The difference between Aboriginal constitutional recognition and a treaty

There's a big difference between constitutional recognition and a treaty – one is symbolic and one has tangible outcomes.

The Australian Human's Right Commission says recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a preamble "is largely symbolic" – but believes that does not diminish its importance in any way.

The government has indicated it will pursue constitutional recognition and has established a council to oversee a referendum on the issue, as it would involve changing the constitution.

Shaun Allan, a member of the local indigenous community, said constitutional recognition would not acknowledge the Aboriginal way of life and culture was interrupted.

"We had our own health system, education system and law system prior to settlement," Mr Allan said.

"A big sticking point for many is they see becoming part of the constitution as conceding sovereignty to Australia as a nation. As a group of people, we've never conceded sovereignty to Australia.

“For me, a treaty recognises we had existed here for a long time and we lived quite well.

“It's is an opportunity to reflect on that and create some real benefit, rather than just a token gesture.”

Many commentators have said it’s possible to have both constitutional recognition and a treaty.

But there is a fear within the indigenous community a treaty will not be pursued should constitutional recognition be achieved – a "near enough is good enough” attitude.

Tamworth Aboriginal man Marc Sutherland said at first glance, constitutional recognition "seems like a no-brainer".

But a treaty would provide a “real tangible outcomes” and “a level of self-determination”. 

Mr Sutherland said the government and community needs to ask indigenous communities what they want.

“These conversations are had and the majority of Aboriginal people are left out,” Mr Sutherland said.