After a lot of searching and asking around I now have in my possession the complete 26-page Uluru statement. This is document 14 of FOI/2223/016. It starts at page number 87, but this page number does not imply that document 14 is over 87 pages long. As you are about to see, the document itself is exactly 26 pages long.
I spent a lot of time combing through this and presenting the whole document in a easy to read format. Share this around so everyone can understand it.
Pg. 1
This is the Uluru Statement from the Heart page that everyone is familiar with. This is what was recently claimed as the full document, but this is not true as you’ll see. The most interesting part I highlighted in green. Spiritual sovereignty, and the fact that the ATSI people are born from “mother nature” seems like loophole heaven in a court scenario.
Pg. 2
This page starts by explaining the story of first nations peoples, which then is bombarded by colonisation. “the struggle to survive a relentless inhumanity” is pretty strong wording to describe colonisation, and seems to imply that relentless inhumanity is ongoing.
Their law is the laws seemingly passed down by various tribes, they also state “The unfinished business of Australia’s nationhood…”, which is implying that Australia isn’t a proper nation?
Pg. 3
So now either the story changes to the idea that the arrival of Europeans was an invasion, or they link colonisation and invasion as being the same thing. Id recommend reading the whole page. It is setting up what I assume to be a legal argument that they are a fully sovereign nation already. (multiple nations or one?)
Pg. 4
So here they are just continuing the argument that British are bad, first nations are innocent, interesting read. Justifying first nations independence?
Pg. 5
“Delegates spoke of the spiritual and cultural things that have been stolen…” prelude to reparations one would assume. “As we mourn” so they are still currently mourning today.
Pg. 6
So this is where the Land Rights section starts, worth reading the whole section as this is important. “The taking of our land without consent represents our fundamental grievance against the British Crown” self-explanatory. Also, in the green it says that the struggle for rights has united First Nations, I don’t understand if they are making the argument that they are one nation or several nations? If they are separate nations, then do they need multiple statements and sets of laws? Reply if you know.
Pg. 7
This is where the Makarrata section starts. Makarrata actually means to spear someone in the leg but here its described as a treaty. “It (Australian Constitution) would have to acknowledge the “Tjukurrpa” – “our own Constitution””.
Pg. 8
Self explanatory, worth a read.
Pg. 9
Now it is explaining the points listed on page 8 in detail. “any reform must involve substantive
changes to the Australian Constitution.”
Pg.10
I didn’t highlight anything here but it is still worth a read.
Pg. 11
Largely referring to an ATSIC’s report and UN declarations. They are also getting into the “truth of history”, the question is whose history, here I believe its citing sources that support their view of history.
Pg. 12
They bring the United nations into this a lot. I didn’t see anywhere that they want to create a “ministry of truth” as some people online have said. But I doesn’t seem to far fetched considering they didn’t fully address what “truth” is or who’s “truth” it is exactly? Since one person’s story of an event is different from another’s.
Pg. 13
Now this reform, I’m not sure if they want to reform the Australian Constitution or the “Tjukurrpa”. I’m sure some of you would have understood it.
Pg. 14
It can’t change any positive legal arrangements, everything new that comes from this must be an addition to their current situation.
Pg. 15
You might have seen this one before. I didn’t add any colours/highlights to this page, this is the original page.
Pg. 16
Same story. This is the original page.
Pg. 17
The voice is DESIGNED for the strict purpose of enforcing a TREATY. Says it clear as day “Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.”. So yes, we have been lied to.
Pg. 18
“the creation of a ‘Black Parliament’” is an interesting one. “Any body must also be supported by a sufficient and guaranteed budget” my question would be, where would the money come from? Taxpayer, reparations, or something else? Directly beneath the voice section is the section on treaty. These two are highly linked.
Pg. 19
“Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government”. “the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement” self-explanatory. They also toy with seeking a percentage of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product “GDP” which is pretty bold to say the least.
Pg. 20
So the argument that they are going to make a “ministry of truth” seems much more real now. “A truth commission could be established as part of any reform, for example, prior to a constitutional reform or as part of a Treaty negotiation.”
Pg. 21
No mention of race when appointing the makarrata roadmap working group. This working group also will be the ones reforming the constitution. Who is the Expert group?
Pg. 22
The voice is situated in the parliament circle somewhere. New building?
Pg. 23
“The role of the National Native Title Tribunal should be subsumed by the Makarrata Commission, which should have as one of its functions the role of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to enable all Australians to face the truth of the past and to embrace a common hope for the future.” You will face the truth of your past and you will be happy.
Pg’s 24-26
This is their roadmap. I didn’t add any colours etc. And that ends Document 14 of FOI/2223/016.
