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.

 

[Gralin]

There are too many in Australia that are making political mileage out of the tragedies in the Gaza strip.

We see hysterical reactions from people who support the Palestinian cause but wander into the realms of ambiguity when it comes to whether the are anti-semitic, and then there are the others who think that any criticism of the government of Israel constitutes anti-semitisim.

To top it off, Bandt today refuses to support a Palestinian homeland, a two state solution, because he doesn't want to be seen to be supporting something the ALP has had as part of it's platform for decades - he wants differentiation! Either that or he thinks that he knows a "better way", just as his bourgeois party said when castigating the Aboriginal people for not knowing what was good for them after they politely requested recognition in the constitution through a voice to Parliament.

The greens supported yes which is why Thorpe left.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The greens supported yes which is why Thorpe left.

I didn't full understand her point back then but on reflection and considering it from her point of view it makes sense. This article came out shortly before the failed Voice referendum;

Lidia Thorpe backtracks hours after saying she would support a legislated Voice if referendum fails

Just hours after saying on national radio that she will support a legislated Voice to Parliament if Saturday's referendum fails, Lidia Thorpe walks back her comments and clarifies she will not back the government's model for a Voice.

www.abc.net.au

12 Oct 2023

...(Senator Lydia Thorpe) said she was opposed to the Voice being used as "window dressing" for Indigenous recognition in the constitution, which she views as insufficient to address Australia's colonial history.

But Senator Thorpe added the Voice to Parliament was worth considering, saying she would support legislation if it was not tied to the constitution.

"Why not? Let's see how it works," she said.

"If legislation comes into that parliament saying they want to set up another advisory body and it's going to be fully representative of the people, as long as we're not in that constitution, I'll support it.

"We need all the help we can get in there, we've got a Labor government who won't implement any recommendations to save our lives today."

In a statement just hours later, the senator said she wished to clarify her comments, and that she does not support the Voice as proposed by government.

"My comments must be taken in the context of my consistent position that Truth and Treaty are the first steps that must be taken to bring peace to this land," Senator Thorpe said.

"We need an end to the era of powerless advisory bodies, where the role of First Peoples has been to give advice to a colonial government that can and does ignore that advice."

Senator Thorpe said on Thursday she would consider it a victory if the referendum was defeated, and the beginning of a "truth-telling journey".

But she also chastised the government, saying she had warned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Australians were not ready for the referendum and it would provide a platform for racism.

The senator was targeted last week in a far-right racist abusive video and says she still fears for her safety...

 

[faible]

I didn't full understand her point back then but on reflection and considering it from her point of view it makes sense. This article came out shortly before the failed Voice referendum;

I always thought Thorpe was short-sighted.

Maybe she thinks that Treaty first is a necessary thing, but it was never a practically achievable thing. Sometimes you just need to work with what you can get, instead we'll definitely have no Voice for another decade, and there's not going to be a Treaty any time sooner.

That said, the Yes campaign in general was poorly run IMO, they never really set themselves up to combat the 'don't know, vote no' base level campaign which was the obvious thing that was going to be run. Thorpe's nuance was always going to be lost and just seen as more support for a No vote.

 

[Gralin]

I always thought Thorpe was short-sighted.

Maybe she thinks that Treaty first is a necessary thing, but it was never a practically achievable thing. Sometimes you just need to work with what you can get, instead we'll definitely have no Voice for another decade, and there's not going to be a Treaty any time sooner.

I think that was largely her point though
That the whole purpose of the voice was to do something without really doing something

That said, the Yes campaign in general was poorly run IMO, they never really set themselves up to combat the 'don't know, vote no' base level campaign which was the obvious thing that was going to be run. Thorpe's nuance was always going to be lost and just seen as more support for a No vote.

Our media are great at that with their "balance and both sides" reporting on every single topic

like everything is binary

 

[faible]

I think that was largely her point though
That the whole purpose of the voice was to do something without really doing something


Our media are great at that with their "balance and both sides" reporting on every single topic

like everything is binary

Her point was fine as a thought exercise, but didn't recognise reality and that you need public support to get anything through.

There simply wasn't an option to skip the Voice now, and get a Treaty going in the near future.

I fully expect this to mean nothing meaningful happens for another decade.

And yes the MSM did the 'Yes' vote dirty.

 

[Gralin]

Her point was fine as a thought exercise, but didn't recognise reality and that you need public support to get anything through.

There simply wasn't an option to skip the Voice now, and get a Treaty going in the near future.

I fully expect this to mean nothing meaningful happens for another decade.

And yes the MSM did the 'Yes' vote dirty.

the argument was always that the voice isn't anything meaningful though

and that it would actually work against meaningful change because of the "job done" mentality

I get that

whether I agree with it or not I get it

and the media could have gotten it if they wanted to and talked about it but they're not interested

and certainly Labor and the Coalition weren't

bringing it back to this thread though

One of the main architects of the yes vote and the voice in general was Mark Liebler and its interesting that a lot of the people involved in the Yes Campaign have also been pro Israel and not at all happy about Indigenous solidarity with Palestine

 

[faible]

the argument was always that the voice isn't anything meaningful though

and that it would actually work against meaningful change because of the "job done" mentality

I get that

whether I agree with it or not I get it

and the media could have gotten it if they wanted to and talked about it but they're not interested

and certainly Labor and the Coalition weren't

bringing it back to this thread though

One of the main architects of the yes vote and the voice in general was Mark Liebler and its interesting that a lot of the people involved in the Yes Campaign have also been pro Israel and not at all happy about Indigenous solidarity with Palestine

I understand her argument, but it's one that misses the reality of politics IMO.

And it must be very surprising that a colonised peoples are supportive of other colonised peoples. Who'd have thunk it.

 

[Gralin]

I understand her argument, but it's one that misses the reality of politics IMO.

The reality of politics is a choice though
If you only talk in terms of what is currently possible, you never change anything

Treaty negotiations have been in progress for years across the country, the Federal Government refused to get involved and used the voice as an excuse to not get involved

The RC into Aboriginal Deaths in custody has been waiting for action for 30+ years

Just because the voice was Albo's priority doesn't mean it was everyone's priority

And it must be very surprising that a colonised peoples are supportive of other colonised peoples. Who'd have thunk it.

It is interesting that the voice was so popular with colonisers though, as an idea at least, hey here's something we can do that doesn't threaten our power base or systems to look like we're making a difference

They should just take this because we aren't going to offer anything else etc

 

[faible]

The reality of politics is a choice though
If you only talk in terms of what is currently possible, you never change anything

Treaty negotiations have been in progress for years across the country, the Federal Government refused to get involved and used the voice as an excuse to not get involved

The RC into Aboriginal Deaths in custody has been waiting for action for 30+ years

Just because the voice was Albo's priority doesn't mean it was everyone's priority

The reality of politics isn't a choice when you need a massive public vote to enact constitutional change.

Thorpe may well want a Treaty, but IMO it's certainly no closer now without a Voice.

It is interesting that the voice was so popular with colonisers though, as an idea at least, hey here's something we can do that doesn't threaten our power base or systems to look like we're making a difference

They should just take this because we aren't going to offer anything else etc

Could just be a simple lack of self-awareness, many of the pro-Israel side seem to have a total lack of perspective as to the plight of the Palestinian people.

They view themselves as the displaced peoples, not the colonisers.

 

[Gralin]

The reality of politics isn't a choice when you need a massive public vote to enact constitutional change.

And if you don't talk about it you will never get people on board

treaty doesn't require massive public support (or it wouldn't if politicians did anything other than try and stay in power)

Thorpe may well want a Treaty, but IMO it's certainly no closer now without a Voice.

no further either though as the two really have nothing to do with each other

Could just be a simple lack of self-awareness, many of the pro-Israel side seem to have a total lack of perspective as to the plight of the Palestinian people.

They view themselves as the displaced peoples, not the colonisers.

some sure, but its more that a lot of the people involved in the voice were the same that were involved in the recognise campaign and the reconciliation campaign

which basically involved bringing Indigenous people into the constitution and validating the system

keeping the colonial project going

supporting empire basically

so its no surprise that they take the side of empire in another colonial conflict

and this is to me the root of support for Israel from countries like the US and German and England and Australia

supporting western empire and colony/settler states

 

[Northalives]

I didn't full understand her point back then but on reflection and considering it from her point of view it makes sense. This article came out shortly before the failed Voice referendum;

She thinks that she speaks for the majority of indigenous people: she does not!

10 years in the making was the Uluru Statement from the Heart, something that was nutted out by indigenous people the length and breadth of Australia. Thorpe used her position in public life to undermine the people who worked hard to get to the final outcome and which was approved by at least 80% of the Indigenous people Australia wide.

Thorpe is the mouth piece for the extremist, some would say racist, inner city black fellas like Foley who reckons that the 1967 referendum did nothing for black-fellas even though without the '67 success, there would be no Mabo, no Wik because black fellas did NOT exist before '67 and if you don't exist, you can't argue in court that you have traditional ownership of the land!

Indigenous people are not dumb. They have had processes in place for over 60,000 thousand years to resolve issues and the conferences over a 10 year period was in keeping with their traditions and the way they do things.

Along comes a loud mouthed, disrespectful inner city person who reckons they know better than the vast majority of black fellas and along with the paternalistic leftie pretenders party and other paternalistic font-of-all-knowledge types, and they create the illusion that indigenous people are fairly evenly split when it comes to the Voice - manna from heaven for the racists and reactionaries.

Well Thorpe and the bourgeois got their way, as did the racists and the dumb as shit Australians so how is the treaty coming along? Where is the formal input from indigenous communities to Government departments and Ministers? How long will this treaty take to materialise and who is going to negotiate the treaty with the Commonwealth? Thorpe, Foley, Mundine, Price ......? What happens in the meantime, the ensuing generations of the oppressed who can't even have a say in what happens to them?

Let's not kid ourselves. We let Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders down and no amount of armchair intellectual contemplation will change the fact that we betrayed the black fellas by denying them what they wanted and we should all be ashamed.

Reading some of the posts on here makes me just shake my head at the pompous crap being written by non-indigenous people who have had privileges and advantages that black fellas have never had. Non-indigenous people whose life expectancy is far greater than the Aboriginals', where infant mortality is far less than that of Indigenous people as is the incarceration rate. Rheumatic heart disease has all but disappeared in non-indigenous communities but is still greatly effecting Indigenous people, in fact, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People comprise over 80% of all rheumatic heart disease cases of which over 70% of deaths attributed to rheumatic heart disease, occur in Aboriginal and Torres straight people. And here we have the entitled first world people talking about Indigenous people who live with third world problems in a philosophical, abstract way.

These are real people who wanted a pathway to get themselves out of their third world existence and presented us with the way to help them do it but we, non-indigenous people, denied them that request and here we are having philosophical discussions on what Thorpe wrote, on what would be better FOR them even though they told us what they wanted! We ignored them.

The 60% of those who voted NO are locked in a passionate war of words over anti-semitism and whether criticising the Israeli government constitutes antisemitism as does showing sympathy for the Palestinian people and yet, in October of last year, this 60% told the people of this land to "go forth and multiply". We are getting into a massive fight amongst ourselves about something that is happening overseas and yet the people on whose land we inhabit, we voted to keep them in poverty and misery.

We should all be ashamed.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I can respect that, Northalives. I can also admit that I know four-fifths of f*ck-all about the aboriginal experience in Australia, despite all that I've read. I thought that Ms Thorpe saying that a toothless Voice wasn't worth voting for made sense from where she was looking at things.

But seriously, I have only the most basic idea about Aboriginal Australia.

 

[the_interloper]

I’m going to say “yes”

 

[Northalives]

I can respect that, Northalives. I can also admit that I know four-fifths of f*ck-all about the aboriginal experience in Australia, despite all that I've read. I thought that Ms Thorpe saying that a toothless Voice wasn't worth voting for made sense from where she was looking at things.

But seriously, I have only the most basic idea about Aboriginal Australia.

That's what I was getting at my man. We, that is the non-indigenous people are, in the main, quite detached from what is the reality of the black fella and we sit and talk and discuss amongst ourselves what we reckon is good or might be good FOR them. They told us what was good FOR them and we ignored them.

Thorpe talked about a toothless Voice but what she really means is that it was not a polemic against the white invader.

The Voice was arrived at after extensive consultation, "sit down time", by Aboriginals themselves and they presented us with what would not have made any difference to no Indigenous people, except that is that our "sacred" money, would have been spent far more efficiently and gone to where Aboriginals themselves know is needed instead of transitory Politicians and an ignorant public service just throwing doe around. For the Aboriginal people, it would have meant that they were finally recognised as equals in the country of their ancestors. They are not equal now, Section 51 of the Constitution tells us so.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders wouldn't have presented us with a "toothless tiger", they presented us with a diligent, workable pathway to advancement for themselves.