Why is an autonomous state (a grander version of the outstation idea) within the bounds of the Australian constitution not considered?[1] Allot a certain percentage of the federal budget to the state for the next 50/100 years and let them manage their affairs (including internal conflicts)?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outstation_(Aboriginal_communi...

Willingly moving into apartheid is a terrible idea.

> apartheid

It is autonomy, not apartheid. There are many ethnic/religious communities around the world who have fought for autonomy to varying degrees of success.

Nobody is asking for that, and nobody thinks that kind of thing would solve the problems in indigenous communities, or that it would be desirable. Indigenous people want to be able to participate in mainstream Australian life, but feel adequately represented and heard by the political system and broader society.

Also it's been done before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_reserve

I don't understand how autonomy and apartheid are anything other than positive and negative spin on the same concept.

To use a marriage analogy, autonomy (bounded) is consensual separation where the injured party has initiative and control over their actions. Apartheid would be the husband restricting the wife to a certain area of the house and beating her everyday.

Autonomy is the best way to preserve culture. A tiny minority living among people who do not share their values will eventually lose any connection to their past due to assimilation unless they adopt extreme orthodoxy like the Amish/Mennonites/Haredim (who too have to form ghettos to achieve their goals).

This isn’t a good description of the proposed changes at all. Here is the entirety of the change:

— In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; 3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. —

To summarise, it’s an advisory body that can make non-binding representations to government on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is also exclusively a federal government body. On top of this, that same federal government controls everything about this advisory body (composition, functions, powers and procedures).

Curious why you don’t think the analogy is correct? I agree with your summary and don’t see how it differs from what I wrote?