Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Regardless of the referendum result, local community leadership is needed to address the grog, domestic violence, child abuse & education. That will never come on a fifo basis from some department (s) in the capital cities.
If the elders are not able (willing or not) the younger generation on country must step up.

The political nature (left & right) of discussion does nothing for those at the sharp end delivering improvements,& is a transparent example of wasted effort around the whole issue beyond boardrooms & white boards.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Regardless of the referendum result, local community leadership is needed to address the grog, domestic violence, child abuse & education. That will never come on a fifo basis from some department (s) in the capital cities.
If the elders are not able (willing or not) the younger generation on country must step up.

The political nature (left & right) of discussion does nothing for those at the sharp end delivering improvements ,& is a transparent example of wasted effort around the whole issue beyond boardrooms & white boards.
I do agree with that and see it as totally seperate from the referendum. Each community is different and solutions to deep seated problems need to be driven by those locally with the respect to be able to drive it. I have seen very positive examples of alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence being addressed, these examples have been driven by the programs set up through the tireless work of elders and people who have progressed on to become elders through the respect they’ve gained from their work.
 
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.
It was the individual colonies (now states) that facilitated and sanctioned the taking of Indigenous lands. By the time of Federation in 1901, the continent was very much colonised already. Therefore you could argue that it makes more sense for state governments to negotiate treaties, especially since there are numerous different First Nations.
 
It was the individual colonies (now states) that facilitated and sanctioned the taking of Indigenous lands. By the time of Federation in 1901, the continent was very much colonised already. Therefore you could argue that it makes more sense for state governments to negotiate treaties, especially since there are numerous different First Nations.
Yeah, there’s various schools of thought on which level it’s most appropriate to negotiate treaties with, the state government level is a popular one mostly because of what you mentioned. I think it would work well here in Victoria. Other schools of thought are even more local, and some want to negotiate with Britain. They all have merit to them.
 
Yeah, there’s various schools of thought on which level it’s most appropriate to negotiate treaties with, the state government level is a popular one mostly because of what you mentioned. I think it would work well here in Victoria. Other schools of thought are even more local, and some want to negotiate with Britain. They all have merit to them.
I wonder how the British government would behave in Australian treaty negotiations.
 
I wonder how the British government would behave in Australian treaty negotiations.
Can’t see it happening but hypothetically would depend who is in government. Labour would probably be pretty easygoing on it, even a middle of the road Tory may be similar, but if it’s the Tories under a populist right winger like Johnson they’d be obstructive. Again can’t see it happening but some prominent treaty activists have it as their favoured model so thought I’d mention it.
 
Can’t see it happening but hypothetically would depend who is in government. Labour would probably be pretty easygoing on it, even a middle of the road Tory may be similar, but if it’s the Tories under a populist right winger like Johnson they’d be obstructive. Again can’t see it happening but some prominent treaty activists have it as their favoured model so thought I’d mention it.

'Pretty easygoing' is a strange description in any attempt to make the current generation responsible for the actions of their forebears 100s of years ago, even if their family were from Barbados at that time.

IF Aus were to impose our will on the Brits (or is just the English), will it apply to ALL British colonies.

Cutting to the chase, does it involve money or not, & who pays /who receives?

Really a crazy conversation to be having at this point in time,
 
Last edited:
The ABC is the most left wing outlet, and Paul Barry is the most left wing journalist?

You need to broaden your media, my guy.
Ahem
Wot ?

You guys are too much 🤣
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Does that mean Barry is the most left journo at the ABC ? :)
Runs a close second to Karvelas, but in the same realm as the entire cast of The Drum and Q & A- who are just ahead of The Insiders, RN and that old windbag Laura Tingle.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there’s various schools of thought on which level it’s most appropriate to negotiate treaties with, the state government level is a popular one mostly because of what you mentioned. I think it would work well here in Victoria. Other schools of thought are even more local, and some want to negotiate with Britain. They all have merit to them.
I think we need to acknowledge we are a Federation and deal with it at a national level, for consistency if anything.

That's assuming any sort of treaty ever gets sorted.
 
There are reparations of billions of $$$ being paid by taxpayers in overseas countries from treaties negotiated outside of the parliament.
 
There are reparations of billions of $$$ being paid by taxpayers in overseas countries from treaties negotiated outside of the parliament.

I thought you supported the free market and capitalism. Why are you only objecting when it involves indigenous people?

Do you even know what negotiated means?
 
Only to people who choose not not understand it.
Like the PM, who has committed to establishing something in full that he says he hasn’t read?

Pretty easy to sow confusion when Albos made such a hash of it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top