Cossomby,

OK. Please explain to me how recognition in the Constitution would right wrongs from 200, 50, or 20 years ago. When little has changed after billions of dollars have been spent, how will recognition help a single Aboriginal Australian who is not already helping himself or herself now, just the same as the rest of us? What do you expect to happen if special conditions are created for 3% of the population, which already gets more money and assistance than 97% of the population? Do you know that Zimbawe and Chile recognise their original people? And look how kind and caring they are, compared with democratic Australia without recognition. There is a lot to think about on this question before the elites come up with questions that could change a Constitution owned by 100% of the population, which includes those identifying as Aboriginal.

The constitution is the rule book for government and is forever.
Aboriginality was for 1 or 2 hundred years ago and perhaps for the
next 2 hundred years. After that there maybe no aboriginals.
Their DNA will still be around but like the celtic DNA it will be
fading out. Likewise, our African DNA has faded to low levels.
We all, have some Neanderthal DNA but it is almost gone.

So what is the point of aborigines expecting special rights, grants etc etc.
It makes the sovereignty claim to be total nonsense.

The law says to be "Aboriginal" you need other "Aboriginals" to back up your claim. So where are we? Who is is going to be classed as "Aboriginal" and how? This is such silly nonsense I do not know how serious adults can bother discussing it.
As for all the Billions wasted the professional aboriginal classes should hang their heads in shame and we should be discussing the phasing out of the racist "Aboriginal" and Torres Stait Islander" terms in Australia.
No one will suggest the use of DNA to prove these race claims that would be far too difficult lol.

Ttbn: I was commenting on your statement
"There is no denying there were injustices done to indigenous people ... but that was over two centuries ago. ...no person now living has anything to apologise for..."

Pointing out that injustices were done to Aboriginal people much more recently. Not only are many Aboriginal people who suffered injustices in the 20th century still alive, but so are some of the perpetrators. So I disagree about no living person having anything to apologise for.

Re: 'little has changed after billions of dollars have been spent' - well there's an assumption that all that money went to Aborigines. It didn't - most went to non-Aboriginal businesses/agencies were contracted by government to do things that politicians thought up. There's a parallel with the pink batts saga: thought up by politicians, administered by public service, carried out by businesses who jacked the prices up because it was government money, or invented themselves or expanded to do so, using untrained staff, with fatal consequences. In the pink batts affair, the blame was correctly put on government/public service for the way the scheme was set up and mismanaged. The householders got the pink batts were, correctly, not blamed. They hadn't requested them; if they had been asked they would have had much more important needs. Aborigines are in the same position, they get a lot of stuff imposed on them but then they tend to get the blame when money is wasted and things don't work.

Those billions of dollars identified as spent on Aborigines were in fact a giant windfall benefit to the non-Aboriginal business economy.
(Cont.)

(Cont.)
Q. How will recognition help a single Aboriginal Australian who is not already helping himself or herself now, just the same as the rest of us?
A. It will give a feeling of self-worth to many so that they can also help themselves. A lot of the depression and self-harm is because many Aboriginal people have internalised the negativity they hear about being Aboriginal.

Q. What do you expect to happen if special conditions are created for 3% of the population, which already gets more money and assistance than 97% of the population?
A. See previous comment, they don't get more money and assistance; most of the money for Aboriginal projects goes to non-Aborigines; some special funds eg education grants are designed to save money later by getting people educated and into jobs. Recognition in the constitution is just that, if does not mean 'special conditions'. We could add to the constitution preamble recognition of the men and women who served in the defence forces, but that would not automatically mean they'd get any 'special conditions'.

Q. Do you know that Zimbawe and Chile recognise their original people? And look how kind and caring they are, compared with democratic Australia without recognition.
A. Just because other countries stuff something up doesn't mean that we should not do it. Are you suggesting that if we formally recognised Aboriginal people, we would suddenly behave like Zimbabwe and Chile? Do we say: Outer Fandangistan has heritage laws and still lets heritage buildings be knocked down! So Australia shouldn't have heritage laws! I use that example because we generally do a good job in this area - see quick action over illegal demolition of Melbourne hotel.

I agree there is a lot to think about on this question. But it would be good if the debate could avoid red herrings, unbased fears and inaccuracies.

Finally, re the current "Constitution owned by 100% of the population, which includes those identifying as Aboriginal". I think the issue is that those identifying as Aboriginal actually don't think they 'own' it or that it incudes them.

A few words in the Constitution will not make Aborigines feel any better, or be of any more practical use to them than 'Sorry. The only thing that can make any people, black or white, feel good about themselves is self-respect, brought about by working, paying their own way, providing for their families, and being part of the greater community. Many thousands of Aboriginal-Australians are achieving these things as well as any of us. It is only a few people who have VOLUNTARILY isolated themselves from the mainstream who naturally feel that they they are not part of Australia, which, is what they are - and it is their own doing. Most of them wouldn't know what a constitution was.

Where did you get the idea that Aboriginal money went to non-Aboriginals. Are you claiming massive corruption? If you really expect anyone to believe what you say you will have have to provide evidence. You need to do much more reading on the subject. Your failure to understand my reference to Zimbabwe and Chile indicates that you have a lot to learn.