This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Jump to new
Sean K said:
Does anyone have a different interpretation of Makarrata other than reparations?
Click to expand...
I was going to bring this up the other day, their version of the Makarrata in the statement isn't the real one, it's a judgment by a third party to receive a payback by custom tribal law. Not sure if it's symbolic of them using the united nations to attack our governance for reparation.
 
SirRumpole said:
What do the indigenous want to do ?
Click to expand...
It's somewhat difficult to answer that, without being cancelled.
The issue isn't isolated to the indigenous and with technology, it will become more of an issue keeping everyone gainfully employed, motivated, entertained and having a sense of community, but to set a precedent in dealing with it, will take careful deliberation and consideration.

Because if the Voice is the way forward when dealing with disadvantage, unemployment and crime in a sector of the population, we may well be having referendums ad nauseam to add new sectors to be able to directly participate with executive government in decision making.
It would be discriminatory not to allow other marginalised groups not to be able to join in on the basis of equality.

They may not be able to be recognised as the first inhabitants, but they should be able to avail themselves of the same opportunity for representation, when their situations are similar, on much the same basis as gay marriage was presented.
Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

It might have been better if the "agreement-making between governments and First Nations" in the Uluru Statement from the Heart was defined a little better. Albo has signed Labor up 'in full' to this statement, but what the hell does it mean? @rederob seems to know, but probably won't fill us in.

I think Thomas Mayo(r) knows what it means as he helped write it.
 
Googling a bit more found this bite:

"Makarrata has so many layers of meaning," says Merrikiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs, a Gumatj woman and principal of Arnhem Land's Yirrkala School.

Merrikiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs describes a Makarrata as "a negotiation of peace". "The first one, and the main one, is peace after a dispute.

"Makarrata literally means a spear penetrating, usually the thigh, of a person that has done wrong… so that they cannot hunt anymore, that they cannot walk properly, that they cannot run properly; to maim them, to settle them down, to calm them — that's Makarrata."

One of the other layers of meaning is more aligned to the spirit of what many hope a treaty process would look like.

"It can be a negotiation of peace, or a negotiation and an agreement where both parties agree to one thing so that there is no dispute or no other bad feeling," says Ms Ganambarr-Stubbs.

The concept of Makarrata itself is, of course, incalculably old. But it was introduced into the national consciousness in the late 1970s by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC).

The NAC was established by the Federal Government in 1977, following on from the enactment of Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976, to provide a forum for the expression of Aboriginal views.

In 1979 the NAC recommended a Treaty of Commitment be entered into between the Australian Government and Aboriginal nations, and it was decided that a word from an Indigenous language should be used for the process. Makarrata was the term selected.

The NAC sub-committee on Makarrata travelled across Australia consulting Aboriginal people and afterwards made a number of specific recommendations of what it believed was a "faithful expression of the expectations of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people".

These recommendations included recognition of prior ownership, and negotiation of a Makarrata with the Australian government as an equal party. It also covered issues of education, compensation, the return of lands, as well as reserved Indigenous seats in government, Indigenous employment in government agencies, and the return of artefacts and human remains from museums.
 
Ref Makarrata.

This summary is better. It still doesn't explain exactly what was intended by the statement "agreement-making between governments and First Nations". It's open to interpretation.

Committee comment​

The concept of ‘Makarrata’​


5.76 The Committee notes that there are a range of views regarding the process and meaning of Makarrata.

5.77 The Committee recognises that the concept can be perceived as too culturally specific to be used more broadly across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island nations generally. More definition of the term and greater understanding among both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians of how it might apply might help before the policy is taken any further.
 
TimeISmoney said:
Only 17% of indigenous live in remote communities, so, yep, most of them have access to good govt infrastructure as everyone else.
Click to expand...
You should try doing the maths then.
If we assumed less than one in 5 were remote, and that all others were "average" then their level of disadvantage is many times greater than the Closing the Gap reports suggest. More likely there remains a level of disadvantage in the non-remote cohort that is also substantially higher than average.
 
I was referring to @sptrawler's comment about having everything available to them in the city regions as to their counterparts, It proves that a lot of the disadvantages are from self life choices, alcoholism, smoking, and school truancy.

I went to school with a bloke that became a close friend of mine that left school in grade 9, from appearance, you can't even tell he has an ATSI background, but here he is on FB years later telling everyone how he's been victimised by authorities and everyone needs to vote yes, every other second day I see a post telling everyone how stoned he is and he's constantly in and out rehab for ice addiction. His parent gave him everything I had and much more growing up, we even went to the same schools, it was his own decision to drop out of school early and now he's paying the price.
 

I would expect you to disagree but you fail to make the case for the no camp that's not fear based etc quoting people out of context is proof.

The Yes campaign has no hope against this its an easy win for the Coalition to kick blackfellas comments here confirm this proof is no alternative is put up zero nada SFA.

To rub salt into the wound the Coalition say they back recognition....total BS 10 years they did SFA.

The Nats say they back the Voice at local level more total BS 10 years....nothing.

Edit, I see you have added more fear to the cause... sigh.

In the words of a retired High court chief justice, the intensions of the Voice are clear... give the Mayo thing a rest its unbecoming.
 
Last edited:
The sticking point for me has always been the permanent enshrinement in the Constitution.

What if we vote this thing in and in 5 years there has been no improvement in the indigenous peoples position ? Certain people have a job for life and we pay for them with nothing to show for it. That's not on.

Legislate it, and see how it goes. If it gets results fine, if not abolish it.

What's wrong with that ?
 

You are as one with Michael Mansell Tasmanian Aboriginal activist.
 

I agree, nothing has been done on the Uluru Statement and proposals for many years. But, maybe for a very good reason. And, the first part of the plan is not going to get up by the looks, for a very good reason.
 
Rhetorical question coming up...

So they're behind on all major socio-economic KPIs AND they were the first ethnic group(s) here. Just being behind alone (if they were recent arrivals) would not give them a claim to a special Voice. Also, if they happened to somehow be overachievers across the metrics, like certain societal groups, despite being here first they would not be considered for a special Voice. So why should being behind AND being here first together equal a special Voice??
 
Sean K said:
I agree, nothing has been done on the Uluru Statement and proposals for many years. But, maybe for a very good reason. And, the first part of the plan is not going to get up by the looks, for a very good reason.
Click to expand...

The Coalition are saying they want recognition so why don't we have it?
 
IFocus said:
The Coalition are saying they want recognition so why don't we have it?
Click to expand...
If they didn't have recognition, they would be just like every other homeless destitute person living in a cardboard box, they are given recognition in a myriad of ways that are way too many to list here.
The issue is, as everyone knows, the next step.
Treating the public like muppets isn't going to cut it, like I said a long time ago, sit down put the cards on the table and sort it out.
Asking the public to take the responsibility for an unknown outcome, is a cop out and obviously the public isn't wearing it.
Weellll the elites will wear it, because they know they are at the top of the food chain, so any outcome wont affect them much.
 
Well my guess is the whole thing will be pulled and re written, due to W.A's new native title laws, as I said as with the E.V mileage tax, the State Government has gazzumped the Feds yet again.
With E.V's the States grabbed the fuel tax off the Feds and now with the State Native title rules, they have jumped in and taxed the land owner to pay for Aboriginal compensation which would have been the ultimate goal of the 'Voice', so now in todays paper there is talk that the Feds will have to overwrite the State ruling.
Another brain fart exploding into the atmosphere, the Feds are already in the Supreme court over the E.V mileage tax, if they don't fix it they will be in over this issue also, or lose the ability to off load the indigenous cost onto landowners.
As I said earlier McGowan has pulled off a blinder, no wonder he bailed out on a high, the Feds would have hated him IMO.


 
Last edited:


We both got pamphlets from Hastie (more proof that's all the Coalition do is issue pamphlets) saying the Coalition want to give Aboriginals recognition, after 10 years in power where is it.

As to what they mean maybe ask Hastie then sit back and listen to BS.

Dutton attended many briefings on the Voice he is recorded as asking no questions or requesting any changes.

Dutton needs a win and this is an easy one for him, still the radical news coming out of his old department confirms his values.
 
TimeISmoney said:
If they haven't given recognition why have they given all these native titles out and payments, who did they pay, and why has native title land been blocked off from the general public?
Click to expand...

Where in the constitution is there recognition?

If there isn't then why?
 
TimeISmoney said:
I was referring to @sptrawler's comment about having everything available to them in the city regions as to their counterparts, It proves that a lot of the disadvantages are from self life choices, alcoholism, smoking, and school truancy.
Click to expand...
So what?
Government policies are supposed to be able to address these types of issues, so you really seem to be advocating a need for intervention, which will not come from a no vote!
You need to think through the problem and stop coming up with excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...