I have been involved in supporting indigenous politics for 20 years, this isn't my first rodeo, there is no need to be patronising. I am happy to wait to see what comes out of the meeting at the tent embassy before we decide anything. We do have to change out platform regardless of what happens as the current position is to support Recognise.
That said, more militant activists often have positions that are not going to fly with the majority of the Australian population, and have no hope of being achieved. To get constitutional change you realistically need the support of both major parties, the support of all the State governments and the support of the majority of the Australian population. Ignoring this is dooming any campaign to failure.
What came out of the Uluru convention clearly is not what the government supports, as you say:
The parliamentary voice idea is the vehicle from which indigenous people advance a Treaty as I understand it. I suspect that the Makarrata idea is to make it more palatable to major party politicians, whilst leaving the door open for a Treaty. It also acts as an endorsed body to represent indigenous interests to parliament.
The Uluru Convention is clearly flawed, but the outcome it is a damn sight better than the Recognise campaign, which is dead in the water. The people behind the Convention need the support of indigenous activists or it will fail too, hence the final position being a path towards a Treaty. Let's see what comes out of the meeting at the tent embassy before we lock anything in.
Flawed? Eh, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Start a different thread for that debate and ping @AndrewDowning as he is the voting system expert. I am nought but a humble musician, computer stuff tends to go over my head. Could be good for Congress, again I defer to Andrew on the value of any voting system.