What is the Uluru Statement From the Heart? | Prof. Nicholas Aroney

[@beepboop205]

It is refreshing hearing people having a conversation and to stay on topic, as opposed to getting angry at a question and then talking about everything but the question to avoid the question.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Thank you both. If we don't get some straight talking now...right now - it will be too late.

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Too late for what?

[@jw-vx8im]

It is too late

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Perhaps for you.......@@jw-vx8im

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Its a personal choice.

[@denisefischer2279]

Unfortunately in Australia today common-sense is sadly lacking as is the truth about what the effect of the voice will have on all Australians should the voice succeed. Thank you John great interview

[@jonahtwhale1779]

Whatever we do they will never be satisfied. They will interpret any below-average outcome for Indigenous people as a sign of discrimination or delayed impact of coloization. They will always demand more and more and more. We need to learn to ignore the demands of these professional victims. If they want to improve their lives they need to look to themselves. For example if we control for self- inflicted health impacts (smoking, drinking, drug abuse, obesity, etc) then the health gap between indigenous and non-indigenous largely disappears.

[@ardentenquirer8573]

That is a given *** That they will never be satisfied --- Mick reminder us of the little bit of human nature kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4bTk2B3gcuIsMU

[@readyorknot2344]

Its amazing that the same problems they claim are affecting these people can happen to anyone but its because of the amount of melanin in their skin that makes them special right?

[@jw-vx8im]

Maybe the Greeks can get compo from Italy for the failures of the Roman empire

[@chengdutwo]

Givers have to set limits because takers never do.

[@harrycopeland8322]

This discussion is a perfect example why Albanese cannot explain the Voice to the Australian people. There are a number of ways that this can be interpreted. It is obviously complicated - Policy on the run without first identifying ALL issues involved. Thanks gentlemen, it makes it easier for me to vote NO!!

[@TaniaLovesJesus]

I do agree with you.

[@jw-vx8im]

Albo is woke that's all there is to it

[@RenaeFerguson-z6h]

The Voice is a positive step towards indigenous recognition, which is well overdue. Any person attempting to make the case that the best source of advice on how to address the matters that concern First Nations peoples is anywhere other than First Nations peoples is putting forward an indefensible position. They need and deserve to be heard, and we must finally begin to listen. Judging the simple rightness of this thing as contingent on whether or not one agrees with any potential "next steps" is to never move forward at all. The sole intention of the conversation contained here is, with respect, fearmongering - it is unworthy of our best potential as a nation and a collective people. I pray we all can come together to step into the future with courage and goodwill. Vote Yes.

[@John-kv7jo]

Vote no and a resounding no for all eternity. The voice is nothing but Communism on display to destroy what is Australia. The Voice is only the beginning. What follows is treaty and truth. They Uluru Statement from the Heart is a militant document which will hold Australia hostage. It's all about their demand for money, land and a percentage of GDP. It sees the rest of Australia as second class citizens who will need to pay a tax or rent for the land we are living on. The voice is a serpent in disguise. Say no to reverse racism and vote NO.

[@simbi8797]

Thank you for this measured and informative discussion, of important issues people need to understand.

[@guybramwells]

Treaties that could mean anything.....absolutely ANYTHING!

[@John-kv7jo]

They want money, land and a percentage of GDP. They want us to pay rent as we are according to them living on their land.

[@John-kv7jo]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/onurc5l_jc9_gbc

[@josa9902]

The Voice, the Vibe, either or relates to power and money.

[@calvinduchaine5501]

Being from Canada, even with treaties it is a constant headache and push by activists both whites and natives, untruths and government gaslighting.

[@JohnWilliams-iw6oq]

The voice is there already, this is pure activism because one treaty simply won't do and one treaty for each tribe is impractical as one tribe will always claim another tribe has received unfair advantages. There is no indigenous nation, there never has been and there never will be. If the present voice is inadequate then we need to know so something can be done to fix it. Once we face the facts and get on with living together as Australians we will all be better off.

[@utube1412]

Correct if people did there job correctly (Linda Burnie) the issues should have already been resolved.

[@elenawalker3746]

The real reason why the Labor Party are pursuing a Voice referendum. The Australian Labor Party in promoting its “YES” vote for a voice to parliament to have the Constitution changed by referendum. The Labor Party is not being open and truthful as to the real reason it is conducting this referendum. In 1990, Federal Politician Kim Beasley made a statement in response to Senator Button's question in the Australian Federal Parliament about whether there should be a republic. His reply was: Kim Beasley Quote: "The United Nations has given the Federal Government a mandate of ownership for housing, farms, property and business to government control once the REPUBLIC has been proclaimed." The comment by Kim Beasley in parliament back in 1990 should be ringing alarm bells. The United Nations is the NWO in waiting for a one world government. The current push by the Labor Party for the ‘Voice’ referendum is the single most important part of their plan, which is to include the 'ORIGINAL' Men, Women and children of this Country (Indigenous people) into the Commonwealth Constitution because, at the moment they have 'NO CONTRACT' with the 'ORIGINAL' Men, Women and children of this Country. Because there is ‘No Contract’ with the Indigenous people of Australia, a republic would not be achieved because the ‘ORIGINAL’ Men, Women and children of this country are the lawful land owners and the government would be unable to take control over ownership of housing, farms, property and business, thus thwarting its secretive push for a totalitarian republic where you would own nothing and be happy. This plan as you can see was already underway back in 1990. Every State in Australia has already sold off the Lands and Title Office, your original titles have been destroyed. The value of your property is in the TITLE. All properties certificate of title has been digitised and this is not a lawful proof of historical ownership. Say ‘NO’ to the Voice and say ‘NO’ to a totalitarian republic they have planned for us Australians.

[@harrycopeland8322]

If the treaty is anything like native title, Australian land owners are in trouble

[@TCM215]

Thats the idea. Combine aboriginal property rights with our corporate government and then bingo no more private property rights in Australia.

[@jw-vx8im]

Native title is a lot fairer than the voice

[@John-kv7jo]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/onurc5l_jc9_gbc

[@davejob630]

Many years ago in the mid 80's I was up in Alice working as a sound tech, and went out to do a gig at Santa Terasa. Part of the country that is still sung, according to tradition. On the way home, we camped - still on that country, and I made my bed on top of the van roof, as I had heard horror stories from my sister about snakes in the sleeping bag...But I had a lucid dream , felt wide awake- seven black sisters descended from the stars to check me out... I had the impression they were going to mess with me somehow, when one said " this ones alright" In a kind of surprised manner. and they flew on. I found out later, of their dreamtime stories. I had never heard of them at that time, or been exposed to the story, growing up as a middle class white kid down in Melbourne. Just a true story , food for thought.

[@sandytatham3592]

This is fascinating. Thanks...🙏

[@skulptor]

You mean magic is true?

[@davejob630]

@@skulptor No, i don't. If anything, I imply that our knowledge of the nature of consciousness, and it's relationship to space-time is incomplete.

[@davejob630]

@@oysterapple9621 I've no idea... and the impression was entirely subjective! Perhaps I was wrong and my misshapen life has been the result!

[@kikiqld1547]

At this point voting yes to referendum is equal to signing a blank document. And logically one should not do it.

[@patricelauverjon2856]

FIRST NATION? An opinion in brief. Strong animistic influences are still present today as sequels of a long Tradition, but what can be seen as a major distinction with other Native Cultures is leadership. Obviously attachment to local Country is another, and there are more. Global intention to accommodate Native Cultures under the label First Nations is as misleading as consolidated Australian first People under one label, the Voice. Limited edition due to restrictions.

[@rushelm8101]

A "Treaty", is only useful if the signatories abide by its terms. I can't say with absolute certainty (no one can), but, from my long experience I can predict with confidence that it will never provide Aboriginals Australians with a reason not to combat non-Aboriginal Australians. Racism, far from being a one-way street, is evident every day in the words and actions of many Aboriginals Australians. They are energised by discontent, and that is one form of energy which is unlikely to diminish, because doing so would expose many to the harsh reality of 'disparity potential', and if you can't correct that at a biological level, then behaving like a revolutionary seems to provide a better lifestyle choice to many.

[@terredaniels3858]

Uluru’s paragraph 3. It says: This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It comes from Fouad Ammoun, Vice-President of International Court of Justice (ICJ) from 1970-6. Those words, with a minor modification, are taken from his ‘separate opinion’ in the ICJ’s Western Sahara Case of 1975, though the Referendum Council’s Final Report (again) wrongly attributes them to the full court. In place of the ‘materialistic’ doctrine of terra nullius, Ammoun had commended an alternative ‘spiritual notion’: …the ancestral tie between the land, or “mother nature”, and the man who was born therefrom, remains attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with his ancestors. Ammoun and his brother judges were not addressing Australia or the status of her indigenous peoples.

[@utube1412]

Aboriginal people are not one homogeneous group. They are very diverse, and in fact have fought between each other for thousands of years. They speak many different languages and have never come together as one collective nation.

[@kayatd]

Sovereignty in an Indigenous context is about Custodianship, as opposed to "Authority" or "Ownership". It is about maintaining and protecting the land. I dont doubt for a second that Australia would be a paradise if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had been able to retain custodianship. This would have allowed them a voice in all matters pertaining to land development, environmental awareness and regeneration. They had 30,000+ years of experience. Anderson keeps saying that hes "afraid?" I dont know what hes so afraid of? Whenever non-indigenous are met with the possibility of Indigenous having something to gain, they always see it as a threat? There is nothing threatening about giving custodianship and a voice to the traditional land custodians, because it will benefit all.

[@jeffstorer]

Nothing good will come from the voice for any Australian,its already set every one back 30yrs lost productivity we will never get back

[@gordonflash8976]

1. I got a copy of this statement of the heart. 2. Ungoverned tribes do not fit the definition of a nation, no matter the length of time they occupied the land. With a stated goal of truth telling, it would be beneficial to start off with some truth telling. 3. Without Governance no sovereignty is possible. 4. Many nations and peoples have had their lands taken or have been all but destroyed, and there loose ownership of the land disappeared from world history in a lot less time than 200 years. 5. Australia's nationhood is expressed fully and inclusively within the current constitution, it needs no constitutional or structural change to achieve your stated goals. 6. You maybe correct about being the most incarcerated people on the planet, It demonstrates that your currently lived culture is out of step with the worlds expectations of socially acceptable behaviour, that your people need lifting up and given/shown that there are higher more noble things to aspire to. You have great love for your children, I do not think anyone would suggest otherwise, your currently lived culture simply puts them at great risk. They would and could be your hope for the future if your currently lived culture were to shift such that it was conducive to your stated goals. 7. If I say I want a house I have to take steps conducive to attaining that goal. Changing the banks structure and constitution will not achieve this for me. 8. Your people have a rightful place and are empowered, currently more than any other other people group in Australia, you simply have to recognise and utilise it. Seize and take advantage of it. Be the masters of your own peoples flourishing. 9. You currently have more representation in this country than any other people group, you do not need enshrinement to achieve your stated goals. 10. A Makarrata may capture your aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the Australian people it also may not. It would be best to tell the rest of Australia what those are before any such referendum. Additionally suggesting that it will capture such things as a future based on justice and self-determination. Suggests that the current Australian justice system is not based on such things, and that self-determination depends on outside influences. Rather the Australian justice system is based on justice even if it has departed from that basis and self-determination is just that resolve within yourself not to be a victim any more but resolve to be successful or victorious and then take steps to achieve the goal. 11. Such a commission may serve a positive purpose for all, even more so if it were put together and had some years to present what changes are thought to be needed to the Australian people before the referendum. It may sell it better fore you. 12. I think you should have a better brighter future that your past. For your walk to your stated goals and outcomes to be enduring for your children it needs to be one founded on truth from the start.

[@TCM215]

Its going to be propaganda telling

[@Bulltardwin]

Imagine thinking you need to alter our constitution in order to listen to Indigenous Australians.

[@margotbarrett6604]

Thanks bro

[@Coops777]

The question has to be asked, just how many of the 800,000 Aboriginal Australians think this way? Is this great need for reparation supported by the majority? It appears more and more Australians are thinking the statement is reflecting the sentiments of a fringe element and is not conducive to our moving forward together.

[@petercunningham-fl4mf]

Audit the NIAA (under Minister Burney). Vote No ALL questions (in pen). The first question is a trick. It has to be No to all for it to count properly.

[@ndkskwbbuekfbsgsuwkneje]

If we can't understand it or explain it, then vote NO!

[@jonathanjackson3706]

I assume to make representations you need to be briefed, and to also have the resources to consider the briefing. If there is a decision made where the Voice is not briefed or didn't have the resources to consider the information supplied, I assume that decision will be available to High Court challenge on the basis the constitutional right to give representations wasn't respected. This I believe is the unsaid utility sought from the voice as a platform for negotiating the treaty. I.e. from an information and bureaucracy standpoint it will be the equal of the government, but without the power yet, which will follow later through the treaty process. I think if you don't want where it is headed (treaty, two systems of government), you don't vote yes? Otherwise no one can properly explain what it is or what it will achieve that's different from a Minister or a Commission or why you couldn't try legislating it first or whatever.

[@grahamwelsh4258]

Just vote NO to the voice.

[@lukedominicodonnell2347]

Why is there always a piece of blue-tack in the background of your videos?

[@utube1412]

They never should have been given billions of dollars a year without audit of spend. These funds have been used to weaponize the indigeounous industry by a small group of professional hustlers.

[@matthewmichaels5522]

They already have a voice.

[@johng8082]

absolutely....their parliamentary representative....you know, the one they voted for in the election. Enough, job done, good night Irene.

[@hairetikos6402]

And this is why any argument for anything else is fundamentally anti-democratic. The people pushing this know what they are doing when they push this. I am a Kiwi and this is the same S that we have to deal with. Don't cede an inch because they will try to F you either way.

[@piersculley6419]

What, in Burney? Burney is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

[@matthewmichaels5522]

@@piersculley6419 then vote someone else in. You know, the democratic process.

[@skulptor]

Remake history. Simple. Where is the end point?

[@robertmiller2173]

Don't do it Aussie; from a Pakeha from New Zealand. Here the Treaty of Waitangi is now becoming Co Governance i.e. 1 Maori vote =5 Pakeha Votes. A Pakeha is any body who isn't a Maori, Chinese, Tongans, Brits, Aussies, all Non Maori Kiwis! Please vote NO Aussie!

[@westbeach8097]

A large document prepared by some academics representing some indigenous communities.

[@mtscott]

That’s the best definition I’ve seen 👍🏻👏🏻

[@AccordQS]

The aboriginal industry is the biggest rort in the history of this country. Most activists are city dwelling elites who have never experienced a day of hardship in their lives. Many, like Thomas Mayo, are fake aboriginals on the gravy train. When are we going to hold the incompetent aboriginal industry accountable for wasting $30,000,000,000 per year, of our taxpayer’s dollars and show no measurable benefit or improvement in the troubled communities? Only when we extinguish native title, will all Australians be able to live side by side as free Ozzie.

[@davidvonschill2809]

However it has NEVER been put to a vote of the ATSI's community so it is NOT a ratified document. It is a document (not a policy) that was created by a committee and has been put as representing AII ATSI's this is incorrect. If you disagree show the acceptance of this document by ALL ATSI's and then why are the leaders of the No case ATSI's. The Statement is a report of many pages with an A4 preface or teaser that the PM has latched onto as being the reason for the Referendum and that is why he cannot justify or answer questions in Parliament on this report to the Nation. All ATSI's are Australians and are represented by many voices in the Parliament in fact there is a Minister and Shadow Minister with Departments of over 1500 persons to represent ATSI's.

[@bunyinjbhadi7212]

The ULURU Statement, Voice to Parliament, 'Sorry' speech of KRudd, and the Constitution, ALL have something in common, of which NO politician, bureaucrat, or academic will ever speak, and is the sole reason for there being a TWO party preferred electoral system in Australia. To speak of this 'common thread' among these 'important' documents, would find the speaker 'removed' from society, with all privileges revoked.....and under pain of death.

[@chrismiddleton9088]

I really dislike the use of the term "Nation". The definition of a "Nation" is a LARGE body of people united by common descent, history, culture or language inhabiting a particular country or territory. These was never a single indigenous so-called nation in Australia but research suggests that at the time of European settlement there were at least 250 tribal groups based on linguistic and other attributes. It is estimated that at the time of settlement there were between 300,000 and 1.2 million aboriginal people so on average tribal groups would have varied from 1200 to 5000 people. I am assuming that tribal groups near the coast would have been larger than those in the interior. In any event a group of 5000 people is hardly a nation but rather a tribe.

[@saneman8147]

If their culture was so successful and utopian prior to colonisation let them all go back to the bush without handouts or the benifits that are associated with Western society eg food, shelter, health education, technology and utilities.

[@Mister_Holdsworth]

Akk Australians should start identifying as Aboriginal if the yes vote gets up.

[@brianjarred340]

Vote NO to save our country

[@Mister_Holdsworth]

All Australians should start identifying as Aboriginal if the yes vote gets up.

[@davidpierce6075]

Remember John Hewson's GST birthday cake? The academic description of this issue is even less intelligible than Hewson's laboured and confusing description. If you cannot articulate what it is with clarity then it is unimplementable.

[@kevinsmith3671]

Simply vote NO

[@freiduumforall8843]

Ah, that's a NO from me...

[@blox82]

No

[@blokeVB]

Europe Asia Africa Middle east should learn from this opps the Americans who who

[@chrisg8321]

How many pages is it, 26 or 1 😂😂😂😂

[@chrismiddleton9088]

You should regard page 1 as the abstract and the other 25 pages as the meat.

[@chrisg8321]

@@chrismiddleton9088 Correct.

[@readyorknot2344]

Ambit claim