What is Makarrata?
Many Aboriginal people use the word 'Makarrata' when talking about treaty. It's a word from the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land and has several layers of meaning:

Peacemaking. Makarrata literally means "a spear penetrating", a traditional practice Aboriginal people used as punishment. If a person was hit by a spear, usually through the thigh, they couldn't hunt or walk properly anymore. This settled them down, forced them to be calm and rest to heal. Hence Makarrata interpretation as "peace after a dispute".
Conflict resolution. Another meaning relates to a negotiation of peace, or a negotiation and an agreement where both parties agree to avoid dispute or bad feelings. This meaning is closely aligned with what many hope a treaty process would look like.
The term was first introduced to non-Aboriginal Australia in 1979 when the National Aboriginal Conference recommended a Treaty of Commitment be entered into between the Australian government and Aboriginal nations. The group decided to use a word from an Aboriginal language for the process and settled on Makarrata.

View the timeline of Australia's journey towards a treaty.

#What would an Aboriginal treaty be about?
Aboriginal demands for what should be included in a treaty are as diverse as Aboriginal nations and individuals. Here are some of the main ideas:

Sovereignty. Acknowledge that Aboriginal people have at no time ceded, relinquished or acquiesced any part of their sovereign existence and status. They want a "a space of our own, free from influence of government".
Land rights. Recognition that Aboriginal people have always maintained a property right in land and the natural resources according to their law and customs. They want an acknowledgement that Australia has not been settled. They want freehold, not native title. People who cannot reconnect to their traditional lands need to be included.
Shared power. A sharing of power with non-Aboriginal people through allocated seats.
A guaranteed voice. Previous solutions where an Aboriginal voice was granted via legislation failed as laws can be repealed in an instant. That's why Aboriginal people demand an Aboriginal voice that is enshrined in the Constitution.

6. Recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal people as the First Peoples of Australia and the distinct rights that flow from this, such as rights to language and culture. (This is not referring to the governments 'Recognise' campaign which many Aboriginal people reject outright.) But also recognising the past, the need to first acknowledge what has happened to Aboriginal people ("truth-telling"). For many it's about recognising that Australia was invaded and not colonised.
7. Reforms. Agreements on the reforms required to reach a more just society and account for Aboriginal dispossession.
8. Statutory entitlements. This can include reparation, compensation (e.g. for land taken or sites destroyed) and benefit sharing.
9. Ownership of natural resources. This includes ownership of water, the natural biodiversity on and within the homelands, trees, medicine bushes, fibres, fishing, native animals, especially their habitats and airspace. It also includes all the benefits that come with these resources.
The Uluru Statement From the Heart, a document written by Aboriginal representatives in 2017, contains many of these demands.
John Pilger, a journalist who works tirelessly for the cause of Aboriginal people, sees a treaty as "an effective Indigenous bill of rights: land rights, resources rights, health rights, education rights, housing rights, and more". [6]
A treaty is about "treat—ing" Aboriginal people with respect and dignity.
Kamilaroi woman Natalie Cromb has her own definition: "A Treaty would be the basis upon which the sovereign Indigenous people of Australia and the government could negotiate the terms of rights to land, minerals and resources and the self-governing of communities." [7] For some, sovereignty is even more important than treaty.
Treaty is also a lot about the need of leadership.

Source: What is a treaty? Why is it necessary? - Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/what-is-a-treaty

A Voice in indigenous understandings means self-governing of aboriginal affairs. Self determination to realize tribal identity and culture, a reconstruction of ancient languages, justice, and tribal practices. In this they believe they will be totally free of colonial rule.

free of colonial rule.
Josephus,
Free of Colonial goods & services also ?

"That's why Aboriginal people demand an Aboriginal voice that is enshrined in the Constitution".

Who said they demanded anything of the sort? The Voice is a lot more sinister than that, coming from the top, and having very little to do with people.

A Voice already exists in http://www.niaa.gov.au/ with a $2,000,000,000 budget. What is envisaged by Uluru is more than just a voice to the colonial government, it is self-government. Albanese's Voice alone will not close the gap, as it already exists; some aboriginals want self-rule independent of what they consider white rule.

Yep. Saw the NIAA business last night. Everything the Voice is supposed to do this organisation is claiming to be doing NOW. Whether or not it is - and there is no evidence that it is doing anything other than hoovering up taxes - the Socialists and Blakticvists still want the Voice.

Only the Australian voters can stop the Voice from getting into their Constitution by voting NO! The government can enact the legislation any time they want, without a referendum. So, why don't they? Everything about this Voice stinks to High Heaven. Instead of whining for "details" the useless opposition should be campaigning against it - showing some courage and usefulness - 24/7 until the rubbish is dropped altogether and forever.

Proud Boy Jose'

In your usual fashion you misrepresent the meaning, and the intent, of the 2017 'Uluru Statement From The Heart'. Aboriginal sovereignty, as much as you dislike it, has never been ceded, "and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown". 'The Voice' is not concerned with sovereignty, it is a vote for Aboriginal recognition within the Australian Constitution, giving an Aboriginal voice to parliament. I don't believe you are ignorant of these facts, but choose to be purposely obtuse because of your bigoted attitudes. Take comfort, there are those old men on the Forum, sitting in the 'Klan Stand' who will agree with every word you say.

Paul you are misleading, aboriginals already have a Voice in the NIAA which operates with a budget of almost $2 billion dollars to deal with the needs of aboriginal communities. Vote "No" to a Voice in the Constitution.

Because of the diversity of aboriginal opinion, the Voice would always be going to the High Court to settle disputes. There is no chance of a treaty with over 200 tribal families as each has different requests on their land. What is needed is unity not diversity, which the Marxists promote to make unstable Western society.

Voting Yes will bring an end to the guilt industry but at an even higher cost than so far !

I'm sure Albanese and the lets-govern-according-to-race mob are all aware of NIAA, but they still want another racist organisation to add to the very costly aboriginal industry. No matter what exists, they still want more - the Voice; and they are unlikely to be satisfied with that, either. The wrecking of a civilisation and culture is an ongoing operation.

So, there is no point to banging on about it! Just vote NO. That is all any of us can do. Evidence, discussion, common sense means nothing to these Socialist racists. They are all about ideology. Vote NO. And, in the next election, vote One Nation, Liberal Democrats, Family First and UAP before the ALP, the NLP and the communistic Greens. We need a purge of all the rubbish. And anonymous arguing among yourselves is not worth squat.

ttbn, I totally agree.
Quoted
'Anthony Albanese has been targeted by one of Queensland’s veteran Aboriginal activists, Wayne Wharton, who spent the weekend campaigning against the voice across the Prime Minister’s Sydney seat.
The traditional owner and Kooma man from Cunnamulla in western Queensland accused Mr Albanese and the government of lying to Australian voters about the voice, which he believes is ­opposed by a majority of Indigenous people.
Mr Wharton and a group of eight fellow campaigners travelled to Sydney to letterbox-drop thousands of “vote no” flyers to the homes of voters in Mr Albanese’s electorate of Grayndler, as well as across the neighbouring electorate of Barton, held by Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney.'

Josephus

It's interesting that the group has gone to all that trouble to campaign against something that the government has lied about them wanting. The 'voices' of Senator Price and Warren Mundine haven’t been listened to; let's see if aboriginal voices speaking in the PM's own electorate are listened to.

Like the Covid totalitarianism having nothing to do with health, the Voice has nothing to do with aboriginal Australians. Both are about control and setting Australians against each other. Communism never changes: it just takes a different form, and different a name. People still supporting Labor should not be thinking that the Albanese government is anything like the Labor Party used to be. The fact that the ALP gained only 42.6% of the primary vote might indicate that many traditional Labor voters are waking up, just like erstwhile Liberal voters who have deserted a party that doesn't have a clue what it stands for any longer.

Here we have the Forums radical right agreeing with a member of the radical left. Josephus and others of the extreme right believe the Voice gives Aboriginals too much power, Wayne Wharton a hard left radical believes it doesn't give enough Power, and demands Aboriginal sovereignty through 'Treaty'. The old case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

Josephus do you agree with Wharton's call for Aboriginal sovereignty through the instigation of a treaty? In 2019 Wharton said; “The systems that we’ve had for the last 230 years is broken, they’re useless.” he went on to say; The legal system is based on a “feudal system of punishment” and since he was running for the Senate at the time, he claimed, the political system was run by top-end-of-town corruption.

BTW: At the 2019 election Wayne Wharton received a miserable 624 votes! Even Aboriginal people wouldn't vote for him.

"And, in the next election, vote One Nation, Liberal Democrats, Family First and UAP"

ttbn, Australians have already rejected your band of halfwit fascists and racists, in favour of progressive moderates such as the GREENS and TEAL INDEPENDENTS. Why would they support divisive haters like Hanson and Palmer.

On the childishness of name-calling, even SkyNews has fallen for the "power of moral blackmail" narrative put about, probably, by the YES mob, that people will vote for the Voice because they don't want to be called 'racist'.

What rot!

.Once you are in the polling booth, nobody knows what way you vote.

.If NO is the answer to this race-based referendum, there is not much point in calling a majority of people in a majority of states racists.

. They are already calling everyone who disagrees with them racists, so who cares.

. Has anyone here actually been called a racist, to their faces, and not just by some keyboard coward?

. Are normal, sane people going to vote in accordance with what some people they don’t even know might call them online?

ttbn,

Not all racists are haters, and not all haters are racists. Not all racists see themselves as racially motivated. Christian missionaries of times past were ardent racists, but they were not haters, in fact just the opposite, often they were loving and kind in a somewhat misguided way towards those, they believed to be inferior to themselves and other based on race. Simply believing ones race is superior to others, makes one a racists. Its not a matter of disagreement that makes it so, its how the argument is couched that indicates whether one is a true racists or not. In your case you put up misleading superfluous arguments against the Voice and Aboriginal people in general, when I think you know your line is motivated by your racism. Then there is your call for a vote for the openly racist One Nation party, which gives you away as well.

BTW; You don't need to be white to be racists, some coloured and Asian people are racists just like you.

You ask; Has anyone here actually been called a racist, to their faces, and not just by some keyboard coward?

I certainly have been called a racist by keyboard cowards on this Forum. I've also been called a racists by a Maori chap, for simply being white. He then wanted to apologise when he found out I was married to a Maori woman. I told him, one can be racists, marriage dose't prevent that.

p/s; No need to get on your high horse over the word racists. I've been called worse things.

"No need to get on your high horse over the word racists. I've been called worse things".

And deserved it. Don't worry Paul, as long as they don't call you late for lunch.

The Uluru statement is about rent seeking.

The Uluru Statement is not actually Australian: it was ripped from an international piece of jurisprudence written by an African judge about a Saharan country. Second hand - stolen even - and nothing to do with Australia.

Dear Indyvidual,

You flapped your gums with:

"free of colonial rule.
Josephus,
Free of Colonial goods & services also ?"

Mate, half the stuff you buy probably comes from communist China. But you don't give a toss. Why should they?

Dear Josephus,

You still on this band wagon?

Mate, you really are all twisted up with this aren't you.

Tell me what are you afraid of? Is someone going to get something more which might mean you get something less?

You really are a deeply uncharitable character aren't you.

Just chill.

As to language revival:

"The process of Hebrew's return to regular usage is unique; there are no other examples of a natural language without any native speakers subsequently acquiring several million native speakers, and no other examples of a sacred language becoming a national language with millions of "first language" speakers."

Are you going to tell them not to bother or is your racism directed at Australian aborigines?

SteeleRedux, is at his negative self again, he is blinded by his negativism. He believes he has found a loophole in what I have said about language, local aboriginal languages are already taught in schools. I have many missionary friends who have translated many aboriginal languages and teach it in a written form.
http://aboriginalbibles.org.au/

My concern is for the unity of society, I follow the likes of Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine who can see the Voice will be the first step in dividing Australia on race, and Government will be subject to racial activists who want treaty, sovereignty [self-government], and repatriations.

Dear Josephus,

Bunkum.

Here are some activists who have been hell bent on properly dividing the country.

“Iron ore magnate Lang Hancock founded the Westralian Secession Movement in 1974. His group focused largely on taxes and tariffs, arguing that trade barriers around Australia harmed the State's mainly mining and wheat export industries which earned a disproportionate amount of Australia's foreign exchange. In the 1974 Senate election, the party fielded Don Thomas as an ultimately unsuccessful candidate.”

“at the 22 October 2008 Vista Public Lecture, former Western Australian Premier, Richard Court, said that the case for a secessionist movement is only strengthened while the Commonwealth government continues to exploit the State's resource-rich economy and fails to share the prosperity evenly”

“In July 2011, the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Norman Moore, made the controversial statement that WA should secede and rely on China and the United States for military defence to remain an independent nation free from Canberra's influence.”

Or are these just whiteys so get the usual leave pass from you.

The only one hell bent on oozing racism here is yourself.

Steele, happily none of the Secession Movement achieved the division of Australia that you posted. There are always power movements to change and divide Australians. You yourself want a different Australia than the present status. You would like to eradicate ideas different from yours.

SR,

Anyone has the right to try and revitalize their mother tongue. However, the circumstances of the original 1000s of aboriginal tribes are very different to that of Israel.