The Constitution might be seen as a 'living document', and there could be reasons to change it. But this raced-based Voice abomination is not one of them. No particular group of people should be 'recognised' or permitted special treatment via a document that sets the rules for governance of the country.

Continuing discussion on the Voice is a waste of time. If people haven't already made up their minds one way or the other, they are nincompoops without a mind to make up. There is a clear cut choice: you want to see power handed over to an unelected group of people just because of their race - a mere 3% of the population - or you do not.

And, the Opposition's weasel 'recognition' of people for merely being the descendants of the first to occupy the continent (or believed to be so) is pretty damn stupid as well. The Stone Age culture being waffled about has done nothing whatsoever for Australia. And its activists are nothing but a pain in the arse, and a threat to the harmony of what is touted as a 'multicultural country'.

Any change to the Constitution should be desirable, irresistible and inevitable. The Albanese government, the media, and the virtue-signalling corporates have failed to prove that these requirements exist.

Those who have lived closely among Aboriginals, don’t fear them, as do obviously, the political class of the over-pampered, that seek to impose their own fear and personal misgivings of Aboriginals, onto the rest of us through constitutional changes that disadvantage the majority.

The author wrote: "To make it a more perfect Constitution two issues must be resolved: the question of defining our sovereignty and the question of Indigenous recognition."

There are no degrees of perfection. Either something is perfect or it isn't perfect.

The constitution is not carved in stone and ought to change to reflect the will of the majority, as needs be, from time to time.

I say yes to the voice and recognition and reconciliation. With that done the indigenous community will not have superior rights and better welfare than other members of the Australian community at large.

Other changes to the constitution are warranted and that's a bill of irrevocable human rights and true equality before the law!
Alan B.

As an author, what I like about Online Opinion is that it reflects views across the spectrum. At this stage I will offer a brief reply to comments with a longer reply later in the week if it appears warranted.
Little I say to ‘ttbn’ will change his mind. The proportion of people identifying as Indigenous in the last census was closer to 4% and approaching 1 million people. At the Federal level there are 11 indigenous people in the two Federal houses, which amounts to 5%.
I think it is a long shot for ‘diver dan’ to say that people voting considering voting “Yes” are motivated by ‘their own fear and misgivings’. Their hope is that a Yes vote will contribute to improving the situation for a group of Australians who have a far longer history than us later settlers. Whether it will lead to improvement remains to be seen. I think it is the NO voters who are dominated by ‘fears and misgivings’
Thanks ‘david f’ for your clarification. Perhaps what I should have said was they are stages in moving towards a perfect constitution, but realising that such a goal will never be reached.
Obviously I agree with ‘Alan B’ on the Referendum, but I have concerns about ever making human rights fixed in a Constitution. What seems ‘right’ at some time can change later- eg ‘The right to bear arms” as the classic example.
Ian Keese