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.

 

[DaBarz]

It depends who is on it.
Imagine if you had a situation where a Lidia Thorpe was on the Voice and Australia had a Coalition government. Doesn't take much to imagine her trying to block every piece of legislation that comes up just to make life difficult.

There is a “Lidia Thorpe “ - his name is Thomas Mayo

 

[Cap]

Wow
Nothing like exaggerating to the extremes.

Posts like this are simply rubbish and I have no idea how they are permitted to be posted.

Conjuring up the KKK is a sign of desperation - Nothing less and it’s sick.

No, it was a funny joke which triggered certain people.

I wonder why

 

[Cap]

This place is hilarious. It’s not enough to say you’re voting Yes, unless you are prepared to dogpile everyone voting No you are branded a racist. You are utterly cooked.

I'm probably voting yes.

No good reason to say no.

I've seen a couple of reasonable no voters with somewhat legitimate issues.

 

[DaBarz]

No, it was a funny joke which triggered certain people.

I wonder why

Who finds KKK funny
Only sick *uckers in my opinion.
Pull you head in

 

[mcnulty]

No, it was a funny joke which triggered certain people.

I wonder why

Often laugh at your own jokes? I actually bet you do.

Just embarrassing

 

[QuietB]

I’ve given you 2 reasons but
You

Those reasons are not part of the referendum.

 

[Skeppersap]

Why do you think that that's a reasonable argument to vote 'no', considering the fact it doesn't give a group of people additional constitutional representation over all other 'Australians'?

Are you saying that the response to a lie, is reasonable, or that the lie is reasonable?


Why are you a 'yes' voter, if you seem many reasonable reasons to vote 'no'??

Of course it does..... To say any different is delusional.

And why do you write 'Australians' instead of Australians?

 

[Cap]

Who finds KKK funny
Only sick *uckers in my opinion.
Pull you head in

You continue to make it funny.


Especially when your argument boils down to, give those indigenous folk a voice and they'll ruin the country.

Maybe grab a mirror and have a good look

 

[Cap]

Rightio

View attachment 1783517

"I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. And on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I commit to the Uluru Statement from the heart in full.”

Don’t for one minute think they’re not going down this road.

We get it, you don't think you are racist

You just appose acknowledging Indigenous Australians

We all hear you loud and clear.

 

[checkraiseulite]

That is still not a reason to vote no champ.

You keep simping for the elites champ - they'll eventually throw you a few crumbs

keep believing

 

[Home Alone]

If the No vote was about denying indigenous people the same rights currently enjoyed by other Australians then it could rightly be assumed racist. But it isn’t, so it can’t.

But isn't that just the point. If we take binary view of European or Indigeneous, ever since European settlement the Indigenous have:
Lost right to territorial land under European law
Been judged by European standards
Expected to assimilate by European protocols
Learn by European principles.
Have success measured by European wealth

And now you want the status quo to remain that the indigenous need to negotiate with government according to accepted European representation!!!!!!

So if your argument is they have the same rights under European law after generations of oppression. I don't think your position of the No voters is a true reflection.

 

[mcnulty]

And now you want the status quo to remain that the indigenous need to negotiate with government according to accepted European representation

I’ve said several times in just the last 24 hours that I intend to vote Yes. It’s right there in the preceding pages. But thanks for illustrating a point- you people have your preconceived notions about everyone wrt this and you simply don’t listen.

 

[Cap]

That is still not a reason to vote no champ.

You keep simping for the elites champ - they'll eventually throw you a few crumbs

I saw the start of the No campaign


They aren't elite. Just old white folk.

 

[killtaker1993]

The funniest thing about the rabid No voters is how they are all suddenly so concerned about the constitution.

 

[QuietB]

I saw the start of the No campaign


They aren't elite. Just old white folk.

Oh yes, of course, the quiet Australians the Liberals always seem to roll out.

Who do you really think the Liberals serve? When they oppose mining taxes who are they serving? When they oppose pharmacy reform who are they serving? When they promote the No vote who are they serving?

It’s not you.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Oh yes, of course, the quiet Australians the Liberals always seem to roll out.

Who do you really think the Liberals serve? When they oppose mining taxes who are they serving? When they oppose pharmacy reform who are they serving? When they promote the No vote who are they serving?

It’s not you.

the better question is who do politicians in general serve? it’s not you.

let’s take geelong grammar alum richard marles, ALP member for one of the most deprived areas in the state, $3m on private private jets this year.

a true grifter.

 

[QuietB]

the better question is who do politicians in general serve? it’s not you.

let’s take richard marles, member for one of the most deprived areas in the state, $3m on private private jets this year after.

a true grifter.

Nice whataboutism

 

[Home Alone]

I’ve said several times in just the last 24 hours that I intend to vote Yes. It’s right there in the preceding pages. But thanks for illustrating a point- you people have your preconceived notions about everyone wrt this and you simply don’t listen.

Fair enough.

It wasn't directed at you per se. Your post seemed the most relevant to add my thoughts.

 

[Todman]

No voters are the ones who want me to believe they are not racist, but they cannot tell me why they are voting no.

Elevating one group above all others in the constitution is a racist act by its very definition. No other groups have that privilege.

If the Voice alone only dealt with indigenous issues, is BS. Indigenous identifying persons are all over this country, in every local government, therefore every legal change will effect everyone including the indigenous, thus the Voice is effecting every legal change.

 

[Rotayjay]

Let's be realistic. If there was a treaty-making process or processes, the Indigenous groups won't exactly be negotiating from a position of strength. European colonisers have already taken over this continent, started doing so 235 years ago, and committed what is often called genocide. If a state or federal government couldn't get the public to stomach reparations, they won't offer reparations and no one will make them do so.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

With how this campaign seems to have been ballsed up and played into the hands of the right, it’s going to put the objective of Treaty back for decades as they’ve managed to conflate the two together. Really do wonder how things are going to go from here. Certainly anything that happens won’t be touched with a ten foot pole by the machine Labor has thrown into this campaign once it’s lost and they move on.

The push for treaty is now going to have to be effected at a grassroots level probably based on state and local type agreements. I don’t know about other states but the recently elected First Nations Assembly has had some radical, switched on thinkers that have won a spot and I’m sure they’ll come up with something interesting which will possibly provide an example around the country.

 

[QuietB]

Elevating one group above all others in the constitution is a racist act by its very definition. No other groups have that privilege.

If the Voice alone only dealt with indigenous issues, is BS. Indigenous identifying persons are all over this country, in every local government, therefore every legal change will effect everyone including the indigenous, thus the Voice is effecting every legal change.

You sound like a communist

 

[DaBarz]

The funniest thing about the rabid No voters is how they are all suddenly so concerned about the constitution.

The strange thing I find is that yes voters seem not to care.

 

[DaBarz]

You continue to make it funny.


Especially when your argument boils down to, give those indigenous folk a voice and they'll ruin the country.

Maybe grab a mirror and have a good look

Please show where I’ve said that ?
You may find rabid KKK racists hilarious - most people I would say are sickened by it.

Now, who was asking about liars again ?

 

[DaBarz]

I saw the start of the No campaign


They aren't elite. Just old white folk.

Of course it is.

I don’t think you’ve posted one correct thing yet