Despite this popular recent movement of Australians thinking we need to formally recognize Indigenous Australians in the constitution, this is only a surface case and issue. Meaning that it is seen to be very obviously one way at first, but when you delve deeper into it, it becomes clear that it is actually quite the opposite. Here are some of the legalities as to why this should not occur. .
The only place the constitution is actually used formally is in Canberra in the High Courts, so a change in this document won't actually be providing direct protection of rights and freedom of discrimination for the indigenous. Things that currently provide protection of culture and equality are laws and acts such as Heritage Acts and the Act of Recognition. With these laws already in play, let me ask you this: what new changes can be made to the constitution that isn't already in effect through other campaigns? They were very successful in changing the lives of many for the better already. We do agree that changes should be made to create more equal living rights among every Australian, not just the indigenous, but any Australian citizen. We feel there are better ways to go about it like a treaty even. And we do agree there are still some unjust living conditions in Australia, but is this really the way to go about it?.
Changing the constitution will only see time and money used and wasted trying to re-word a hundred year old document which won't provide direct changes to the lives of the indigenous. We would be wasting precious tax payers' money that could be spent on improving the lives of indigenous Australians in other, more effective ways, ways that will actually make a difference. This would also be wasting a lot of time of the government and politicians, time that would be taken away from other important issues with less doubt than this one. There are many other referendums that are more worth the time of pursuing that should come way before this idea that will not even make a difference.