by NINA NGUYEN – INDIGENOUS Australians who disagree with the Left’s proposed Voice are being “ignored or bullied,” according to Federal Senator Jacinta Price.
She said that, contrary to the narrative being pushed, there was no consensus among Indigenous leaders.
- The Uluru statement was signed by 250 individuals who attended the Convention “by invite only”.
- All State and territory leaders signed a joint statement to declare their support for the Voice.
- Opposing Aboriginal voices are being sidelined in the process.
The Uluru Statement is a 2017 petition by a group of Aboriginal leaders who called for constitutional reform in Australia to improve Indigenous people’s political representation.
It has since been widely endorsed by governments at both State and federal levels, with the Albanese Government moving to hold a referendum for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament later this year.
SIGNED
In early February, all State and territory leaders signed a joint statement to declare their support for the Voice.
Then last week, South Australia passed the First Nations Voice Bill, moving the State closer to having an Indigenous Voice in parliament, while the Queensland government also introduced an Indigenous treaty last week.
But Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Price, herself an Indigenous Australian, has said that the Uluru statement didn’t reflect the diversity of viewpoints among the Indigenous community, warning that opposing voices are being sidelined in the process.
The statement is aimed at benefiting the elites rather than ordinary Aboriginal Australians, Price alleges, adding that Uluru in the statement name was only “used as the backdrop for maximum manipulative impact.”
“There were many who disagreed with the process, and were ignored or bullied,” she wrote in a comment on Facebook.
The Uluru statement, which was introduced at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017, proposed establishing an Indigenous Voice in the parliament to advise the government on Indigenous-related matters, treaty-making and a truth-telling process.
The move’s intention is that by enshrining an Indigenous political voice in the Constitution, this can atone for the treatment of those indigenous individuals in the past who were “systematically discriminated” against during British colonisation.
Those in favour of changing the Constitution argue that the race of the “original owners of the country” should be given a voice on matters that directly affect them.
According to the “From the Heart” website, the Uluru statement “represents a historic consensus of Indigenous leaders in seeking constitutional change to recognise First Australians through a Voice to Parliament”.
Yet, Price noted that the statement was signed by 250 individuals who attended the Convention “by invite only,” and that those present who walked out over disagreements with the proposal were “threatened with tribal punishment, which means violence”.
She said there were many Indigenous language groups who do not have a signature on the Uluru statement, including her Warlpiri people.
NAIVE
“But naive white fellas believe the nonsense peddled, and Aboriginal people from the bush are exploited by the elites for their own agenda,” she said.
“This is why I and many other Aboriginal Australians say ‘No’ to this constitutional change that only seeks to empower the elite while exploiting the most vulnerable.”
“Don’t destroy our democracy through naivety and emotional blackmail!”
The Senator has previously noted that political views among Indigenous Australians are as diverse as for other groups of Australians and not homogenous.
Her comments came as a reply to a comment supportive of the Uluru statement under a social media post by teal independent MP Monique Ryan. However, the original comment was later deleted, as well as Price’s reply comment.
Ryan, the Climate 200-backed MP who won the seat of Kooyong, Victoria, previously held by former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, announced in her post she would hold an information session about the Voice to Parliament on March 2. That post remains visible on Facebook.
The teal MP will be joined by Aboriginal musician Uncle Bart, National Indigenous officer at the Maritime Union of Australia Thomas Mayo, and co-chair of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria Marcus Stewart.
The post saw mixed reactions from Australians, with one person saying the event had a “line up of inner-city elites,” and others voicing concerns about the details of the Voice and its proposed changes to the Constitution being kept “under wraps.”
DETAILS
So far, the Albanese government has yet to confirm any details about the proposal beyond the Prime Minister’s draft wording of the referendum question and the constitutional amendment on an “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” in July last year.
It is unclear what are the functions, size and cost of the Indigenous body, as well as how it would benefit the most vulnerable Aboriginal Australians, who would be selected as the representative, what the criteria are, and how “Aboriginal” would be defined.
In a separate comment, Price asked whether Ryan would be including an information night with Indigenous speakers who oppose the Voice to provide her constituents with a “balanced and informed view.”
She also asked whether Ryan would be visiting the Alice Springs communities who are struggling amid an alcohol-fuelled crime wave.
Ryan did not respond to the questions.
MESSAGE
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said this month that a “Yes” result to the referendum, to be held sometime between October and December, will “send the message to the world that we are a mature nation; that we are prepared to come to terms with our history and past”.
Newly independent senator Lidia Thorpe, who quit the Greens over the Indigenous voice, said Aboriginal people “deserve better than a powerless voice”.
“We need a treaty, we want real power, we want real justice in this country,” she said.
“Everything else we have been offered for the last 200 years has no power. And we’re not settling for anything less.”
A Roy Morgan survey of 1,499 people in December, 2022, showed that slightly over half of the Australians surveyed—53 per cent—would vote “Yes” to establish an “Indigenous Voice” in Parliament compared with 30 per cent who would vote “No,” and a further 17 per cent who are sitting on the fence.PC
We all think (or so I am led to believe) that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The Voice is very much non-inclusive and will only make more problems between the many nations that call Australia home. We have always welcomed British, Chinese, Indian, New Zealanders and Islanders, besides many other minorities to share and contribute to this wonderful country. We are a multi-cultural country and should celebrate all our diversity. Not treating everyone equally just makes ill feeling amongst all citizens whether born here or overseas.
Please read Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 7 March, “Do the referendum the right way … or no way”, a story written by an indigenous Australian who completed the Message Stick Walk from Cape York to Canberra.
Enlightening and divisive race based demands, extracts;
* There are 300-plus First Nations countries that have survived in Australia.
* In my culture that means 300-plus Voices need to be heard equally by government.
* My mob can’t speak for your mob. Your mob can’t speak for my mob.
* One national Indigenous Voice can’t just speak for our countries because the government wants it to.
* After walking 12 million steps to Canberra through 50 sovereign First Nation countries.
* I carried many messages from voices that disagreed with the idea of one national Indigenous Voice.
* The right way to support First Nations peoples is to stop the referendum in it’s tracks and demand that the government funds a Free Prior Informed Consent process first in this May budget.
* Consent is an internationally agreed minimum standard of engagement in the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDIP).
* The Uluru Statement also supports consent as a right but they have not implemented it.
* Maybe First Nations peoples want to ask for an Indigenous Voice in the Constitution.
* Maybe First Nations peoples want to ask The Australian people to become a republic?
* Maybe First Nations peoples want their sovereign rights to treaties to be their Voice in the Constitution?
* That is what consent will establish.
Much more to read and consider.
At the end;
* Three hundred-plus First Nations peoples already have voices. They need Canberra’s ears. Without free prior informed consent FIRST, this referendum is just another colonial act of assimilation.
ends.
Division by race, them and us, treaties between fellow Australians for past history and deceased people?
The violence BEFORE the Screech gets in will be nothing compared to the violence after this racist, communist abomination is in the Constitution. After Mabo back in 1993 I had to go up to my uncle’s farm in the Hunter Valley. My uncle was a WW11 veteran and he had been confronted by activist thugs who demanded he leave THEIR farm because of Mabo. I knew a couple of these losers from school and being a lawyer when I turned up and stated the legal facts of Mabo, a bad decision of judicial activism, they left. No doubt my size and the size of a couple of mates I brought with me also played a part.
But if the Voice gets in the Constitution what happened to my uncle, and other farmers in the district, will be nothing. Based on a new and separate Constitutional clause there will be no limit to what aboriginal activists can and will do.
The Voice will literally destroy this nation. If Bowen’s energy policies don’t do that first.
The same mentality that people showed toward others with Scam Demic (Covid) abusing them for not wearing a mask nor for being coerced into the poison vaccine and anyone who dispute the climate hoax gets abused and attacked and these so called tolerant and informed people are the very Bullies attacking the rest of us for being informed .
Given the lack of detail being provided, I am now very suspicious about how the referendum votes will be counted. People that are unsure if the ‘Voice’ will help indigenous people should vote ‘No’ to make sure they are not included with the ‘Yes’ votes as passive support as we saw happen in the SSM survey.
Voice first. Then republic. Then we laugh at you pathetic little empire bigots sobbing over the loss of your racist colonial mono culture, realising you are but a noisy gaggle of sad old white men lurking on the fringes of society.
Whatever is wrong with you is no little thing. No doubt you believe in Covid and Climate Change and attack anyone who does not share your nasty little views?! I bet you do not love who you are fighting for but you do hate who you are fighting against? Which makes you very sad case.
The critics attack Senator Jacinta Price and conveniently ignore that she was born and raised in the NT and still lives there, she and her family and notably her mother Bess Price who was also an MP, have been involved in Aboriginal welfare and support where the people are located.
She is a person to be admired and supported.
No to racist treaties and dividing our nation.
And by the way, obviously of little or no influence accepted, the existing voices are;
* Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council.
* More than 30 Aboriginal Land Councils managing Native Title legislation lands being 50% of country.
* More than 2,700 Aboriginal corporations.
* Council of Peaks, representing 70 top Aboriginal organisations.
* Members of Parliament, State and Territories, who are indigenous ancestry Australians, at least part.
* Federal, State and Territory government departments for Aboriginal affairs.
Very clearly the Albo-Activist Voices agenda is a trojan horse of hidden details with a treaty between fellow Australians in our multicultural nation based on 1788 to 1901 colonial governments and settlers now long gone.
An activist project since 1960-1970 university student activist lobbying based on US activist freedom marches and other protests, North America “First Nations” based UN indigenous peoples international politics.
Nothing is more hypocritical than a monarchist complaing about racial preference.
Are you really that stupid lad? Can you really not spot the irony?
No but I can spot a fool Noel and I have a very accurate BS Detector.
So do you support the selection of Australia’s head of state based on breeding and bloodline and birthright?
Yes or no.
I know better than that Noel.
You repeating the same incorrect information will never make it right.