Dear Shadow Minister,

I've just come across the following link:

http://law.unimelb.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2791940/Uluru-Statement-from-the-Heart-Information-Booklet.pdf

The way things are explained here I don't see anything
to which I can object. But then I am not a lawyer.

Dear Foxy,

About the Uluru Statement:

So what shape and powers is a 'Voice' supposed to have ?

What is supposed to be in a Treaty ?

Apart from the archaic sections in the Constitution which haven't been applied for decades, if ever, what sections should be added to or subtracted from the Constitution ?

Since it will come up regardless, what is meant by 'nation' in practical terms ?

The Minister has suggested regional (and presumably State/Territory) assemblies as well as a national 'Voice': how big is this thing going to get ?

So far, not much more than thought-bubbles. It's up to Indigenous 'leaders', in lengthy consultation with Indigenous people around the country, to fill out these bubbles, in such forms that they are acceptable both to Indigenous people generally, and to the rest of us.

Maybe then we can join the dots between these wonderful ideas, and the violence, neglect, abuse, unemployment, poor education and suicides out in the shrinking remote communities. I'm buggered if I can so far.

Love,

Joe

I remember when Malcolm Fraser got behind the push for a Makarrata in 1979 and sent Jim Hagen and Lyall Munro Jr around Australia to canvas support. In Adelaide, they spruiked a Treaty and a Makarrata but there wasn't much enthusiasm for the idea. The meeting here broke up in some bafflement.

A Treaty is a contract, an agreement, usually before an interactive process along agreed lines. A Treaty AFTER the event could be, I suppose, a Peace Treaty ? If so, what might be the terms of such a Treaty ? Equal rights under Australian law ? Tick. Some form of mutually-agreed compensation and haggling about mutual harms and benefits over the last 130 years, although $ 33 billion a year may go some way towards fulfilling that condition. Tick.

A separate sovereign nation ? Like in South Africa under Apartheid ? That raises many questions: would all Indigenous people be required to live there, presumably up north somewhere ? Or would there be many 'nations' along clan or dialect or language lines ? Could Indigenous people still be citizens of Australia, entitled to all of its benefits ? Would people have to declare themselves to be EITHER Indigenous OR NON-Indigenous ?

I'm trying to fill out one of the thought-bubbles: please help me !

Joe

It was recently said by a commentator that, "There's always going to be immature jerks of deficient character to legitimise the grievance industry".

He also thinks that at some stage they would have to "put down the poison (they are taking) and stop waiting for the other person to die".

Not much chance of that with our Three Stooges; but that's their problem.

Just to deflate a few myths about the 1967 Referendum, to demonstrate that it wasn't some mighty struggle against vile, bitter foes of racial equality: I typed up the papers of ministers and department heads of Indigenous etc. Affairs at 1951, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1967 Conferences. They are available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info . on the Conferences Page. Colour-coded by State and Territory.

If you read them carefully (I should have indexed them, but bugger it), they show that all ministers, all governments, even Queensland (Bjelke-Petersen was the relevant Minister for much of that time) were in favour of bringing about pretty much all of the changes that were eventually touted in the 1967 Referendum. In other words, just to hold the Referendum was something of a fait accompli.

Some of the prior publicity about the Referendum - for example, demanding citizenship - was out of date by nearly twenty years. In 1967, people could vote everywhere across Australia too. In other words, the 1967 Referendum questions were either irrelevant (the right of State governments to make laws for Aboriginal people - powers which all State governments conceded should be passed over to the federal government) or effectively already in operation. The 1967 Referendum was more or less a one-horse race.

The next one may not be so easy.

law.unimelb.edu.au

My guess is that this is one of the flaws in the system.
How about asking real, everyday, down to Earth people instead of these "experts" ?