The author doesn’t advocate for any strategies.

There’s no indication the passage is a “comprehensive study.” We don’t get a discussion of all efforts made to guarantee aboriginal rights. Rather, we get a discussion of one kind of effort — constitutional reforms — and some difficulties arising from it.

This best captures the purpose of the passage, which is to show how the constitutional language causes difficulty in protecting aboriginal rights.

The author doesn’t argue in favor of revising any rights. Although she does criticize a certain court ruling and would be in favor of different interpretations of language in the constitution, nowhere in the passage does the author argue for a change.

It’s not clear that there were any misunderstandings. The author doesn’t indicate that she’s trying to clarify misconceptions or that other people have an incorrect view about the protection of aboriginal rights.