did the following year, again without letting it affect freehold title.

So there is absolutely no way that setting up an indigenous voice to advise parliament threatens freehold title. The Solicitor Generals legal opinion on this is freely available online.

Now we all know that politicians can do dumbarse things even without listening to any advice, but if they want your freehold land the have to offer just compensation, the constitution tells them so. If they want to change that, they would have to hold a referendum to amend article 51, and be open about that in the vote for the amendment. How well do you think that would go?

Sorry to make it so long, sometimes it takes a while to go through stuff simply.

"Now we all know that politicians can do dumbarse things even without listening to any advice, but if they want your freehold land the have to offer just compensation, the constitution tells them so."

The government do not have to take ownership of land to take control of it.

Look at the Indigenous Cultural Heritage legislation that the WA govt introduced at the beginning of July. It was repealed a bit more than a month later because of the outcry of landowners.

It was obviously going to affect the 'Yes' vote, so they pulled the plug on it.

A 'Yes' vote, and the ensuing advice to parliament would see a lot more of this type of legislation.

I read the booklet tonight and went back again as I was concidering some differant senarios and kept coming back to the same thing, I can not vote for this, there is no "ONE" in equality with this proposal.

straight up the, "recognition" they were the first nation people, when was that ever disputed?

65000 years of history, how does this number even get concidered, the Egyptions, Greeks, Chinese, Roman, Incans, Sumarians and on rarely can go back 6000 years,

Ensure they have improvement in Life expectancy, infant mortality and health, Education and Employment

are these not the same for all people?

I just cant be bothered typing no more, I am getting riled up, you guys can read it yourself

100% for equality it will be a HUGE NO from me

Sticking to facts will keep the discussion on track, emotion always provides an escalation to both party's.

The voice to parliament has already been described as  encompassing more than the direct issues that effect aboriginals only.

That said, Mr Albanese has previously said "it would be a brave government that ignored advice from the advisory body". So, from that, just how far will the influence of this constitutionally elected body go?

That in a nutshell for me needs far more explanation of a proposal that will be formulated after a yes vote is passed, before, not after.

The listed outlines are purely that, outlines, not the defined working model that will result.

What i need is the proposal in its entirety [that will not be amended after a vote] to be readily available and clearly explained to all voting Australians. If a person chooses to vote without this information they can only remonstrate with themselves if events transpire against their belief.

I have been voting long enough to see well meaning politicians of both stripe create competent policy that in the fullness of time ended up somewhere they never thought it could get to. This aberration caused by others interpretation of malleable wording.

It's the "So on and so forth" document rider that concerns me.

Received my referendum mail out,[and as expected very emotional and feel good for one cause, negative for the other] there seems to be some pages missing. It's the ones that lay out the actual wording of the changes to the constitution in their entirity without amendment.

Can someone forward them to me so i am fully informed?