Foxy,

Our Indigenous people are recognized in the Constitution, they are recognized as Citizens of Australia, just like the rest of us; Australians without any special creed, or colour or politics.

Dear Is Mise,

Sorry, I cannot help you: you are beyond help.

Australian citizenship isn't worth the paper it is written on. Australia has a Chinese future and if you think I'm wrong about that then take a trip to Sydney and have a look for yourself.

Is Mise,

The following link may clarify things for you:

http://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Recognising-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-people-in-the-Australian-Constitution.pdf

"As I record in The Break-up of Australia, this is a political outcome advocated not just by the far Left but by self-declared conservative activists such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine. They want self-government and an independent legal system for each self-identifying Aboriginal clan." (Keith Windschuttle)

Keith Windschuttle imagines conspiracy where there
is none. He contend the "Aboriginal political class"
seeks constitutional recognition because it will
ultimately lead to their sovereignty. Windschuttle means
"sovereignty" in the separatist sense, and he claims this
is their secret agenda.

There is no secret separatist sovereignty agenda. This is
Windschuttle's attempt to whip up irrational fear.

There is a public separatist agenda, but those advocates
are in the minority and they don't support constitutional
recognition. Most Indigenous activists who desire separate
state sovereignty tend not to 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. The convention was heading in too pragmatic
and inclusive a direction for their separatist aims.

This nuance is lost on Windschuttle, however, who tries to
assert that formal Indigenous inclusion in Australia's
Constitution somehow equals Indigenous exclusion and
separatism.

But the leap from constitutional inclusion to constitutional
separatism, and separate Indigenous sovereignty, is
unpersuasive.

Windschuttle is also unclear about what "sovereignty"
entails.

Equally imp;ausible is the idea that separate Indigenous
sovereignty might be established through a legal loophole
or unintended consequences arising out of an amendment to
the Constitution (an amendment that will need to be
approved by a double majority of Australian voters, not
to mention the majority of politicians and their legal
experts). The suggestion that the sovereignty of the
Commonwealth of Australia could be impinged upon or divided
by anything less than military force is fanciful.

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

Windschuttle's objections are totally out of touch.

In an article not directly related to the Voice nonsense, aboriginal 'backgounded' man, Anthony Dillon, points out that aboriginal-heritage people "have levels of violence, child abuse, and foetal alcohol syndrome far above average", but the "professional blacktivists", squealing about racism and the Voice, are not interested in talking about that in their push for self-determination. Probably because what they want would make no difference to those real problems. They don't want to talk about the fact that aboriginals are hurting other aboriginals at "alarming" rates, either. No. It's all ranting about racism, history, and white Australia as the cause of these problems. Colonisation and the government are blamed for every problem facing aborigines.

Apartheid and special parliamentary conditions would not have any effect on the very real problems this particular minority is suffering.