Indigenous people feel powerless in their own country, as articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The rejection of the Referendum Council's Report has derailed Indigenous constitutional recognition. Treaties at the state and territory level offer a clear path forward for meaningful reform.
The proposal for an Indigenous representative body came late into the constitutional recognition debate.
The government has rejected the Referendum Council's call for a national Indigenous representative assembly to be put into the Constitution.
The Referendum Council’s report is the conclusion of 18 months of consultation and discussion, including six months of regional dialogues with Indigenous people.
Implicit in Malcolm Turnbull’s and Bill Shorten's arguments that an Indigenous 'voice to parliament' would be a big change is the notion that it may be too difficult.
A treaty would be an agreement that is rather like that of host and guest, with rights and responsibilities for each party.
Treaties have to be the foundation for constitutional recognition, not the reverse.
The way ahead for giving Indigenous Australians an appropriate place in the Constitution is problematic.
Lucy Hughes Jones/AAP
At the same time as it’s become clear that Indigenous people won't accept a limited change, the right in Australian politics has become more determined to oppose any amendment.
The statement from the constitutional convention at Uluru reflects long-held Indigenous aspirations.
AAP/Lucy Hughes Jones
Indigenous Australians have issued a statement calling for constitutional reform that is substantive and meaningful.
Indigenous Labor MP Linda Burney says her party is trying to identify and remove structural obstacles to preselection.
Guaranteed representation reduces the distance between policymakers and the people for whom policy is made.
Treaties are formal agreements, reached via respectful negotiation under which both sides accept a series of responsibilities.
No treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has ever been recognised, but developments at the state level suggest this may soon change.
More than 70 years after the Hiroshima bombing, a majority of countries are pushing for a legally-binding treaty against nuclear weapons.
In early December, the nations of the world are poised to take an historic step on nuclear weapons. Yet Australia sticks out like a sore thumb among Asia-Pacific nations in arguing against change.
The format of the ABC program Recognition: Yes or No? is problematic, and the choice of voices particularly so.
The ABC has missed a rare opportunity to deeply engage with the diversity of views among Indigenous Australians about whether and how they should be 'recognised' in the Constitution.
Next week, Australians will look back at one the most significant moments in the struggle for Indigenous rights.
The Referendum Council has extended its timetable for consultations on the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.
The longer the process of recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution goes on, the more debate is likely to split and fracture.
Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Bill Shorten’s remarks on a treaty with Indigenous Australians reflects genuine anxiety that support for recognition is cooling.
If we are to have a mature and sensible debate on Indigenous recognition, we must be more willing to embrace difficult issues and diverse perspectives.
Bill Shorten on Tuesday confirmed that he was open to the idea of a treaty with Australia’s Indigenous people.
Would debate about a treaty with the First Australians endanger the success of the proposed referendum for their constitutional recognition – as Malcolm Turnbull claims? Very likely. But it can’t be avoided…