Talk:First Nations Australian traditional custodianship

recognition in the Constitution preamble
I think this current sentence needs expansion:

as it is misleading and/or missing important information: Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the
 * The Referendum Council received submissions in 2017 for recognition in the preamble, but according to the cited reference (with my emphasis here)
 * The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum


 * Hiya Mitch and thanks for your edits on this article, really appreciate it!! I agree that sentence is over-simplifying things. I was focusing more on mentions of the phrase "custodian" and similar terms rather than the broader historical-political context, as in pages 154-56 of that report on "A STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FIRST PEOPLES OF AUSTRALIA" under Appendix K: URBIS Analysis of Submissions Received. Would the following edit address this?:
 * Neegzistuoja (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your new sentence is good; it covers the last two of my bullet points - but not the first. Although not using the words "custodian" or "guardian", the 1999 proposal did explicitly acknowledge the first peoples in the preamble, so I think it rates a mention here, even if it's only a footnote, eg:


 * Mitch Ames (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)