The proposal to "recognise" the Indigenous in our Constitution surely reeks of racism, defining Australians by race and delivering entitlements based on that.
The logical next step is to have our race listed on official records, our driving licences etc, that would obviously be most efficient in determining our "place" in the grand scheme of things.
If that doesn't begin to resemble Apartheidt then I don't know what does!
If we truly want an equal society then there can be NO place for such discrimination in our Constitution or laws.
The taking of Australia is history, immutable, and at the time was quite conventional, and even gentle compared to many other colonial invasions of that time, it's only TWO HUNDRED YEARS later that we've decided to reinterpret it as some sort of "crime".
To then seek to make some sort of amends for that "crime" is quite simply ludicrous, virtually akin to the Irish suing England, England suing the Italians for the Roman Invasion, see what I mean, where do you draw the line?
History is full of such examples, are we expected to "right the wrongs" of all of that? HOW? WHY?
My paternal ancestors were driven out of Friesland for their religious convictions, so under this mentality I should be allowed to sue the Dutch/German governments for discrimination and suffering, how far do you think I'd get?
Dump this divisive idea, get rid of Indig' Affairs and simply treat one and all as citizens of Australia with equality before the law and the same responsibilities, and NO race-based programs or payments,.
Then, and only then, can we claim true equality exists in Oz.

Hang on Bruce we haven't even heard the question yet, it all depends upon the language used in the proposed amendment.
If the question is framed in such a way as to recognise the contiuning occupation of the land by the Australoid races (plural) and asserts that they share equal rights under the law with the other settler groups then I can't see a problem with it.
Personally I'd rather see a bill of rights added to the constitution explicitly recognising the rights of all ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups.

There must be money in it.

The government itself has no money. It is all taxpayers' money and taken compulsorily from them.

However political parties are never backward in spreading some of those taxpayers' millions around where there is a chance of buying votes.

Government is there to serve the people not the other way around. Where the essentials such as sufficient hospital beds are not being met, or are being pruned back because government says there is not enough money, it is unconscionable and intolerable that any political party or government should be proposing as an 'initiative' something that is very likely to (read as 'will') result in more leaks from that bucket of taxpayers' money.

I am always worried about well meant gestures that have unforeseeable consequences. Recognition might seem innocuous but in the hands of clever lawyers can result in $bns of handouts based on rates. Similarly bills of rights are notorious for being a cash cow.

I'd support a Bill of Rights, but only if it contained NO reference to race or culture, or anything else that set divisions into law.
We as a nation are already suffering from the fruits of multiculturalism and our current government is doing it's level best to divide us even further, do you think this is accidental?
Both the parties see a divided Australia as a GOOD thing, it reduces the chances for any social movement that might reduce their grip on power, it's the old Roman program of "Divide and conquer(rule)", and it has WORKED!
So what is life is more fractious, stressful and unpleasant for the general population, THEY'VE got their exorbitant pensions for life and their gold passes, and THAT is what's important, isn't it?

Gday Bruce>>The taking of Australia is history, immutable, and at the time was quite conventional, and even gentle compared to many other colonial invasions of that time, it's only TWO HUNDRED YEARS later that we've decided to reinterpret it as some sort of "crime".<<

Just to clarify my position....I believe it was an invasion given the existing residents had a tenure that ran into tens of thousands of years and they did not agree to co habitation. .....but nature and history is about change.

Bruce what I find contradictory is the present situation where Caucasians feel threatened (invaded) by the radical Islamists that idiots allowed to emigrate to Australia.

If we feel threatened by Sharia law and the destruction of our society and beliefs today how did the poor Stone Age first Aussies feel when the Caucasians arrive with state of the art technology in their hands...they felt doomed.

I do not believe in any further major recompense for their loss but Aboriginal communities require positive government finical discrimination ongoing, it is good for the economy.