The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[horrie hastings]

Thanks H for the Pez tip, I am a fan. Will keep an eye on that one.

Yeah did the whole Scarborough Fair thing, I know why people kept calling me Herb now. You could say I'm a seasoned veteran maybe..

I will take a stab and say you voted Yes

Lol about the Scarborough Fair thing Think the dates for Perry are the 10th and 11th November.
As for the vote, i might surprise you but i'm not going to reveal to anyone which way i went, even the better half doesn't know lol.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Lol about the Scarborough Fair thing Think the dates for Perry are the 10th and 11th November.
As for the vote, i might surprise you but i'm not going to reveal to anyone which way i went, even the better half doesn't know lol.

Like your style mate, that is the definition of a true secret ballot!

[King Salvo]

Yes is for progress and No is for regress

"A Nation That Forgets It's Past Has No Future' - British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

"The best way to predict the future is to create it" - US President Abraham Lincoln

" The Future is Unwritten" - John Graham Mellor (Joe Strummer)


1) Recognition


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

The Constitution of 1901 is Australia’s highest legal rule book. It is the founding law which created the Australian nation.

The Australian Constitution remains silent on the existence of Australia’s First Peoples. There is no mention of us in the nation’s rule book.

It is time the Constitution was updated to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Eight Prime Ministerships have supported the need for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution.

Constitutional recognition through a Voice is the solution proposed by Indigenous people after many consultation processes.


2) Guarantee


There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The Voice will have an advisory role. It will give Indigenous people a say in the decisions that are made about them.

A Voice means Indigenous people will have a seat at the table so they can influence their lives and futures and drive positive change.

The Voice came from Indigenous people through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice is supported by the vast majority of Indigenous people.

The Voice is all about inclusion and unity. All Australians are equal. Constitutional recognition will not change that fact.

The Voice doesn’t give anyone more powers or rights just the opportunity to be heard and to help improve the lives of all Indigenous Australians.


3) Purpose


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.

Everybody in Australia has the power to make representations. The Voice will simply be making representations on matters relating to Indigenous peoples.

Its advice would be non-binding and sit outside of Parliament. It would have no veto.

The Voice would naturally focus on the matters most relevant to Indigenous people like jobs, education, health and housing.

The Voice would be a conduit so governments can access the experience and understanding of local voices across our diverse regions. This will improve how Government makes decisions and the outcomes it can deliver.


4) Detail


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.

As is clear from the words of the constitutional amendment itself, it is Parliament’s job to set out the details of the Voice in legislation. This will happen after a successful referendum.

What the Voice will look like, how it will operate, and how Indigenous people will choose their Voice members, are all matters for the Parliament to decide and to set out in legislation.

The Government has said that the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and have representatives chosen by First Nations people. It will be inclusive, accountable and transparent and work alongside existing organisations and structures.

[rcptn]

How do you know that Yes will be progress?

And how do you know No will be regressive?

Honest questions as I don't think anyone can really predict the future on this issue.

[King Salvo]

That is rubbish mate I'm Indigenous my parents were born here. They changed the meaning too suit this agenda and sheeple have fallen for it.

Nope - The Following is from the United Nations - Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues which explains it

Who are indigenous peoples?

It is estimated that there are more than 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Spread across the world from the Arctic to the South Pacific, they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.

Among the indigenous peoples are those of the Americas (for example, the Lakota in the USA, the Mayas in Guatemala or the Aymaras in Bolivia), the Inuit and Aleutians of the circumpolar region, the Saami of northern Europe, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia and the Maori of New Zealand. These and most other indigenous peoples have retained distinct characteristics which are clearly different from those of other segments of the national populations.

Understanding the term “indigenous”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

A question of identity

• According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples. This is based on the fundamental criterion of self-identification as underlined in a number of human rights documents.

• The term “indigenous” has prevailed as a generic term for many years. In some countries, there may be preference for other terms including tribes, first peoples/nations, aboriginals, ethnic groups, adivasi, janajati. Occupational and geographical terms like hunter-gatherers, nomads, peasants, hill people, etc., also exist and for all practical purposes can be used interchangeably with “indigenous peoples”.

• In many cases, the notion of being termed “indigenous” has negative connotations and some people may choose not to reveal or define their origin. Others must respect such choices, while at the same time working against the discrimination of indigenous peoples.


Culture and Knowledge

Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. They have a special relation to and use of their traditional land. Their ancestral land has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples. Indigenous peoples hold their own diverse concepts of development, based on their traditional values, visions, needs and priorities.

Political participation

Indigenous peoples often have much in common with other neglected segments of societies, i.e. lack of political representation and participation, economic marginalization and poverty, lack of access to social services and discrimination. Despite their cultural differences, the diverse indigenous peoples share common problems also related to the protection of their rights. They strive for recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources.

For media enquiries or interviews on these issues, please contact:

Oisika Chakrabarti, Department of Public Information, tel: 212.963.8264, e-mail: mediainfo@un.org

For Secretariat of the Permanent Forum, please contact: Mirian Masaquiza, Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, tel: 917.367.6006, e-mail: IndigenousPermanentForum@un.org

[rcptn]

Nope - The Following is from the United Nations - Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues which explains it

Who are indigenous peoples?

It is estimated that there are more than 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Spread across the world from the Arctic to the South Pacific, they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.

Among the indigenous peoples are those of the Americas (for example, the Lakota in the USA, the Mayas in Guatemala or the Aymaras in Bolivia), the Inuit and Aleutians of the circumpolar region, the Saami of northern Europe, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia and the Maori of New Zealand. These and most other indigenous peoples have retained distinct characteristics which are clearly different from those of other segments of the national populations.

Understanding the term “indigenous”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

A question of identity

• According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples. This is based on the fundamental criterion of self-identification as underlined in a number of human rights documents.

• The term “indigenous” has prevailed as a generic term for many years. In some countries, there may be preference for other terms including tribes, first peoples/nations, aboriginals, ethnic groups, adivasi, janajati. Occupational and geographical terms like hunter-gatherers, nomads, peasants, hill people, etc., also exist and for all practical purposes can be used interchangeably with “indigenous peoples”.

• In many cases, the notion of being termed “indigenous” has negative connotations and some people may choose not to reveal or define their origin. Others must respect such choices, while at the same time working against the discrimination of indigenous peoples.


Culture and Knowledge

Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. They have a special relation to and use of their traditional land. Their ancestral land has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples. Indigenous peoples hold their own diverse concepts of development, based on their traditional values, visions, needs and priorities.

Political participation

Indigenous peoples often have much in common with other neglected segments of societies, i.e. lack of political representation and participation, economic marginalization and poverty, lack of access to social services and discrimination. Despite their cultural differences, the diverse indigenous peoples share common problems also related to the protection of their rights. They strive for recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources.

For media enquiries or interviews on these issues, please contact:

Oisika Chakrabarti, Department of Public Information, tel: 212.963.8264, e-mail: mediainfo@un.org

For Secretariat of the Permanent Forum, please contact: Mirian Masaquiza, Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, tel: 917.367.6006, e-mail: IndigenousPermanentForum@un.org

As I said they changed it to suit the agenda and sheeple like you have fallen for it.

[King Salvo]

As I said they changed it to suit the agenda and sheeple like you have fallen for it.

Nope, you have to go back to the 1950s for the first UN Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention plus the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all of which have been ratified by Australia, and this has become law in Australia.

The Mabo decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia by overturning the doctrine of terra nullius (land belonging to no-one) on which British claims to possession of Australia were based

You really need to read up on things, as you are not only confused about what Indigenous is and means but also always what Communism is.

Hop over to the threads about Russia and China, as the Chookpen Resident Marxist can fill you in. Don't click on the links that have Menadue in the title though

[rcptn]

All my life the dictionary meaning of Indigenous was for ones parents to be born in the same country as you up until it was modified and changed about 10 - 15 years ago.

[Andrew Walker]

Looks like the Yes vote is still behind Interesting to see how this plays out next week

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-...vote/102942468

[Jacks Fur Coat]

I want to myth bust those points made above by the King about the Voice, using the same headings. Looks like the same playbook talking points provided to the activist Yes volunteers at the polling booths.

Recognition:
Most people in Australia don't have an issue with a simple acknowledgement of Aboriginal people in the Constitution. However, the proposal mischievously tries to enshrine this 'Voice' within our founding rulebook to provide yet another bureaucratic body that separates us by race within this Constitution. That is divisive and inappropriate for a united democratic society. The 1967 referendum has already made sure Aboriginal people were all one as Australians in the Constitution.

Guarantee:
This Voice proposal is patronisingly and arrogantly making a declaration that all Aboriginal people in this country are one and united themselves. They are not, and comprise individual tribes and people with their own beliefs and expectations of their Government. You can't lump them together as 'the indigenous '. The Uluru Statement itself is not wholly represented by all Aboriginal people. 7 delegates and their supporters walked out of discussions in disagreement. Other indvidual tribes and people are saying they were never consulted and the document does not represent them. It obviously doesn't represent Senator Price and her supporters, what about them? There are many many avenues of Voices right now, we dont need yet another layer of bureaucracy. As Senator Price said we need ears not a voice. Listen and Act, not more costly and time wasting ventures driven by urban activists.

Purpose:
This little ripper the Yes side are chanting that everyone has power to make representations to the Parliament. Another mischievous massaging of reality. Yep I can write a letter to my local MP. But I am not part of a 24 strong unelected group who will be enshrined in the Constitution. Or do I have a department of public servants and large legal team to support me. Nor do I have the ability to charge the taxpayer to take any unresolved issues to the highest court in the land. Pull the other one guys...it plays jingle bells.

Detail:
How could anyone seriously vote Yes to such an unclear proposal with buggerall detail to put forever in our Constitution? Its like signing a blank cheque, or giving a reformed con a loaded gun....."we trust you". This gang of 24...the Yes talking points points are saying they will be appointed by First Nations people. Who? Everyone voting...or just Noel Pearson? Or just anyone who is left of centre with pink hair and a great grandmother on one side who 'felt' indigenous.

C'mon guys...the Australian public aren't fools. Even if Albo assumed we were all as poorly read and across our brief as he is.

[King Salvo]

You must have had a different dictionary then, as the word indigenous also relates to fauna and flora that are endemic to a certain geographical area.

It's a word first used in the 1600's to describe the inhabitants/fauna and flora of the new world so not new.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders habitation of what is now known as Australia and the Torres Strait Islands can be traced back 60 thousand odd years, so they would rightly have more of a claim to be called indigenous than folk whose ancestors first came to Australia from overseas in recent times.

Not many of these folk like the term indigenous and would rather be called First Nation and or the name of their Group. Clan or Tribe.

There are 29 clans in the Sydney Region that make up the Eora Nation - i.e Gadigal, Wangal, Wallumedegal, Boromedegal, Gamaragal, Borogegal, Birrabirragal and Gayamayga to name a few

The fact is that all other things have failed in delivering better lives and opportunities for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, so why not include these folk in the conversation rather than have a bunch of predominately white folk in Canberra decide what is best for them, especially when not many of them would visit the places Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander folk reside.

Vote Yes for Progress Not No for Regress

[player 1]

I want to myth bust those points made above by the King about the Voice, using the same headings. Looks like the same playbook talking points provided to the activist Yes volunteers at the polling booths.

Recognition:
Most people in Australia don't have an issue with a simple acknowledgement of Aboriginal people in the Constitution. However, the proposal mischievously tries to enshrine this 'Voice' within our founding rulebook to provide yet another bureaucratic body that separates us by race within this Constitution. That is divisive and inappropriate for a united democratic society. The 1967 referendum has already made sure Aboriginal people were all one as Australians in the Constitution.

Guarantee:
This Voice proposal is patronisingly and arrogantly making a declaration that all Aboriginal people in this country are one and united themselves. They are not, and comprise individual tribes and people with their own beliefs and expectations of their Government. You can't lump them together as 'the indigenous '. The Uluru Statement itself is not wholly represented by all Aboriginal people. 7 delegates and their supporters walked out of discussions in disagreement. Other indvidual tribes and people are saying they were never consulted and the document does not represent them. It obviously doesn't represent Senator Price and her supporters, what about them? There are many many avenues of Voices right now, we dont need yet another layer of bureaucracy. As Senator Price said we need ears not a voice. Listen and Act, not more costly and time wasting ventures driven by urban activists.

Purpose:
This little ripper the Yes side are chanting that everyone has power to make representations to the Parliament. Another mischievous massaging of reality. Yep I can write a letter to my local MP. But I am not part of a 24 strong unelected group who will be enshrined in the Constitution. Or do I have a department of public servants and large legal team to support me. Nor do I have the ability to charge the taxpayer to take any unresolved issues to the highest court in the land. Pull the other one guys...it plays jingle bells.

Detail:
How could anyone seriously vote Yes to such an unclear proposal with buggerall detail to put forever in our Constitution? Its like signing a blank cheque, or giving a reformed con a loaded gun....."we trust you". This gang of 24...the Yes talking points points are saying they will be appointed by First Nations people. Who? Everyone voting...or just Noel Pearson? Or just anyone who is left of centre with pink hair and a great grandmother on one side who 'felt' indigenous.

C'mon guys...the Australian public aren't fools. Even if Albo assumed we were all as poorly read and across our brief as he is.

Well said.

King S in his lengthy post uses some of the typical scripts the yes bots are instructed to use, like "Yes=progress, NO=regress" and "all this does is invites indigenous to have a seat at the table", "it's just an advisory body".

I saw how an online chat group of yes campaigners/phone canvassers had a member ask a senior member whether there are any "scripts" available to deal with tricky problem of people asking if a treaty is part of the voice's plans. Their response was, it depends - if it sounds like they are keen on a treaty tell them the plan is for the voice followed by a treaty. If they sound scared of a treaty, tell them it's just an advisory body.

[King Salvo]

I want to myth bust those points made above by the King about the Voice, using the same headings. Looks like the same playbook talking points provided to the activist Yes volunteers at the polling booths.

Recognition:
Most people in Australia don't have an issue with a simple acknowledgement of Aboriginal people in the Constitution. However, the proposal mischievously tries to enshrine this 'Voice' within our founding rulebook to provide yet another bureaucratic body that separates us by race within this Constitution. That is divisive and inappropriate for a united democratic society. The 1967 referendum has already made sure Aboriginal people were all one as Australians in the Constitution.

Guarantee:
This Voice proposal is patronisingly and arrogantly making a declaration that all Aboriginal people in this country are one and united themselves. They are not, and comprise individual tribes and people with their own beliefs and expectations of their Government. You can't lump them together as 'the indigenous '. The Uluru Statement itself is not wholly represented by all Aboriginal people. 7 delegates and their supporters walked out of discussions in disagreement. Other indvidual tribes and people are saying they were never consulted and the document does not represent them. It obviously doesn't represent Senator Price and her supporters, what about them? There are many many avenues of Voices right now, we dont need yet another layer of bureaucracy. As Senator Price said we need ears not a voice. Listen and Act, not more costly and time wasting ventures driven by urban activists.

Purpose:
This little ripper the Yes side are chanting that everyone has power to make representations to the Parliament. Another mischievous massaging of reality. Yep I can write a letter to my local MP. But I am not part of a 24 strong unelected group who will be enshrined in the Constitution. Or do I have a department of public servants and large legal team to support me. Nor do I have the ability to charge the taxpayer to take any unresolved issues to the highest court in the land. Pull the other one guys...it plays jingle bells.

Detail:
How could anyone seriously vote Yes to such an unclear proposal with buggerall detail to put forever in our Constitution? Its like signing a blank cheque, or giving a reformed con a loaded gun....."we trust you". This gang of 24...the Yes talking points points are saying they will be appointed by First Nations people. Who? Everyone voting...or just Noel Pearson? Or just anyone who is left of centre with pink hair and a great grandmother on one side who 'felt' indigenous.

C'mon guys...the Australian public aren't fools. Even if Albo assumed we were all as poorly read and across our brief as he is.

Recognition

Pretty poor of a country not to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander folk in the Constitution from the get-go, taking into account that prior to the 1967 referendum they couldn't even vote (Section 25 Races Disqualified from Voting prohibited them from voting) and were only first included in the population census in 1971.

A form of apartheid, as under the Constitution they didn't exist (couldn't vote or be counted in the census)—only a token mention under the modified section 51 (xxvi) to allow the Parliament to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples

Guarantee

Are all non-Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders one and united, though?

If you go around the area where you are JFC, for instance, you will see shops with Vietnamese and Chinese writing and folk speaking a myriad of languages, all maintaining the customs and beliefs of their former countries and backgrounds.

I have worked with people whose parents never spoke English.

You see at sporting events folk born in Australia supporting the country of their background too.

There are a myriad of clans that make up First Nation/Indigenous numbers, the same as in the US, Canada, South America, Russia, China. Africa etc that have different beliefs , customs and backgrounds.

I don't think it's a pre-requisite that they have to be all on the same page when the rest of the country isn't

Purpose

There are a myriad of groups that make representations to parliament, not only individuals through their local MP's but also nationality associations, industry bodies, corporations, religious organisations, professional bodies, etc.

You don't hear a lot about this unless a question maybe asked in Parliament question time.

The Voice is an advisory group, and it's not mandatory for Parliament to implement via legislation any of their recommendations.

As far as high court legal challenges go, any challenge could only be based on whether the voice’s views had been taken into account. The High Court could not change the actual decisions of parliament.

Separation of powers

Parliament's law-making power takes precedence over that of the Judiciary; statute laws made by Parliament override judge-made law—common law.

Detail

It is pretty clear to me what it is about, and scaremongering tactics from both sides may have muddied the water for some

Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution is long overdue and should have happened from the get-go, or at least in the 1967 Referendum.

As I said, this is the best chance yet to improve the lives and opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander folk by having a representative group who will be across all the issues and know what needs to be addressed, which is a better system than a bunch of pollies in Canberra deciding what is best when very few would have visited many if any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.


Vote Yes for Progress not No for Regress

[King Salvo]

Yothu Yindi - Treaty (Original Version)

Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Reports from the hustings yesterday, a bigger voter turnout than I was expecting. A lot of cats just want to get it over and done with I think.

You will hear more about the resource disparity between the Yes and No campaigns as the week goes on. Its patently obvious at the pre poll booths, more volunteers, more flyers and info to distribute for the Yes mob. I heard one estimate of their investment exceeding $100m...the ads will escalate more this week too. You can offer your services for the No camp via the fairaustralia website should you wish to help out there.

You have your "mind made up" voters on both the Yes and No sides. Its the Don't Know category that will obviously tip the scales one way or the other. And to me there are really 2 separate categories of Don't know. The first is those that know a bit about the campaigns/and issues and are genuinely unsure which way to jump. The second and perhaps more common are those that have no idea what they are being asked to vote on. I think (fear actually) that the well resourced Yes campaign will pick up a fair majority of both 'don't knows' who vote in person. That would be a shame for Australia if the corporate/big business sector won an important electoral campaign on the back of $$. I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

I was extolling the virtues of the amazing Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to one of the Yes campaigners yesterday, and guess what she said? " Jacinta Price...oh she is such a racist".....wow, this is what it's come to.

I think I'll pass on Pete Garrett as an an example to follow thanks King. And Ray Martin...now that silly old buffer has doubled down on his ridiculous speech that good old Albo called "powerful ". He said we can't point the finger at China if we vote No on the 14th....seriously?? He is making Joe Biden sound like a Rhodes scholar. The Uyghurs say hi Ray.

You can see the win at all costs desperation approach of the Yes campaign now.

I'm still voting No, unless Kamahl changes his mind again....I would love to hear Albo splutter Kamahl-mentum just one more time.