How much is Australia worth ? At today’s value, it is worth approximately 1,000 times more that the A$33 billion current annual expenditure on Aboriginal affairs.
Banjo Paterson,
Any figures/estimates what it's worth was in 1788 ?

Dear Joe,

There are people who contend that the "Äboriginal political
class" seeks constitutional recognition because it will
ultimately lead to their sovereignty. And by that they
mean "sovereignty" in the separatist sense. This is
simply spreading fear. And is not true.

The fact is those advocates who may have a separatist agenda
are in the minority, and they don't support constitutional
recognition.

Indigenous activists who desire separate state sovereignty
do not support constitutional recognition because of its
inclusive nature.

To genuine separatists, constitutional recognition is
problematically integrationist. That's why seven dissenting
sovereignty campaigners walked out of Uluru. Only seven.

The convention was heading in too pragmatic and inclusive
a direction for their separatist aims.

Constitutional conservatives support the proposal
for a First Nations voice precisely because it respects
parliamentary and Crown sovereignty and upholds
the Constitution.

Whereas the seven dissenters preferred a separatist
understanding of surviving Indigenous sovereignty, the
Uluru majority consensus however, adopted an inclusive understanding.
The Uluru Statement talks about First Nations sovereignty
as a " spiritual notion."

" The ancestral tie between the land, or "mother nature,"
and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born
therefrom, remain attached thereto,
and must one day return thither to be united
with our ancestors. This link is the
basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty.
It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with
the sovereignty of the Crown."

This understanding of First Nations sovereignty is cultural
and spiritual.

It coexists peacefully with the sovereignty of Australian
government and the Crown.

At Uluru the delegates adopted an inclusive approach. They
called for a First Nations voice within the Constitution to
enable their ancient, surviving, spiritual sovereignty to
as stated earlier - better "shine through"in Australia's
constitutional arrangements.

The First Nations have asked for the Constitution to be amended
to compel the parliament to hear Indigenous views before making
decisions about Indigenous rights and interests

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

Such a reform would align with international best
practice in the pursuit of self-determination for
first peoples, helping to fulfil Australia's
obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples and other human rights
instruments.

It would be a constitutional innovation that is in
keeping with the culture of Australia's Constitution.

It would be a reform of which Australia would be proud,
knowing that, given the wrongdoing of the past, pausing
to hear First Nations' voices before making decisions
about them is the least that can be done.

Rachel Perkins captured the essence of what constitutional
recognition means for all Australians in her speech at
the first RECOGNISE gala dinner in 2014.

In her speech, she reflected on the story of her father,
Charlie, and the journey of the Freedom Riders. Rachel
argued that constitutional recognition was not about
white Australia recognising black Australia, but also
black Australia recognising white Australia, and creating
a shared future.

In her speech she said: "It is for you to share, and
acknowledging us in the Constitution will acknowledge
that as part of your heritage too. It's a two-way
mirror, we acknowledge you, you acknowledge us, we become
one. As we say in Arrernte country, onle land, one mob."

The simplicity of this message speaks of unity, not division.

It speaks to a yearning for unity that looks beyond the
division of contemporary identity politics to a mutual
recognition of common humanity and a shared future of
equal investment in our country.

It also speaks to finality and the idea that the journey
of reconciliation can end with "oneness."

Foxy,

There was an Aboriginal voice set up that collapsed due to corruption and incompetence. Why should we want a constitutionally mandated one?

Thank you BP for what is a truthful potted account of what has transpired since the British (Captain Cook) declared sovereignty over the Great South land, 22nd August 1770, all in the name of king and country. It was a convenient mistake by the British to declare the land "terra nullius" and therefore ripe for occupation.

Joe, as for sovereignty, it does not necessarily have to lead to separatism for the Indigenous population. That is something that has no popular support within the community. I would agree with Foxy, that assertion on your part is erroneous. Much of the opposition to recognition is based on fear, and the separatism argument plays on those fears.

Now Joe, what is your bottom line on this subject, is it do nothing, or is it do something? if it is to be recognition, what form should that recognition take?

Foxy, the 1967 referendum had nothing to do with voting rights. Many aboriginal people had those rights for decades before then. In S.A.aboriginal women were the second women in the world to get the vote, behind New Zealand.
As for aboriginal people having a say on issues that involve them, what issues would those be, that don’t also involve non indigenous people? The only single area that pertains to indigenous people only is land rights and those are already covered in state laws after decades of consultation with indigenous land councils.
I’m trying to imagine what on earth could relate to one group only, apart from that one issue. Unless you are advocating separate laws for indigenous people, separate responsibilities for indigenous people, separate rights for indigenous people?
Racial discrimination is illegal in this country so are you suggesting we get rid of those laws as well?
And you still havent answered my question about separating family members by race. How would it make sense for husband and wife to live by different rules? Cousins? Because first cousins can belong to different races so special rules would divide them by race. And yes it is about race. Indigenous people are a different race to others. Different anatomy, different DNA, different appearance. All the semantics in the world won’t change that.