There are quite a number of people who claim indigenous status but haven't a single drop of indigenous blood. Complexion does not qualify for indigenous heritage.
I found the real indigenous quite decent folk when their lives weren't manipulated by academic & bureaucratic self-interest hypocrites.

Indyvidual wrote: There are quite a number of people who claim indigenous status but haven't a single drop of indigenous blood.

How do you know that?

The numbers of "indigenous" persons has  increased from 115,953 in 1971, 0.9%  of the population to 812,728 in 2021, 3.2% of the population.  This reflects the  very loose definition of indigenous.

A test for aboriginality is well overdue. There is too much temptation via money and perks, which encourages dishonest people to make false claims. Even people with one black parent and one white parent are pushing it by identifying as aboriginal.

david f,
personal experience from living in communities for a very long time. People will tell who is who & related to whom. All it takes is a little axe to grind & the facts come out !
Of course, many of such people will argue that their grandfather had a near white child with an indigenous woman & Bingo, they're indigenous.
People of Asian, Indian & even southern European heritage have become indigenous over time.
There were literally thousands of ledgers in the libraries of each State but since indigenous or rather people who claim to be indigenous have been given the keys it's becoming increasingly difficult to obtain such information.

As usual, TTBN speaks with a great deal of common sense, being the pragmatist that he is. I've been following his opinions and views for some time, and his unwavering approach too many issues are essentially pragmatic. And the solutions, highly practical. I'd imagine, he might annoy some folk with his unerring wisdom and feasibility. I applaud it myself!

And INDYVIDUAL, my friend - From my training many years ago - It's my understanding, if an individual in custody *claims to be aboriginal, AND is **accepted by other aboriginals to be one of them, therefore the law recognises that person as being indigenous, irrespective of his features, and the colour of his skin. That may've changed by now? But as far as police are concerned, they have far more rights and protections than an other ordinary citizen in custody.

DAVID F... What INDYVIDUAL has stated herein is quite correct DAVID F. Many individuals claim aboriginality, knowing there are far more benefits and protections are afford them, than any other ethnicity, while in police custody.

COSSOMBY...While I accept you statement; apropos the sub-standard(s) and inadequate size of some of these new indigenous housing developments, wilful destruction of them is not on, and a serious criminal offence.

As a relieving sergeant in the bush, I've attended many of these newly erected dwellings, and found camp fires set in the middle of a lounge rooms, on bare floor boards, almost catching fire to the entire dwelling, while the indigenous occupants camp outside in the back yards. Dog excreta all over the interior, together with mouldy food scraps and other detritus thrown about with casual abandon.

I've always harboured a soft spot for our original people. Nonetheless, wilful damage to public property is just not on, irrespective of the reasons why.

An Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament" is a fair and reasonable preposition. It will only be successful with bipartisan support, so any proposal is going to have to have general agreement to be accepted. There are those who will oppose change as they have always done, no matter what is proposed.