Ttbn--There are several theories on the matter and it cannot be taken as fact that Aborigines were the first Australians. They may have evolved here, they may have moved to an uninhabited continent or they may have invaded.

As I understand it the central issue in the
Constitutional recognition debate is about
recognising that there were people in
Australia when Europeans arrived to colonise it.

There is no doubt that the Australian Aborigines were
in Australia when the Europeans arrived.

Whether there were people in Australia before them
seems irrelevant to the recognition of Aboriginal
people in the Constitution. BTW - Google this subject
on the web and you'll see that - "it is true that
there has been, historically a small number of claims
that there were people in Australia before the
Australian Aborigines but these claims have all been
refuted and are no longer debated. The overwhelming weight
of evidence supports the idea that Aboriginal people
were the first Australians."

If we are going to have recognition of Aboriginal people being here at settlement then why not have recognition of the British second and Whoever third. It seems senseless unless of course you are continuing to divide people by race.

Dear runner,

Perhaps the following website may explain:

http://www.recognise.org.au/why/why-recognition/

cont'd ...

The following may also help towards understanding:

http://www.theconversation.com/explainer-what-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-means-31770

A nice feeling to know everything without any doubts. It happens in teen-age years.
." They never felt sovereignty for the land; "
Would you perhaps happen to know the meaning of "Ngurunderi . Ngarindjeri. Barkindji. Nganyawana. Kati Thanda. "?
Would it matter if you did?