Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

[Gethelred]

Alright.

We've had the Referendum into the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the public rejected it.

From the notes to the Referendum Committee:

The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Would you be okay with any or all of the above? What do you think would be a reasonable means of reparations, or do you think reparations are not required at all?

Try and keep it civil from here. The last few pages have been as base as anywhere else on this forum.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

All laws the Federal Government will enact will effect Indigenous people.

So you are saying the Voice could advocate for cost of living relief, for everyone?

And you think thats a bad thing?

 

[Todman]

So you are saying the Voice could advocate for cost of living relief, for everyone?

Yes

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yes

Thats good. I’m glad you support the Voice.

 

[Todman]

Thats good. I’m glad you support the Voice.

Clever slight of hand. And that is what the Voice is.

 

[Todman]

Thats good. I’m glad you support the Voice.

And you just made the "No" case against the Voice.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

And you just made the "No" case against the Voice.

So you don't want anyone to advocate for cost of living relief?

Interesting.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Clever slight of hand. And that is what the Voice is.

No, it seems you are thinking of Auslan.

 

[Northalives]

All laws the Federal Government will enact will effect Indigenous people.

Lets no be simpletons hey? All laws made by the Federal Government effect all of us. AUKUS effects all of us. Trade laws effect all of us as do environmental laws as do all laws made in regards to, amongst other things, Workplace Relations, Foreign Affairs, Education, Agriculture, Industry etc etc etc. either directly or indirectly. The Voice is about laws specific to Indigenous people like Indigenous health, housing, employment, infrastructure etc so lets not play dumb and make lazy and feeble arguments in a desperate attempt to make tenuous connections.

 

[Todman]

Lets no be simpletons hey? All laws made by the Federal Government effect all of us. AUKUS effects all of us. Trade laws effect all of us as do environmental laws as do all laws made in regards to, amongst other things, Workplace Relations, Foreign Affairs, Education, Agriculture, Industry etc etc etc. either directly or indirectly.

This part is correct.

The Voice is about laws specific to Indigenous people like Indigenous health, housing, employment, infrastructure etc so lets not play dumb and make lazy and feeble arguments in a desperate attempt to make tenuous connections.

This part not. Any laws will effect non-indigenous workers as they have to provide expertise, services, labour and employment, and finance.

 

[Northalives]

This part is correct.

This part not. Any laws will effect non-indigenous workers as they have to provide expertise, services, labour and employment, and finance.

and the rules of employment and workplace relations are the same for everyone, black white, orange, brindle. If the Voice executive says to the Federal Parliament for example, "we blackfellas want to pay all white workers a pittance, just as they paid the Gurindji stockmen way back when." the Parliament of Australia will tell them to f**k off! That's what the anti-voice lot just cannot comprehend either because they are dense or don't want to comprehend: the Voice is non binding, it cannot compel or veto.

 

[Todman]

and the rules of employment and workplace relations are the same for everyone, black white, orange, brindle. If the Voice executive says to the Federal Parliament for example, "we blackfellas want to pay all white workers a pittance, just as they paid the Gurindji stockmen way back when." the Parliament of Australia will tell them to f**k off! That's what the anti-voice lot just cannot comprehend either because they are dense or don't want to comprehend: the Voice is non binding, it cannot compel or veto.

No point is solving yesterdays injustice with tomorrow injustices.

If the Voice was non binding then it doesn't need to be in the constitution.

 

[burge13]

"Vote yes. Its the right thing to do"
Why
"Because we need to listen"
What actions will be taken once heard?
"Dont know yet, we'll decide later!"
So what are we voting on?
"Listening, but actions later which we dont know"
Is there a cost
"No!"
So all these bodies wanting a voice will work for free moving forward?
"Ummm no... well, we dont know yet"
Voice ads claim to help education and health outcomes. How if there's no actions yet? Seems outlandish to make that claim
"It just will"

* Head explodes *

Cannot wait for this to be over.

 

[Carringbush2010]

WA cultural Heritage Act is the prime example.
Brought in and now repealed.

The timing was unfortunate however it is something that can not be ignored.

*And that's a good lesson, it points to whatever legislation can be brought in can also be repealed.

The Voice can only request such things to be legislated, not actually legislate it themselves.

I very much doubt that a Voice would even recommend something like that act that would be detrimental to other members of the electorate, further no parliament would likely legislate such a request, * Lesson learnt.

Labor WA will count the cost of legislating that act, maybe not now but sure as hell will at some point.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

WA cultural Heritage Act is the prime example.
Brought in and now repealed.

The timing was unfortunate however it is something that can not be ignored.

Repealed but bits of pre-existing legislation have also been amended for clarity

What will — and won't — change after the WA government sensationally backflipped on its cultural heritage laws

Now the WA government has confirmed it's repealing the controversial Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, Jake Sturmer explains everything you need to know.

www.abc.net.au

 

[the_interloper]

On the weekend my 8 year old said “so Dad you know how there’s been all of the Yes and No posters in peoples yards?”

I said “yyyeeeaaahhh” bracing myself for a conversation about the Voice, the plight of indigenous people etc

He said “so do you think dogs would vote yes or no?”

Pissed myself laughing, kids ey

 

[South of the Yarra]

On the weekend my 8 year old said “so Dad you know how there’s been all of the Yes and No posters in peoples yards?”

I said “yyyeeeaaahhh” bracing myself for a conversation about the Voice, the plight of indigenous people etc

He said “so do you think dogs would vote yes or no?”

Pissed myself laughing, kids ey

They would vote 'Yes' because they have a 'heart'.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

On the weekend my 8 year old said “so Dad you know how there’s been all of the Yes and No posters in peoples yards?”

I said “yyyeeeaaahhh” bracing myself for a conversation about the Voice, the plight of indigenous people etc

He said “so do you think dogs would vote yes or no?”

Pissed myself laughing, kids ey

They would vote 'Yes' because they have a 'heart'.

Anyone remember that Aussie band from the 1990's, The Fauves?

 

[E Shed]

If anyone is interested in some decent investigative journalism that follows the trail of the money that went into what was a multi, multi million dollar, highly coordinated campaign by some of the wealthiest people in Australia to construct what appeared to be a group of seperate grass roots organisations aimed at different demographics.

This was a highly organised and efficient effort to disseminate deliberate misrepresentation, exaggeration and outright lies framed as protecting us from the woke elites who were going to among other falsehoods, repress Christianity, cancel Australia day, take away your house, give economic & other advantages to Aboriginal people (at your expense).

All of these supposedly independent, small organisations for fronts for the organisation Advance.

"
The nerve centre of the No campaign was Advance (officially Advance Aus Ltd).

The shadowy entity – with just three people as directors – was at the heart of at least seven connected front entities, including its campaign arm Fair Australia, Australians for Unity (the “charity” arm of the network) and “Referendum for News” (which falsely held itself out as an impartial news source).

The enemy was the “elite” and “inner-city woke”, or so we were told.

“More of us are worried about what woke politicians and inner-city elites are doing to our country,” Advance told Australians.

Advance was a “grassroots campaign” of “ordinary Aussies” with “mainstream values”, it claimed.

“We believe Australia is a free country. But you wouldn’t know it from the way woke politicians and the inner-city elites carry on”.
---

It was of course fronted by 2 Aboriginal people Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine.

All of its seperate entities traced back to an entity called Regus which "operated" out of an empty office in Canberra.

Once Peter Dutton declared opposition to the voice these entities went into overdrive on social media and were effective in reducing support for the voice from around 60% down to 43% at the time of the vote.
----

"The Advance network (a central plank of its campaign) pointed endlessly to the big money being lavished on the Yes campaign by major corporates including Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, BHP, Wesfarmers, and Coles — which has long been well documented and disclosed.

So, who was bankrolling this aggressive campaign against the “elites”, these rebellious “grassroots” campaign of “ordinary Aussies”?

The super-elites, of course. The mega-rich.

The disclosed donors to Advance (officially Advance Aus Ltd) in the 2022 financial year (the most recent filings), boil down to just ten entities.

(The Klaxon’s investigations built on earlier, highly-detailed, work by Crikey).

The bankrollers of Advance are a handful of people who have made a killing on the back of Australia, its resources and its people — much of it inherited.

Of the ten entities, eight (at the very least, we’re being very conservative here) have fortunes of $100m or more.

They’re not even the 1%. They’re the 0.01% — literally.

They own entire sporting teams, wineries, private aeroplanes, and portfolios of mega-mansions."

Investigations show ties between the “No” campaign and fossil fuels and mining run deep. Advance runs its own pro-fossil fuels, anti-renewables arm “Not Zero”.

The after party for the murky No campaign was held in secret. Media were refused entry – yet spotted was resources billionaire Gina Rinehart.

Fellow fossil fuels billionaire Clive Palmer announced, just before polling day, he had kicked in $2 million to knocking the Voice on the head."

The closing conclusion from the article "We’ve been given the blueprint of how the Liberal Party under Dutton will act from here on in – a view of the sleazy trenches of lies and disinformation around which the 2024 federal election will almost certainly be fought."

Australia's wealthiest 'super-elites' conspired to kill the Voice - The Shot

The fairy tale that there’s an anti-authority streak, some anti-ruling class rebelliousness, running deep in the blood of Australians is

theshot.net.au

 

[Carringbush2010]

I found this article, a survey on the vote.

For me it's encouraging that the electorate are / were in favour of the principle of the voice, and because of my (possibly optimistic faith in humanity) probably have been for a long long time.

MSN

An excerpt:

1. Defeat didn't diminish reconciliation support​

Professor Biddle said he was surprised by the "extent to which Australians were still likely to support the principles of the Voice".

That's despite every Australian jurisdiction, other than the ACT, rejecting it.

The survey found around 80 per cent of Australians believe the federal government should improve reconciliation and "undertake formal truth-telling processes".

Eighty-seven per cent of Yes voters surveyed said First Nations Australians should have a say in matters affecting them, which was hardly surprising, until researchers learned 76 per cent of No voters agreed.

"So, what that says to me is that the principles [of the Voice] are still well supported, but that it was the mechanism and some of the specifics about the Voice model which people did not say Yes to," Professor Biddle explained.

Obviously, some of you will still ask the question, to paraphrase, 'what is the validity of the no vote?'

We need to move past this an accept that maybe just maybe, by and large Jan and Joe public are in support of reconciliation. It's how we get there by sorting the wheat from the chaff that is now the challenge.

Of course this will require an entity / entities that advises / consults on what it is needed to bride the gap / reconcile, obviously that requires consultants not from an office in parliament house, but from those from all geography and demography with life-world experience.

Naturally the post above speaks of conspirators against the voice, however ultimately the will of the people wins out in the end, and it seems the sentiment of the electorate does not align with those who campaigned in bad faith against the voice.

 

[burge13]

The country overwhelmingly voted no, in every city/state. It was a landslide

Any 'survey' claiming he opposite is somehow what people wanted is utter lunacy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The country overwhelmingly voted no, in every city/state. It was a landslide

Any 'survey' claiming he opposite is somehow what people wanted is utter lunacy.

You obviously didn't read the article or indeed my post.

It does not claim the opposite, it explains that by and large Jan and Joe public are in favour of reconciliation and closing the gap.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The country overwhelmingly voted no, in every city/state. It was a landslide

Any 'survey' claiming he opposite is somehow what people wanted is utter lunacy.

The country voted NO to changing the constitution.

Did you not read the ballot paper? What did you think you were voting against?

 

[Cmarsh]

SA voice vote has been held. Only Aboriginal people eligible to vote. However, they barely cared.

SA Voice voter turnout low, but successful candidate urges 'give us a chance'

Just a fraction of eligible voters cast their ballot in the first election for South Australia's state-based First Nations Voice to Parliament — but one of the successful candidates has cautioned against making judgements based on the turnout.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Ghost Patrol]

SA voice vote has been held. Only Aboriginal people eligible to vote. However, they barely cared.

SA Voice voter turnout low, but successful candidate urges 'give us a chance'

Just a fraction of eligible voters cast their ballot in the first election for South Australia's state-based First Nations Voice to Parliament — but one of the successful candidates has cautioned against making judgements based on the turnout.

www.abc.net.au

Maybe they don't watch or read the MSM?

 

[Cmarsh]

Maybe they don't watch or read the MSM?

46 candidates have been elected the the first SA voice to parliament to deliver advice on issues affecting Aboriginal people.

Thought you'd be thrilled.