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.

 

[CM86]

the vast majority of Indigenous people had no say in the very body that seeks to represent them

Well that's not true.

-------------------------------

What seems so obvious that it shouldn't need explaining... is that this was to elect people to represent them.
Not a vote on all issues and/or concerns.


The people elected don't only exist for the election. They now work with the communities (who did or didn't vote). To try and put across actual representations.


You're letting the fact that there was an election cloud the actual purpose.


It's not about a single election cycle, it's about working with the communities to give them an actual and ongoing voice...
You know that.
Which makes it strange that even you would be sucked into this misleading narrative.
It's a bs narrative designed to undermine Indigenous representation, that desperately needs to avoid logic and available information.

 

[tandino]

Well that's not true.

Surely you'd admit that it's material that if 10% voted, 90% didn't vote?

 

[Skeppersap]

Surely you'd admit that it's material that if 10% voted, 90% didn't vote?

Much closer to 5% than 10%. I wouldn't wait for a sensible answer from that poster. Their posts are filled with such hateful inaccuracies...

 

[CM86]

Surely you'd admit that it's material that if 10% voted, 90% didn't vote?

Yes, tandino.

If 10% voted, 90% didn't vote.

 

[Number37]

Strange comparison for the point you are trying to make. 65% turnout in US elections vs 5% indigenous turnout at the voice vote.

Shows how much the average indigenous person really cares!!!

It's not a comparison.
60% is low. Very low.

Indigenous voter turnout has always been low.
Why would they turn out to vote when their voice doesn't even count????

 

[burge13]

It's not a comparison.
60% is low. Very low.

Indigenous voter turnout has always been low.
Why would they turn out to vote when their voice doesn't even count????

Yet the voice was just that, and they didn't care lol. Tremendous mental gymnastics on display defending the low voter turnout on what we were promised was very, very important to them...

 

[Number37]

Yet the voice was just that, and they didn't care lol. Tremendous mental gymnastics on display defending the low voter turnout on what we were promised was very, very important to them...

Again.
Why would they care?
Why should they care?

If there was 100% turnout people like you would have found something to complain about.

 

[burge13]

Again.
Why would they care?
Why should they care?

If there was 100% turnout people like you would have found something to complain about.

Again.

This is what we were told they wanted and really cared about. What on earth are you on about?

I think it's an utter disgrace that Mali went ahead with this after the state voted it down. Spits in the face of democracy and if a politician did this about a cause you guys didn't score moral superiority points for supporting you would be foaming at the mouth over it. Fact

 

[Gethelred]

Yet the voice was just that, and they didn't care lol. Tremendous mental gymnastics on display defending the low voter turnout on what we were promised was very, very important to them...

From this link:

Regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum – including the community where prominent no campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s family is from.

The yes vote in polling catchments where Indigenous Australians formed more than 50% of the population was, on average, 63% in favour of enshrining an Indigenous voice to parliament, according to political analyst Simon Jackman, who estimated the proportion of Indigenous Australians at each polling area based on data from the 2022 election.

... so no, indigenous communities absolutely supported the Voice during the referendum.

To see the vote go down in such a way would absolutely have disenfranchised indigenous voters from Australian political processes. Are you really surprised, Burge, that they mightn't have turned up in record numbers to a state level equivalent?

When you ignore people, are you surprised when they choose to ignore you right back?

 

[Gethelred]

Again.

This is what we were told they wanted and really cared about. What on earth are you on about?

I think it's an utter disgrace that Mali went ahead with this after the state voted it down. Spits in the face of democracy and if a politician did this about a cause you guys didn't score moral superiority points for supporting you would be foaming at the mouth over it. Fact

The last I checked the definition of the word fact, it wasn't equivalent to supposition.

One of these days, you're going to post something sincerely on this forum and you're going to wonder why people don't take it at face value. Laughing at the supposed hypocrisy of others isn't the most expeditious way to get people who disagree with you to respect your positions on things.

 

[burge13]

The last I checked the definition of the word fact, it wasn't equivalent to supposition.

One of these days, you're going to post something sincerely on this forum and you're going to wonder why people don't take it at face value. Laughing at the supposed hypocrisy of others isn't the most expeditious way to get people who disagree with you to respect your positions on things.

I stand by what I said there. You may not like me calling you out for that hypocrisy but that's 100% how it would go down if a politician you didn't like ignored the majority vote. You would be completely and utterly furious

Yet because it's something you voted for, it's ok. You don't think the perfect word for that is 'hypocrisy'?

 

[Gethelred]

I stand by what I said there. You may not like me calling you out for that hypocrisy but that's 100% how it would go down if a politician you didn't like ignored the majority vote. You would be completely and utterly furious

Yet because it's something you voted for, it's ok. You don't think the perfect word for that is 'hypocrisy'?

Hypocrisy requires one to be inconsistent, Burge.

I've said before multiple times that democracy is a system that we use to produce just outcomes. If the outcomes produced by democracy cease to be just then the system is not doing what it's in place to do and could be discarded in favour of a system that does. It's why there are flex points within our government design, to allow for alternatives to democratic decision making when the end product of that decision making will not lead to justice.

I've also said, quite openly, that I'm an anarchist. It'd not be inconsistent for me at all to be perfectly okay with a person using their power in contravention not only in defiance of democratic norms but of the law to do what I feel is right.

... which is why throwing wholesale labels at people isn't really a good way to win many arguments, Burge, and why the political left/right diametry gets people into trouble. All people - you, me, everyone - is entirely more complex than the cardboard cutout you've assembled above.

If you were to find someone who was lawful neutral enough to believe that democracy is a perfect process that can only spit out equity, and that person was willing to ignore the majority opinion on something, that would indeed be hypocritical. But I'm not that guy.

 

[the_interloper]

The last I checked the definition of the word fact, it wasn't equivalent to supposition.

One of these days, you're going to post something sincerely on this forum and you're going to wonder why people don't take it at face value. Laughing at the supposed hypocrisy of others isn't the most expeditious way to get people who disagree with you to respect your positions on things.

From what i can tell he posts sincerely, otherwise he's a very good actor.

 

[burge13]

Hypocrisy requires one to be inconsistent, Burge.

I've said before multiple times that democracy is a system that we use to produce just outcomes. If the outcomes produced by democracy cease to be just then the system is not doing what it's in place to do and could be discarded in favour of a system that does. It's why there are flex points within our government design, to allow for alternatives to democratic decision making when the end product of that decision making will not lead to justice.

I've also said, quite openly, that I'm an anarchist. It'd not be inconsistent for me at all to be perfectly okay with a person using their power in contravention not only in defiance of democratic norms but of the law to do what I feel is right.

... which is why throwing wholesale labels at people isn't really a good way to win many arguments, Burge, and why the political left/right diametry gets people into trouble. All people - you, me, everyone - is entirely more complex than the cardboard cutout you've assembled above.

If you were to find someone who was lawful neutral enough to believe that democracy is a perfect process that can only spit out equity, and that person was willing to ignore the majority opinion on something, that would indeed be hypocritical. But I'm not that guy.

Do away with voting if we're just going to ignore the results

Who decides just outcomes? As long as you agree with it, it's ok I guess. You're shitting yourself over what Trump may do to democracy yet willfully ignoring the same thing happening here because it's something you want

When grub politicians (they're all grubs) ignore what we vote, you will have problems. Again, you don't care because you want this. That makes you a hypocrite. All the word salad in the world isn't going to change that

 

[Gethelred]

Do away with voting if we're just going to ignore the results

Who decides just outcomes? As long as you agree with it, it's ok I guess. You're shitting yourself over what Trump may do to democracy...

Am I shitting myself over what Trump would do to democracy or what Trump would do to people?

It's a necessary distinction, Burge. I don't particularly care what he does to democracy; I care rather a lot about what he does to the people under his grip.

... yet willfully ignoring the same thing happening here because it's something you want

I don't know in how many different ways I can explain that I am an anarchist, Burge.

When grub politicians (they're all grubs) ignore what we vote, you will have problems. Again, you don't care because you want this. That makes you a hypocrite. All the word salad in the world isn't going to change that

Ah. The conversation makes sense now.

You need me to be a hypocrite. It validates your world view; that those who disagree with you don't mean at all what they say when they speak to you. That we're all inside exactly the same as you are; we're all greedy, grubby, selfish things, grasping at beauty and money and power like crabs in a bucket, pulling each other back down in a desperate effort to escape but ensuring that no-one can.

You've not read the post you've quoted - and you ignored the one above it - because you don't think any of it's true. Hence, 'word salad'; you've decided that I must be a hypocrite, because there's no way in hell I could actually mean what I'm saying, could I?

This actually makes me a little sad. You must think we're all liars, and you are the only honest person on here.

I can't imagine going through life as... untrusting as that.

 

[burge13]

ok

 

[CM86]

Leading up to the referendum all the anti-Voice/anti-Aboriginal people were incredibly active. Throwing out tons of lies and excuses to justify their racism.
They insisted it wasn't racism but purely about the constitution, the legislation, the policy, the lack of information, the lack of detail etc etc etc.

But NOW...
Well now, they're just admitting that it was purely against Indigenous representation. (Quelle surprise, no one saw that coming).


They're always so ****en' dishonest.
They cried when we pointed out they were lying. Now they'll cry that we haven't 'moved on'.



I'd tag a collection of those posters, but many are already in this thread.
If any of those posters were honest, they're welcome to disagree with Burge n Co. But they won't. Because they don't disagree.

 

[CM86]

ok

It's telling that you don't do your 'react spam' with the mod.

Makes it clear that you are doing it to try and troll rather than engage.

"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.

All of this post is bs. And it's a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post.
Because you're now pretending that you knew what it was all along, and that it was specifically voted against.




We voted in a referendum on a constitutional change to recognise the existence of Aboriginal people prior to Western colonization.
And because of how backwards, racists and nasty so many Australians are, it was rejected.
The only reason we had a vote, was because it was to change the constitution...


And you're using that to fight against any and all Indigenous recognition.
As you've stated, you already think Aboriginal people get more than they're worth...

 

[burge13]

It's telling that you don't do your 'react spam' with the mod.

Makes it clear that you are doing it to try and troll rather than engage.




All of this post is bs. And it's a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post.
Because you're now pretending that you knew what it was all along, and that it was specifically voted against.




We voted in a referendum on a constitutional change to recognise the existence of Aboriginal people prior to Western colonization.
And because of how backwards, racists and nasty so many Australians are, it was rejected.
The only reason we had a vote, was because it was to change the constitution...


And you're using that to fight against any and all Indigenous recognition.
As you've stated, you already think Aboriginal people get more than they're worth...

You aren't worth engaging with. You're unhinged

You also make things up

 

[Gethelred]

It's not a process if it's complete. Australia became a thing because of colonialism. There's no denying that. But it was also 200 years ago and none of us - much like people against racism point out - can choose the nature or origin of our births. So what exactly are we to do about where we find ourselves? Tear the place down, return it to pre-18th century status and have every non-indigenous person leave? Of course not. What's the value in the claim that colonialism is still happening then?

Ask yourself, is there still being value extracted or removed from traditional owners without their assent or remuneration? Is there universal acceptance of first nation's sovereignty?

Are we still taking children from First Nations' parents and removing them from their cultural extract?

Are there still people benefiting from the disenfranchising of indigenous peoples who use their increased position, power and influence to preserve that disenfranchisement in perpetuity?

 

[ShanDog]

Ask yourself, is there still being value extracted or removed from traditional owners without their assent or remuneration? Is there universal acceptance of first nation's sovereignty?

Are we still taking children from First Nations' parents and removing them from their cultural extract?

Are there still people benefiting from the disenfranchising of indigenous peoples who use their increased position, power and influence to preserve that disenfranchisement in perpetuity?

Let's say that all those things are happening, but hypothetically, we fix them all. What does that look like as far as the nation of Australia's status? Does it exist? Is it the same, or radically different?

 

[Gethelred]

Let's say that all those things are happening, but hypothetically, we fix them all. What does that look like as far as the nation of Australia's status? Does it exist? Is it the same, or radically different?

Australia still exists, but it's probably pretty different in some ways but rather the same in others.

To what extent does it matter to you the degree to which Australia would change if that changing would lead to justice?

 

[Aussie in exile]

Australia still exists, but it's probably pretty different in some ways but rather the same in others.

To what extent does it matter to you the degree to which Australia would change if that changing would lead to justice?

Like we sometimes say "Things are always evolving", but not always for the better.

 

[ShanDog]

Australia still exists, but it's probably pretty different in some ways but rather the same in others.

To what extent does it matter to you the degree to which Australia would change if that changing would lead to justice?

It matters a lot, because I kinda like how things generally are at the moment, and any risk to that is a concern to me.

I also take issue on you framing it as justice. Justice by whose determination and what moral/ethical/legal authority? How far should it extend - do we need to shake up 80% of the world to right these same purported wrongs, and how do we delineate between when things were right and when they were wrong to even make those decisions?

 

[Gethelred]

It matters a lot, because I kinda like how things generally are at the moment, and any risk to that is a concern to me.

Conservatism in a nutshell.

I also take issue on you framing it as justice. Justice by whose determination and what moral/ethical/legal authority?

... are you quite serious?

Revisit this post:

Ask yourself, is there still being value extracted or removed from traditional owners without their assent or remuneration? Is there universal acceptance of first nation's sovereignty?

Are we still taking children from First Nations' parents and removing them from their cultural extract?

Are there still people benefiting from the disenfranchising of indigenous peoples who use their increased position, power and influence to preserve that disenfranchisement in perpetuity?

... and get back to me.

What does affecting the pretense that the last post is as far back as the conversation went get you?

How far should it extend - do we need to shake up 80% of the world to right these same purported wrongs, and how do we delineate between when things were right and when they were wrong to even make those decisions?

Does it matter beyond 'these things are still happening and they're clearly wrong'?

I also don't really accept your attempt to shift the goalposts - you disputed whether there were still vestiges of colonialism around, and when demonstrated to you those goalposts started to get real busy - either. There are parts of our society that are directly linkable to our colonial past and those parts result in the enrichment of particular people over others; we can seek to correct this, or we can continue to use those structures for the purposes of protecting/enriching ourselves.