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]

Here it is in full

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

Page 19
“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.169”

Make up your own minds

 

[QuietB]

Here it is in full

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

Page 19
“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.169”

Make up your own minds

Is it a question that will be on the referendum?

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[DaBarz]

What is the purpose of this thread?

It’s not one page of touchy feely motherhood statement.

It’s a lot more than what a simple question encapsulates.

Here you can read the entire document and make an informed decision.

 

[DaBarz]

Is it a question that will be on the referendum?

Labor is saying they will enact all 3 facets of the Uluru statement.
Just thought it might be an idea to know exactly what that involves rather than take on face value what you’re being told.

 

[QuietB]

What is the purpose of this thread?

To create a scare campaign that someone is going to steal your backyard.

 

[QuietB]

Labor is saying they will enact all 3 facets of the Uluru statement.
Just thought it might be an idea to know exactly what that involves rather than take on face value what you’re being told.

I feel sorry for you conservatives.

With electricity prices going through the roof sleeping with the light on all the time must be expensive.

 

[DaBarz]

I feel sorry for you conservatives.

With electricity prices going through the roof sleeping with the light on all the time must be expensive.

Diversion alert

 

[Number37]

So the big secret agenda they weren't telling anyone about is actually not a big secret at all & they're telling everyone.

 

[DaBarz]

So the big secret agenda they weren't telling anyone about is actually not a big secret at all & they're telling everyone.

No secret

But they’re still not telling you

 

[DaBarz]

“Anthony Albanese says he hasn’t read the additional 25 pages attached to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which talk of “reparations” to Indigenous Australians under a future treaty, despite the “divisive” material being seized upon by opponents of the Voice referendum in recent weeks.”

Why not ?

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/why-would-i-anthony-albanese-hasnt-read-additional-25-pages-of-uluru-statement-material/news-story/dc24efdd1546b9c7183418f82d3bf553?amp

 

[Seeds]

So the big secret agenda they weren't telling anyone about is actually not a big secret at all & they're telling everyone.

So not a scare campaign. Just well the actual campaign.

except ofcourse to the prime minister who wants to implement in full but hasnt bothered to read it.

 

[Gethelred]

The excerpt hinges on the word 'could'. Not will, not is; could. It could do those things. It might. These were also things that were discussed, not things proposed.

This is about as far from a smoking gun as is imaginable.

 

[Cap]

I'm not stupid, I just rely on Sky News Australia to provide me opinions I can turn into facts

 

[DaBarz]

I'm not stupid, I just rely on Sky News Australia to provide me opinions I can turn into facts

Sky news didn’t write that paper.

Or have you - like Albanese - not bothered to read it?

 

[mcnulty]

Staggering stuff from Albo. “Haven't read it, why would I bother?” Not credible, just looks evasive.

Staggering how the key proponents of the Voice are loading up the howitzers for their opponents to blast them. What a hapless campaign.

 

[Cap]

Sky news didn’t write that paper.

Or have you - like Albanese - not bothered to read it?

It's pretty bad when Sky News fact checks Sky News

Good to see you meet Credlins target audience though.

It's a one page, just deal with it. People have made up plenty of other reasons to oppose it.

 

[DaBarz]

It's pretty bad when Sky News fact checks Sky News

Good to see you meet Credlins target audience though.

It's a one page, just deal with it. People have made up plenty of other reasons to oppose it.

1 page of motherhood statements.
Multiple pages of what is wanted.

Mmmm
Yet you post Chris Kenny - in his own Sky show - with an opposing view.
Perhaps Sky isn’t the news channel you should all be so afraid of

 

[DaBarz]

The excerpt hinges on the word 'could'. Not will, not is; could. It could do those things. It might. These were also things that were discussed, not things proposed.

This is about as far from a smoking gun as is imaginable.

So we’re being asked to vote on something that “might” happen?

 

[QuietB]

So we’re being asked to vote on something that “might” happen?

Kind of like when you vote Liberal they might do what they say they are going to do.

Unless it was a non-core promise of course.

 

[Gethelred]

So we’re being asked to vote on something that “might” happen?

You are well aware of what the referendum question is. Affecting the pretense that it is instead full adoption of the Statement from the Heart is disingenuous.

The reason why pointing out your snippet hinges on the word 'could' is that this proposes the items that could be discussed under a possible treaty between the federal government/state governments and a potential indigenous body; not what will be, not what is directly proposed as part of the Voice referendum, not what is definitively going to happen if the referendum gets up.

I'd be interested to know why you're muddying the waters, pretty deliberately.

 

[DaBarz]

You are well aware of what the referendum question is. Affecting the pretense that it is instead full adoption of the Statement from the Heart is disingenuous.

The reason why pointing out your snippet hinges on the word 'could' is that this proposes the items that could be discussed under a possible treaty between the federal government/state governments and a potential indigenous body; not what will be, not what is directly proposed as part of the Voice referendum, not what is definitively going to happen if the referendum gets up.
I'd be interested to know why you're muddying the waters, pretty deliberately.

Because I’d be interested to know “definitively” what will happen. The Dialogues are included on the Uluru Statement web site.

The Dialogues - Uluru Statement from the Heart

 

[Gethelred]

Because I’d be interested to know “definitively” what will happen. The Dialogues are included on the Uluru Statement web site.

The Dialogues - Uluru Statement from the Heart

The consequences of the referendum are pretty well publicised in terms of what it will do; it will change the constitution to enshrine the notion of an Indigenous Voice to the Federal parliament. That's it.

Everything else, including your concern as embedded in your quote from the Statement, is what happens afterwards and is still subject to debate and political process. Treating it as though voting for one is voting for all is disingenuous to the point of being misleading.

... which is why I asked you why you were doing it.

 

[DaBarz]

The consequences of the referendum are pretty well publicised in terms of what it will do; it will change the constitution to enshrine the notion of an Indigenous Voice to the Federal parliament. That's it.

Everything else, including your concern as embedded in your quote from the Statement, is what happens afterwards and is still subject to debate and political process. Treating it as though voting for one is voting for all is disingenuous to the point of being misleading.

... which is why I asked you why you were doing it

Albanese has said himself “voice treaty truth”.
So we don’t ask what happens next ?
Why have the referendum councils put the Dialogues on the Uluru statement if not for information?

 

[Gethelred]

Albanese has said himself “voice treaty truth”.
So we don’t ask what happens next ?
Why have the referendum councils put the Dialogues on the Uluru statement if not for information?

I think there's something distinctly interesting in how you attempt to shift the conversation sometimes.