Yes, we have printed the Uluru Statement from the Heart on the front page of The Echo newspaper this week.
They are the words of simplicity, dignity and truth that stirred the government into presenting us with a referendum.
On October 14, we will vote on the proposal ‘To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.’
Most of the people this newspaper reaches will probably vote ‘Yes’ to the question, ‘Do you approve this proposed alteration?’ However, if the polls are correct, many people elsewhere intend to withhold their consent.
There are some honourable reasons for doing so.
The proposal does not go far enough; there should be a Treaty; the Voice is a far cry from self-government; and it will not be a magic bullet to right the wrongs and repair the damage that has been inflicted on the First Peoples.
These and similar considerations are not trivial, but they have been drowned out by the deceitful arguments, unfounded assertions and outright falsehoods peddled by the kind of media outlets and politicians who profit from manipulated fear, hatred and division.
Apart from the home-grown example of Scott Morrison, we have had ample warning in the US and the UK of what happens when bad faith and deliberate lies invade the public sphere.
Indeed, the Coalition has even adopted the Trump strategy of undermining people’s trust in the voting process itself, by baselessly accusing the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of a bias in favour of the ‘Yes’ case.
And in the AEC booklet, which is supposed to give both sides of the argument fairly, the anti-Voice campaigners have used the now familiar tactics of cherry-picking, half-truths and fake news. If their fact-free opposition is successful, the momentum towards a better future for all of us will be lost, perhaps for years.
A generation ago a majority of Australians, according to polls taken at the time, wanted to abolish the monarchy, but did not like the referendum’s proposal of a head of state chosen by politicians rather than elected by the people.
Many republican-leaning voters rejected the referendum, thinking a better proposal would be forthcoming. They are still waiting.
Those who do not vote ‘Yes’ now, even from the best of motives, will find no improved future opportunity if the referendum is defeated. Nor will a reluctant vote against the Voice be any different from the triumphant votes of white supremacists.
Yes, it takes courage to change the status quo. Yes, the referendum will not bring down inflation or the cost of living. Yes, the worst problem we face is the existential threat of climate change, which governments are meeting by outlawing protests against its perpetrators. But a small measure of progress is still progress, and it deserves a whole-hearted Yes.
David Lovejoy, Echo co-founder
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
There it is, in all of its o n e page entirety.
Yes!
Yes is the answer. Read the referendum brochure brilliant on the yes argument, very depressing and totally lacking vision or answers in the no argument.
How come a fair swag of people seem to intend to vote NO?
And that includes a fair swag of indigenous people too.
Can they all be misguided bigots who don’t have the opportunity or time to read the venerable pronouncements of you and your esteemed publication?
Yes I really am off but I’d like to congratulate you on this piece, David. I’d just say though that while you claim: “ The proposal does not go far enough; there should be a Treaty; the Voice is a far cry from self-government; and it will not be a magic bullet to right the wrongs and repair the damage that has been inflicted on the First Peoples” , it is occurring in the order in which the Uluṟu Council desired.
It’s best to avoid suggestions that this is the invention of politicians and it’s also hard to know how you would start on these outcomes without a mechanism for listening.
But well done – as I was reading I was admiring the simple powerful prose and thought “Wow Hans has learnt to write!” Then I saw your name.
Never mind all the itsy-bitsy; if the Indigenous want it then the least we can do is vote YES and pass it. After all we have done (eg wrecked their civilisation) it is the least we can do.
They didn’t have a civilisation
Absolutely! Thank you.
Climate change is the most pressing issue
Australian’s are facing presently david ?
If you could get a majority vote from the Australian public regarding just that david if would be a
Miracle… seriously how out of touch
The UN resently returned results from a survey
Asked 10s of Millions what was most concerning
For them right now.. Climate change was not even
In the top ten …stop scaring our already indoctrinated children…
Oxford Reference Dictionary:
“whataboutery” noun; the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
Barrow, is it completely beyond the wit of a government to do more than one thing at a time?
Joachim, it is completely beyond the wit of a government to do one thing at a time.
Please correct me if this is incorrect but It is my understanding that this document is actually 25 or so pages in length. If so, could you offer a link to the full document so everyone has the opportunity to be read it and be fully informed please?
Thank you.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/one-page-or-26-pages-and-does-it-actually-matter-the-uluru-statement-explained/epy384an8
Yep but Dutton already knew that way back to his time Cabinet in the previous government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart#Length
States that it is one page only.
If you scroll down to LENGTH, the origin for the confusion is explained.
John Davies
If the rest of the pages were written by the same people, wouldn’t the extra pages simply give people a deeper understanding? Why would it be so important to you that the public not read the intent of the first page?
Aunty Pat Anderson, co-author of the Uluru Statement from the Heart says: “Attached to that is pages called Our Story. What is recorded there is our version of history. And yes, as you do in these kinds of reports, we recorded everything that people said,” it also put lie to the claim that no-one was consulted.
The government has committed to the one-page statement.
How much more basic can it be put for you to stop jumping at imagined shadows?
Our story is section 2, and there is a section 3 that is even more interesting. Good for people to see what ‘truth’ and what type of ‘treating’ they intend to force on them unless they signal a big NO right off the bat.
Claims that the Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long are false.
RMIT University Fact Check: “False. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a one-page document, as confirmed by its authors. Papers released under FOI contain the statement, but also include 25 pages of background information, including minutes of meetings held with Indigenous communities, which are not part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart”.
Law professor Megan Davis has referred to claims that the Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long as “disinformation” and a “well-organised and well-funded misinformation campaign”.
Her hard cover book just came out, in which she wrote that it is more than one page.
It’s hard to believe you would have read it
I listen to audiobooks, lectures, and interviews all day, while I work.
Then comes reparations and re writing of history. We all look forward to that don’t we?.
If reparations are due and history needs rewriting to better reflect the truth, what’s wrong with that?
So all the benefits of modern civilisation we brought to the Aboriginals, they are going to pay us back for that finally?
…stolen land, diseases, genocide, stolen generations, deaths in custody,youth incarcerations, closing the gap that won’t close….so many ‘benefits’ that First Nations People need to pay back, yeah.
Do you know what life is like in a stone-age culture? What was happening in Papua, Solomon islands, South America, Africa, before we arrived? Yet, Australia and North America are supposed to have been the magical exceptions. Apparently, Aboriginals here didn’t act like all humans in stone-age tribes do. Reevaluate the behaviour in remote Aboriginal communities. That’s how your ancestors behaved not so long ago, and they used to do each other that stuff you listed above, and had a life expectancy 35.
Nothing Michael according to you .. !
If you want to pay reparations do so ..
Sell you house car ..what ever means
To pay the rent ..just don’t ask the majority
we and that would include me are not willing
To pay for something we have not been accused of !!
What total load of bs fiction. Did you read the link posted by the Echo above?
How can a powerless, non-binding advisory body do any of that? Same scary nonsense that’s predicted & repeated for decades after every indigenous advancement
Voice, then truth, then treaty. Say Yes, and Albo will consider it a mandate to force all of it on you.
Powerless Nathan ? You sure are a comedian..
Very well said!
Here is a simple message to all those people still listening to and or using Dutton’s shadowy far right groups and their already fact checked mendacious No Vote misrepresentations. The whole of Australia and the world are watching you and this will be recorded and remembered! Several groups are now recording many of these misrepresentations and by whom and which media companies are responsible and the worst offenders. New laws are soon to be introduced, what you are doing now, may well be used to draft legislation against misrepresentation, disinformation and lying in our media!
Government experts have told you that flattening the state forests is sustainable. Hopefully they will put us all in the same cell block so that we can debate face to face.
No government expert has ever said that
The facts will be whatever the government says they were. Learn to remember things correctly. Best check the government facts website each morning to update your memory of events. Especially when the Liberals get back in.
Hey lefty’s, the polls suggest the no vote will be the result. Does that in your misguided minds mean more than fifty percent of this great nation is racist, bigoted, intolerant?. Ever considered taking a good long look at yourselves?.
If the no vote results, it could just mean more than fifty per cent of this great nation are as you have described, or it might only mean that more than fifty per cent of the population in three states of this great nation fit your description.
Our history shows that a figure of around fifty per cent would still be a massive improvement from the past when the number fitting your description was likely higher than seventy percent possibly even more than eighty per cent as evidenced by dispossession and massacres, and included government policies like the White Australia Policy and child removal that resulted in the stolen generations (plural).
The thing it’s more likely to mean is that people are too time poor or lazy or gullible to do any of their own research or independent thinking in a great nation dominated by a single conservative media organisation with no empathy or compassion, but who does possess a particular flair for scaremongering and division – as demonstrated by outright lies, misinformation, intolerance and politicisation of its responses to land rights, Wik, Mabo, children overboard, climate science, African gangs etc too many to list but you see the pattern.
Did you do your own research on the 30+ year history and testing of MRNA technology before you got jabbed? Trust the experts, Safe and Effective constitutional change, you say. How many shots of experimental change will it be this time? Will we be immune from being called evil racists, or does it only protect us for 12 weeks? Taking abused Aboriginal children and raising them alongside White children was a leftist policy to close the gap. It had some undisclosed long term negative side effects.
Yes, though it has nothing to do with the Voice.
Now you’re re-interpreting and re-labelling history too? It was never a “leftist” policy, it was aimed at eliminating at whole race, horribly wrong, immoral, misguided and racist that had nothing to do with closing any gap. You are a master of obfuscation and fiction with a problem concentrating on the issue.
Leftist believe in ‘Tabula rasa’. The idea that we have no natural instincts, nor genetically induced behavioural traits/skills/preferences. Thus, ‘gender is a social construct’, and ‘the only difference between black and white is environment’. No right-winger in the time of the White Australia policy, was going to try to turn Black kids into White by raising them together. The stolen generation was a failed leftist social experiment, and you are still trying to make everything black look whiter, instead of accepting them as they were and are.
Hey Greg, their probably either just not as smart or as tuned in as the 50% who are happy to recognise First Nations people in our constitution.
It was over 80% at the beginning of the year. Keep up the hard work, it’s helping.
I would suggest they are very clever not to be coerced into voting yes by this incompetent government, even though they are being called many childish names for doing so. A simple solution is being refused. Come clean with a draft that explains what the nuts and bolts are likely to look like, the costs involved and the quantity of land that will be given back and whom owns it. How many aboriginal people will sit, for how long, how much money will they be paid, what process will be used to select them, appointment or election, just a few questions from hundreds that will be asked. This scenario I suggest is what the government are too scared to bring to light. If the yes vote is successful look forward to a hideous future, Australia will be changed forever.
I’m not going to explain it YET again because frankly I think you’re really not interested, but I will refer you to the thoughts of James Spigelman, former chief justice writing in The Age: “The Voice debate has ignored the actual words of the proposed addition to the Constitution. Those words will not lead to a torrent of legal cases, nor will they introduce social divisiveness in our foundation document.
“The proposed addition commences: “There shall be a body to be called…” the Voice. Some decry them as words of compulsion, but almost exactly the same words are already in the Constitution.
“Section 101, which has been in the Constitution since the beginning, states: ‘There shall be an Inter-State Commission”. The section says the commission would have “such powers … as the Parliament deems necessary … relating to trade and commerce …’”
Google “As a former chief justice, I find legal scaremongering on the Voice offensive” to find it.
I doubt you’ll read it because it’s by somebody who might know something about the constitution and the legislative implications – but I’d recommend it to anyone interested and open minded.
🙊
The Quadrant covered the Inter-Sate Commission thing weeks ago, as it nullifies the main argument for putting the voice in the Constitution. Try having greater diversity in your subscriptions. Don’t get stuck in the Echo Chamber.
How? It is no longer used because it was found to be in conflict with other parts of the constitution and that is why “ subject to this Constitution” is included. It was simply used as an illustration of how broad, general statements make up the constitution while the nuts and bolts are determined by legislation and can be adapted for changing needs and circumstances.
It was all explained in Spigelman’s article. Did you read it – perhaps I’m not the only one who needs to get out of the echo chamber. Certainly I’m not in the Echo chamber, I seem to be persona non grata on these pages!
The article I am referring to called ‘Section 129: The Making of a Constitutional Farce’.
I want you here, and that’s all that matters.
Yes & Yes. You forgot narrow-minded, self-centred & stupid.
Can’t see the issue with ideas attempting to make the world a better, fairer, sustainable, more inclusive place where justice & honesty are valued, so what is it you have against such virtues?
The best laid plans of mice and morons. Every time you try to help Aboriginals, you make it worse. You’re telling them that they are incompetent, and need the government to provide all and fix all for them, so you are going to give them a hotline to big daddy money bags. Instilling them with ‘learned helplessness is not virtuous’.
No, wrong again. The Voice is an Aboriginal initiative & request. Nothing to do with money or power, just to have a say on matters affecting them. What right do we non-Aboriginals have to say no?
Nothing to do with money Nathan ?
Seriously mate it’s not Christian or
Myself that is hallucinating as you suggested
Get off the green !! Now let me explain this in simple terms nathan …you mention money
“Governments don’t have any money ”
Do you understand this ? The only money
Governments have is what we give them ..
That’s how the Voice will be funded .. !!
Right ?
I apologise for not paraphrasing the whole opinion piece – I assumed people who want to inform themselves can read.
Now if voted in …one condition that all the yes voters pay for the reparations.. you won’t have a problem with that will you Nathan… ?
BTW its not Nathan, & if you read the above it wasn’t me that raised money as an issue
Coerced? It’s a democratic vote ffs! The nuts and bolts have been explained. What secret part is it that you have discovered from your lounge room that the rest of the country isn’t aware of?
Land rights, Wik, Mabo heard it all before. Ridiculous, reactionary nonsense, clearly baseless and which the passage of time since each one has demonstrated.
Yeah, nothing is ever enough, seemingly nothing ever will be, thus, NO more. If they are equal to us, then equal opportunities and rights would be enough. If they need masses of money and privileges to appear like us, then they are not the same as us, and never can be the same as us, and shouldn’t want to be the same as us, and others should accept that what you have been seeing, is just the way that they are naturally. If you can’t handle that, then you are the one with the problem, not White or Aboriginal people as groups, being our natural selves. If we can’t get along, maybe we shouldn’t try.
How is this diatribe relevant in any way to the Voice?
Echo really? You publish the Uluru Statement from the Heart on the front page, it’s 3rd last paragraph reads: “It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination” yet your moderator allows this offensive, hostile, uncharitable and untrue piece of work
N.See ..it’s generally referred to as freedom
of speech…democracy ..if this is something
You disagree with or have concerns with
Vent your displeasure to the Echo ..
Hi Craig, There’s always a line not to be crossed, even with freedom of speech. That’s why we have defamation laws & censorship, & why hate speech is illegal. If I chose to describe you in fitting terms I’m sure the Echo moderator would classify it as abuse & wouldn’t publish it – as is their policy & having editorial discretion.
That comment must surely come close.
If you read my comment again you will see I did indeed vent my displeasure to the Echo. Just as several others in recent days often have upon being unpublished
Your low expectations of Aboriginals, and your inability to accept other people as they are, keep causing you to hate speech about people. It’s offensive to me.
Me thinking that people don’t all have to get along, and can go do their own thing in their own space and just leave each other to it, is just me freedom speeching. It’s offensive to you,
You don’t have to read what I write, no matter what the moderator does. You choose to.
Craig it’s about time you & professor steinberg both handed in your drivers licence since you can’t see what’s in front of you. You guys would be downright dangerous on the road hallucinating like this & reinterpreting every road sign
Mr See ..you seem to be a expert on the voice
so please confirm the below questions ?
A. Will the selected 32 committee replace the
Whats in place already.. example.. the many
Advisory committees that already exist ?
B. Will the 35 billion given annually to those
Existing committees cease ? and those taxpayer
Funds be relocated to the selected 32 committee ?
C. What will the selected 32 receive in remunerations ?
D. How much will the Taxpayer’s be expected
to pay for the new voice proposal ?
Like it or not Mr See those questions above
are certainly only some of the concerns
Regarding the Voice proposal for voters..
Thanks Craig, happy to help, but you don’t need an expert to do some factchecking.
For A,C & D please refer to the actual wording of the Constitutional amendment. That will be decided & provided by the Parliament & no doubt be slashed whenever the coalition is in power – if it ever is again, much the same way they decide tax cuts for mega rich & against funding anything worthwhile or beneficial.
B – not even close. Your $35 billion is Abbots inflated invention promoted only by Sky, & about 8 times more than actual funding – an estimated one-third of that due to the higher costs of goods & services in remote communities. Try RMIT Factcheck for that. You’re welcome
Correct Barrow, you certainly have not been hoodwinked. And Lizardbreath, you certainly are off as you wrote.
Wow Christian that’s quite a spray! And very revealing.
Ironically, definitely the most “un-Christian” commentary I’ve seen in these pages, or regarding the Voice.
It’s not an “us” and them…. we’re all Australians. How can you deny centuries of injustice and mistreatment has created such disadvantage, and such intergenerational trauma? It has delivered no-to-limited access to education, healthcare, employment and social services.
Your “us” has created the poverty, chronic illnesses, high infant mortality, lower life expectancy, lower levels of education, highest rate of homelessness in the country, and highest incarceration rates on the planet – much the same way the impacts of slavery and imbedded discrimination are still being seen in the USA. Surely it’s our moral obligation to help? Surely it’s the Christian way? I read your post that you’re a recent arrival from – I forget, South Africa maybe? Why here? To a land of fairness, justice opportunity and hope?
Equal opportunity is basically what the Uluru Statement is asking for, not “masses of money and privileges”.
The Voice is asking for help to break this pattern and close the gap. It’s trying to ensure that effective involvement can continue, without successive governments constantly abolishing it. How can anyone who has read the referendum question or the Constitutional amendment honestly deny that?
Everything else is just a sideshow, just imaginings, distractions and deflections. It’s not what we’re being asked. Personally I would love to see a Treaty, but this referendum is not about that, nor money, power or privilege…. Just a non-binding advisory Voice. How can you be so mean and intolerant?
Steinberg is my Mother’s maiden name, and you are lecturing me about not being christian enough, and intergenerational trauma, and being chased off land, and that another ethnic group should be given special privileges above me because I’m too successful for their liking. What was poverty, chronic illnesses, infant mortality, life expectancy, levels of education, rate of homelessness in this country, before White people?
I can help. It’s irrelevant to the issues under discussion, & doesn’t compare, even if anyone could say definitively. It’s about now & how we got to this point. You’re welcome.
Looks to me like he/she merely referred to christian values
Two hundred years ago poverty, chronic illness, infant mortality, life expectancy, levels of education and rates of homelessness everywhere were way worse than than we enjoy now. Probably some of these were way better in indigenous groups than elsewhere in the west at the time.
Equal opportunity means an even chance at equality of outcomes, not just the perpetuation of disadvantage and the myth that someone can start way behind the eight ball and still have the same chance of success. The civilised society you seem to think we are we would not be satisfied to see such huge disparities continue and worsen regardless of these conjectures.
The fact that British colonisation robbed the original inhabitants of their homes, traditional lifestyles and means of survival, shunned and subjected them to bigotry and, as recently as the 70s, broke up their families (as government policy) should make us all even more aware of our need to “close these gaps”.
It would be unrealistic to expect unanimity of opinion in any group, but the Uluru request for a consultative body suggests that our First Nations people believe they have some advice to offer on how best to close the gaps.
We can accept this rather obvious idea or we can continue to say (as we have for 250 years) that in our superior wisdom we have all the answers. Or that we just don’t give a fig.
Thanks M.See and and M Clarke for making the effort to keep truth and humanity in the “discussion”. It’s exhausting but you’ve encouraged me to join in again.
Anyone who feels they don’t know enough about the starting point we have given our original inhabitants could watch the 1983 documentary Lousy Little Sixpence. I think it’s available from a range of sources.
Simple Lizardbreath the nation has said sorry
Why is the past and present generations constantly told we are occupier’s and made to feel guilty for something we had no control over ..!! Enough …
I agree, I personally didn’t do it and neither did you but we both continue to enjoy the benefits of colonisation while most First Nations people are still feeling its repercussions. Despite what Jacinta claims the data tells a different story. And “sorry” hasn’t fixed the situation. It rarely does on its own.
All this referendum does is ask us to start listening. Is that too much? If everyone feels so negatively about any more than this there will be a time to debate it when that’s what you are being asked to vote on. For now you’re not so stop – enough!
The key words are voice, truth treaty. You’re being asked for now to consider voice (listening)., no more. No “reparations” are in the question!
As for truth and treaty, the truth is already out there for anyone who cares to see it – no hiding it!
What “guilt”?
Who has been talking about this “guilt” of which you speak?
There is no denying we are occupiers (note – no apostrophe!), how could there be?
AGAIN this is about Constitutional recognition for Aboriginal people (the only former British Colony that doesn’t have it in their Constitution), together with a non-binding advisory Voice to Parliament only on matters that directly affect Aboriginal people. Nothing more. The question is clear, google it. The amendment (if passed) has been published & the wording is quite clear, google it.
Welcome back, your factual and thoughtful submissions have been missed.
Thank you!
Woah cowboy. His intent makes him likeable, but he’s still majoritively wrong non-stop.
This referendum is not about the money M.Clarke ?
How would it be possible for “Truth telling ”
“Treaty’s ” and” Reparations” to exist without funding ?
Certainly be a levy that” taxpayers” not governments will have to absorb…
Craig, you’re still jumping at shadows.
This referendum is not about money, nor “truth telling”, nor “Treaty’s” (why the apostrophe anyway?), nor “Reparations”. It’s about Constitutional recognition Aboriginal people (the only former British Colony that doesn’t have it in their Constitution), together with a non-binding advisory Voice to Parliament on matters that directly affect Aboriginal people. Nothing more. The question is clear, google it. The amendment (if passed) has been published & the wording is quite clear, google it.
If your only concern is about money, specifically how much any of the First Nations representatives to the Voice will be paid as you have now raised several times, how about we cease taxpayer-funded subsidies to planet-destroying privately-owned multinational fossil fuel companies, & cease taxpayer-funded subsidies to Forestry Corporation that operates at a loss while destroying forests & wildlife habitat, polluting waterways, increasing bushfire risk & increasing feral animal activity & causing ever more species of flora & fauna to become threatened?
Or you could google how much former members of previous Aboriginal non-binding advisory boards were paid before Fraser, then Howard, then Scummo abolished them, maybe compare their paltry renumeration against the amounts paid to MPs & public servants & you will see – YET AGAIN – it is a ridiculous, irrelevant, mean-spirited objection to denying Aboriginal people a Voice on matters that affect them, while they remain the ONLY specific group to have laws made about them (& them only!) without any input. Becoming any clearer yet Craig?
The story just keeps changing. Just about recognition doesn’t require the voice. Where in the amendment does it say ‘advice’ or ‘advise’ or ‘advisory’? It says representations, which has a different meaning in law.
More nonsense. “May make representations” means exactly that. Law relies upon strict interpretation, no hidden meanings, no covert signals to conspiracists.
Despite online narratives to the contrary, the Voice – as it is currently proposed – could not make binding demands of the government, nor would it have the power to veto legislation. As Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of New South Wales Anne Twomey said: “The power and function of the Voice is to make representations. It cannot dictate, demand or veto”.
Those are the unanimous findings of the Constitutional Expert Group , the Australian Law Council & all other constitutional law academics surveyed.
Next!
Sorry, forgot to add:
the Constitutional Expert Group….. “reiterated its unanimous view that Voice would not create a legal obligation for the government to act on advice, nor would it result in the invalidation of legislation.”
Looks & sounds very much like simple advice to me, AND the Constitutional Expert Group, AND the fact checkers at the ABC & RMIT.
Next!
Well, if the experts say it’s safe and effective, then none of us will catch a bad case of ‘The Voice’. If the government can simply ignore it, and defund it, or not even convene it, then there is no need to put it in the Constitution. Sorted.
Well pardon us if we are more inclined to heed an expert constitutional law panel that we are you, Christian or YouTube.
First time I’ve seen or heard anyone mention reparations with regards to this referendum. Another new topic added to keep hiding and confusing the real issue. IF and it is indeed a huge IF the country one day progresses to Truth Telling or Treaty, yes money would be allocated by government but it not anywhere near being even a hypothetical question for either yet. Do you really believe either is ever likely just looking at the negative and twisted reactions the simple question of a non-binding advisory Voice to parliament solely relating to Aboriginal policy matters has elicited?
I’m genuinely curious, did you object to the Noongar settlement with the state of WA in 2021, which actually did involve money, but like this referendum question, didn’t effect you in any way whatsoever too? It shows such things are achievable and mutually beneficial.
Hey Craig, did you watch Warren Mundine on Insiders today?
The leading No campaigner, believes a No vote will enhance prospects of commencing Treaty negotiations.
Treaty process is already happening in State jurisdictions.
Just another truth that the NO campaign doesn’t acknowledge and instead uses treaty for more FUD.
No, just pointing out the irony of the name you’re using verses the irrelevant nonsense you’re spouting. No-one can answer you question we can say for sure, however the only sensible comparison is not then and now, but then compared with those same rates in the UK at the time. We know for certain those measures were all poor in 18th century England
N.See .. recognise Aboriginal people’s in our Constitution 100 % Agree .. now if the Labor government
Had in simple terms just had on vote on that
It would be voted in unchallenged…not all
The Activist garage that has come with this Voice
Proposal.. N.See what you are implying
Just vote Yes because if will be representation
For Aboriginal people’s in Parliament on issues
That affects them .. they have that already
In Parliament N.See not sure what your
Are implying ! for a alternative view on
The Voice Subject watch the replay of Ms Price
at the National Press Club N.See and break it
Down piece by piece as Ms Langton has suggested
Resently for any “Racist comments ” or “Stupidity”
Craig, I’m calling BS yet again! All you new confusion has previously been fact-checked & debunked.
The Aboriginal people ASKED for a Voice to parliament on matters affecting them, in addition to Constitutional recognition, as mere recognition in the Constitution 122 YEARS LATE (!), would be just a hollow symbolic gesture that will not change disadvantage & disempowerment. The Voice provides a mechanism for the internationally recognised right for Indigenous Peoples to political participation in matters that affect them, under International Treaties, to which Australia is signatory. (Fact Check 31 May)
Aboriginal people in parliament do not represent Aboriginal people as a whole, they represent their political parties & vote as their party leaders dictate. Being Aboriginal does not create a single homogenous group or political party. (Fact Check 15 September).
As Australia’s Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue KC said: “A core rationale underpinning the proposed amendment is to facilitate more effective input by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in public discussion and debate about governmental and political matters relating to them.”
I’ve followed Senator Price’s utterings with interest. So far major claims she’s made have been debunked by fact checkers at least four times. Her ridiculous claims at the National Press Club were described by David Speers as: “at odds with all accepted findings on the impacts of colonisation worldwide; together with historians, sociologists, health & legal experts across Australia.” He went on to say “amongst the Aboriginal community, she is viewed an an extreme fringe element.” Even Warren Mundine distanced himself from her comments saying: “that is not my experience or the experience of most Aborigines.”
BTW what’s an “Activist garage”?
Since you resent everything, I guess you mean “resent” not “recent”? It would help to use language we can all understand.
So far you’re doing your best to validate exactly what Professor Langton described with your never-ending series of baseless, heartless objections.
Ridicule, ridicule, our experts say, fact-checkers. That’s why you are loosing.
N. See, the constitutional and aboriginal expert. What don’t you know?. A much easier question than what do you know. I sense a quite heightened air of panic from you. You are starting to believe the yes vote is doomed aren’t you. You mention fact checkers, now come on. We all know which side they bat for. No amount of money gleened from the woke company’s will make a yes campaign win. It is how well the Albo government performes at selling it that will count. Good luck with that. NOT.
FYI Greg, fact checkers CHECK THE FACTS. They compare claims with the truth.
Facts & truth are always important if you want to make an informed decision based on reality. I can call it out, but there’s the proof.
The only reason there has been so many debunked claims about the No campaign & so few about the Voice proposal (ONE from memory, & that was given the caveat “unclear, needs more information”), is clearly that the No campaign relies upon distortion & BS. Just look at these posts. Go to Fact Check sites & have a read. It’s got nothing to do with me, I just call BS when I see it too, & I know people like ol’ Craig & yourself are not interested in being informed – my hope is other undecided locals might be receptive to relying upon facts & truth to make such an important decision.
It’s not me who will be affected or “loosing” (?!) – nor you, the Voice doesn’t affect either of us! The losers (note spelling CS?) are, & will continue to be – be the most disadvantaged group in the country, with the lowest standard of living, lowest standard of education, lowest life expectancy, highest levels of diabetes, highest levels of homelessness, highest levels of substance abuse, & the highest levels of incarceration on the planet! Yet governments will continue to make laws SOLEY about them & affecting them, without any input from them, & STILL without any Constitutional recognition, so they will still be the ONLY indigenous people in any former British colony without such Constitutional recognition.
Does any of that seem fair to you? You do have the power to help change it. That, & only that, is what The Voice is ALL about.
That’s the Facts Greg. See? no lies, stupidity or racism required.
The Spanish Inquisition was staffed by government experts that knew truth.
I think the SI was more interested in certain outcomes and an agenda rather than the facts. Reminds me a bit of expected of the No campaign
I think the SI was more interested in certain outcomes and an agenda rather than the facts. Reminds me a bit of ASPECTS of the No campaign
N. See, you fail to convince anyone. High incarceration rates, whom are committing the crimes?, not me or anyone but the perpetrator. The aboriginal people have the same opportunities as anyone else, in fact job specific criteria favouring them is frolific today. Alcohol, are you or I making them drink?. I will not continue as I know I am wasting my time, no government or voice will change things as we see them now. Only Aboriginal people can climb out of the hole they find themselves in, they are well represented and funded. Now up to them.