Any proposal in the Uluru Statement which affects the Constitution affects all Australians, and so should have input from 'all Australians' as well. Treaty, for example: since it's our treaty too, between 'us' and our Indigenous fellow-citizens, don't all Australians have some right to have input ? The right to ask what should be in one (or many) ?

Of course, there is the difficulty of proposing a Treaty between all Australians, represented by their federal government, and a SECTION of the Australian people. How can a people be represented on both sides ? But for all that, if it's OUR treaty too, then what do Australians should be in it (or them) ?

A Truth and Reconciliation process would be very welcome, and wouldn't need any Constitutional change, only relatively easy legislation. Hopefully, then, the truth of Indigenous policy throughout our history could be analysed: supposed massacre sites could be investigated; cases of 'Stolen Generation' children could be examined and recommended for determination by courts; evidence of people being driven off land and of being herded onto Missions, could be presented if and when they occurred.

But in relation to a Treaty - or as Warren Mundine has indicated, treaties with each of the Indigenous 'nations' - such a document (or documents) should not be yet another illusory Magic Bullet, ultimately betraying the hopes of its proposers. Of course, to have any teeth, it has to have something in it: a Treaty is an agreement, as South Australian Minister Kayam Maher, himself of Indigenous descent, has pointed out. So a Treaty has to contain more than what is already 'agreed' in relation to Indigenous Australians by current legislation in terms of equal rights and opportunities.

So what do people think should be in OUR Treaty ? Can I propose a succinct, one-clause statement:

* That the equal rights of all people in Australia are hereby reaffirmed.

Aborigines are Australians. It is my understanding that a country cannot make a treaty with itself.

Dear Joe,

Australia is the only Commonwealth country that does
not have a treaty with its Indigenous People. Canada,
the United States, and New Zealand all do. Professor
George Williams, Dean of Law at the University of
New South Wales writes that "It should go without
saying that the starting point should be to ask
Aboriginal people how they would like to be
recognised in the Constitution."

He tells us that "Australia is already in the midst of
a state treaty debate. This must be reflected at the
national level. However, a treaty should not be seen
as an alternative to constitutional recognition.
No treaty can fix the problems with Australia's
Constitution."

"Whether Australia enters into treaties, the document
(Constitution) must be amended to remove clauses that
permit racial discrimination. It also needs to speak
of the full history of this continent, and not only of
British settlement from 1788."

"Over the course of generations Indigenous people have
been denied the vote, had their children removed, been
prevented from marrying, told where they could live,
and had their wages confiscated..."

The following links explains further:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-needs-a-treaty-and-constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-people-20160805-ggm0xp.html

And -

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/articles/2017/05/30/indigenous-australians-call-politicians-have-difficult-conversation?cx_navSource=related-side-cx#cxrecs_s

ttbn,

Treaties can exist between the indigenous peoples of a land and the colonisers. The US, Canada, and New Zealand all have one with their indigenous people. Australia is an outlier in this respect.

Please accept my apologies I'm having a problem
with the cited links. I shall try again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/30/indigenous-australians-call-politicians-have-difficult-conversation?cx_navSource+related-side-cx#cxrecs_s

cont'd ...

Here is the other one:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-needs-a-treaty-and-constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-people-20160805-ggm0xp.html