We are heading for Constitutional division

and no it won't be "Constitutional Recognition".
There are plans afoot to work towards a referendum in this term of federal parliament. The purpose of that referendum would be to insert something into the constitution which recognises indigenous inhabitants of this as the first inhabitants, those here before white settlement and to give them a "voice" in parliament.
This is going to be a divisive debate. It is also an unnecessary one. 
Let me start by saying that referenda to change the constitution are notoriously hard to pass. You need a majority of people and a majority of states overall in order for something to pass. Something like this might well get through - because a majority will not want to be considered "racist".  That's not a good basis on which to vote for something or against something. A decision needs to be made on the basis that this is the right thing to do for other reasons.
One of the arguments being used for "constitutional recognition" is that our indigenous people do not have a "voice" in parliament. That's nonsense. There are four members of federal parliament who identify as aboriginal. At the last election I was rather hoping that there might be one more but she was knocked out by someone who has been there far too many years. I hope she tries again next time. She speaks a lot of common sense.
But a lot is now being made of the "Uluru Statement from the heart" - the idea that came out of the indigenous "conference" held in the centre of the country, the one which said that indigenous people do not have a voice and that we need what could end up being a third chamber of parliament if it is not handled well.  We don't need that.
Despite claims to the contrary indigenous residents of this country do have a voice. They have many voices. They not only have the right to vote they have the right to put people up for election to parliament. We have indigenous members in state parliaments. 
As a child I remember meeting the late Neville Bonner. He was a Senator in our federal parliament. My paternal great-grandmother had known him through indigenous people she knew, liked and often helped. The Senator also knew my paternal grandfather of course and he knew my late friend R.... He was held up as an example to R... 's children and to me. You get where you are going by your own efforts, not those of other people, was his attitude.  I think it is fair to say he would not have been happy with the present turn of events.  
There are all sorts of councils, committees, working parties, consultative groups and so on - all for indigenous members of the community. They get more legal aid in court - and yes they are over represented in the crime statistics but as R....'s son points out to young offenders, "That's because of the decisions you made, not the decisions which were made for you."
R...'s son and I have discussed the issue of constitutional recognition at length and he is of the opinion that it will do nothing to help and may even harm. I know it is something he has thought long and hard about. He has asked me constitutional legal questions for which I don't have the answers - for which I doubt actual constitutional lawyers would have the answers.
It sounds so simple - just give indigenous people recognition in the constitution. What will that do? 
The answer is that it may create problems. It won't solve problems. 
At the start of each meeting of a group I go to we "acknowledge" that we are meeting on the land of a particular group. R....'s son disapproves strongly of us doing that. It was started when one person, no longer a member, was President. It is a statement which is losing any meaning - if it ever had any. Constitutional recognition may well have the same sort of effect. R...'s son would prefer it was reserved for special occasions, meaningful and related occasions. 
We need to start thinking - or we could do more harm than good.