Readers of Flat White will have noted John Stone’s preview of a forum held at Parliament House on Wednesday.

The purpose of the event was to discuss proposals contained in a book, ‘The Forgotten People’ which is designed to allay the concerns of constitutional conservatives on the question of indigenous recognition.

As someone who proudly wears the label, I went along to see if my own concerns could be addressed.

Like Mr Stone, I too have enormous respect for several of the panellists involved, and have no reason to question either the sincerity of their intentions. Nor can I take issue with the quality of the book that they (together with others) have produced.

The arguments and propositions contained therein are thorough, tightly researched and certainly challenge assumptions, even if not all of them are ultimately persuasive.

In fact, perhaps the most surprising evolution in the entire debate about constitutional recognition is that the more considered and detailed proposals have emerged from the conservative side of the political divide.

Meanwhile, those being paid by taxpayers to advance the proposition are ambling around the country, unable to tell Australians precisely what they seek, or how they plan to get there.

This is the reason that, in the end, Wednesday’s forum did not assuage the concerns of this constitutional conservative.

Because to my mind, the one thing the panel discussion reinforced was that even with the best will in the world, it will be virtually impossible to come up with a proposal that can simultaneously placate conservatives and satisfy activists.

One panellist posited that this divide could be overcome with further public “conversation” which will combat “fear campaigns”.

This remark neatly (if unintentionally) encapsulates the core problem. If those who hold genuine concerns about the proposal for indigenous recognition are going to be told that articulating their view amounts to running a “fear campaign”, it bodes ill for any subsequent “conversation”.

There was general agreement among the panellists that the original hope of many activists, which was that Australians would vote on this question in May 2017, is no longer realistic. One even suggested we may still be a decade away from putting the question to a referendum.

Another activist present noted the most pressing priority for those involved in advocacy was now finding a way to overcome the ‘fatigue’ which has set in regarding indigenous recognition.

In political terms, indigenous recognition went ‘mainstream’ in 2007, when John Howard said he would pursue it if re-elected. That means we have now been discussing the subject for nigh on a decade – and there still isn’t a solid proposition on the table.

When you have to contend with fatigue before you even get to the starting line, it is a sign of deep, deep trouble.

There may have been a window in time when consensus on the question of indigenous recognition was achievable. Yet, that prospect was effectively destroyed the second Labor leader Bill Shorten declared his support a treaty with indigenous Australians during this year’s election campaign.

From that moment on, those who believe that ‘symbolic’ recognition doesn’t go far enough had no reason to take part in any further conversation or negotiation. They will simply sit back, and hope for the election of a Shorten Government that will deliver the treaty they want.

Meanwhile, conservatives once prepared to consider some form of constitutional recognition, however uneasily, have now had their natural suspicions amplified. The effect of Bill Shorten’s has been to send everyone scurrying back to their own corner.

If that breach is to be repaired, a sensible approach may be to move as quickly as possible to a referendum that simply removes Section 25 and Section 51 (xxvi) from the Constitution.

This would finally denude the Federal Government of its ability to make race-based laws. There is virtually unanimous agreement across the political divide that these two provisions should be scrapped, even among those opposed to indigenous recognition.

The passage of such a referendum would be a constitutional affirmation of that which all decent people already believe; that Australians, regardless of their racial background, must be treated equally by their government and their laws. It would be a powerful and genuinely unifying moment in our national life.

This would permit our governments and institutions to focus less on the symbolism, and go about addressing the very real challenge of indigenous disadvantage in a practical sense.

After all, the most eloquently drafted Constitution in the world is ultimately no guarantee of a job, a home, good health or an income.

Just ask those American citizens who will spend tonight sleeping rough beneath the magnificent monuments of Washington D.C.