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]

All this thread is worth!

Yet you’ve posted twice
Well done

 

[mcnulty]

And taking the side of a few disgruntled miners, pastoralists and elites who have way too much influence in this country is Australians being good little quiet Australians all over again. It is pathetic

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of people’s decision making and is exactly what I’m talking about.

Are you utterly incapable of conceding that some people will come to a decision independent of politicians, “elites”, media influencers or vested interests?

Who is making your decisions for you?

 

[QuietB]

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of people’s decision making and is exactly what I’m talking about.

Are you utterly incapable of conceding that some people will come to a decision independent of politicians, “elites”, media influencers or vested interests?

Who is making your decisions for you?

When it comes to conservatives, yes I am "incapable of conceding that some people will come to a decision independent of politicians, “elites”, media influencers or vested interests?"

Again - give me a coherent and sensible argument why we should vote no?

I have not heard a good reason yet. All I have heard is "blank cheque", various forms of veiled racism and a general fear of any change.

"If you don't Know, vote No" is not a good reason to vote no and that is the entire No campaign so far.

 

[QuietB]

Distrust of this government and unintended consequences perhaps.

That is not a reason to vote no. We can vote this government out any election you like.

What "unintended consequences"?

That is an empty bullshit motherhood statement.

Again, "If you don't Know, vote No" is a pathetic reason to vote no.

 

[CM86]

I’m a Yes voter but I can see reasonable arguments for voting No- that is, it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians

Why do you think that that's a reasonable argument to vote 'no', considering the fact it doesn't give a group of people additional constitutional representation over all other 'Australians'?

Are you saying that the response to a lie, is reasonable, or that the lie is reasonable?


Why are you a 'yes' voter, if you seem many reasonable reasons to vote 'no'??

 

[CM86]

That is not a reason to vote no. We can vote this government out any election you like.

What "unintended consequences"?

That is an empty bullshit motherhood statement.

Again, "If you don't Know, vote No" is a pathetic reason to vote no.

It's also a complete lie, considering The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is very specifically not a part of any political party. And the concept has consisted and grown through both major political parties.


The unblinking lie told by 'no' voters, is that it has too much power and not enough power.
You can't engage with dishonest people.
They demand information, while actively avoiding it.
JAQing off in full view of miners! Isn't that illegal?!?

 

[DaBarz]

That is not a reason to vote no. We can vote this government out any election you like.

What "unintended consequences"?

That is an empty bullshit motherhood statement.

Again, "If you don't Know, vote No" is a pathetic reason to vote no.

WA cultural Heritage Act is the prime example.
Brought in and now repealed.

The timing was unfortunate however it is something that can not be ignored.

 

[mcnulty]

I have not heard a good reason yet

Good enough for who? The breathtaking arrogance of this. Let me let you in on a little secret- no one has to answer to you.

 

[mcnulty]

Why do you think that that's a reasonable argument to vote 'no', considering the fact it doesn't give a group of people additional constitutional representation over all other 'Australians'?

It absolutely does. That’s the point of it.

Why are you a 'yes' voter, if you seem many reasonable reasons to vote 'no'??

Lol, do you people seriously hear yourselves? I believe it’s reasonable for people to have differing opinions on a topic such as this. Simples.

 

[CM86]

Good enough for who? The breathtaking arrogance of this. Let me let you in on a little secret- no one has to answer to you.

You cannot possibly call out perceived arrogance... when directly replying to this post...

 

[CM86]

It absolutely does. That’s the point of it.

Ok.
How?

Here is your statement: "it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians"
How does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?

Not vague possibilities, or possible legislation.
But how does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?

 

[DaBarz]

It's also a complete lie, considering The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is very specifically not a part of any political party. And the concept has consisted and grown through both major political parties.


The unblinking lie told by 'no' voters, is that it has too much power and not enough power.
You can't engage with dishonest people.
They demand information, while actively avoiding it

On that you are dead set right.

 

[CM86]

I can see reasonable arguments for voting No

Lol, do you people seriously hear yourselves? I believe it’s reasonable for people to have differing opinions on a topic such as this. Simples.

If you genuinely believe there are many reasons to oppose your position... why are you holding your position?

It's not logical.

Are you basing your position on emotion, or peer pressure?

If you cannot find a reason as to why your position is wrong... Why would you continue to hold it?!?

 

[mcnulty]

You cannot possibly call out perceived arrogance... when directly replying to this post...

View attachment 1782608

Why not? I doubt there is an answer to the question that would satisfy some people in here.

Again- some people don’t want to go down the path of constitutional change for something they see as another layer of bureaucracy that wont accomplish anything. You may disagreee with the sentiment, but that does not make it unreasonble.

 

[mcnulty]

Ok.
How?

Here is your statement: "it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians"
How does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?

Not vague possibilities, or possible legislation.
But how does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?

Pretty straightforward really:

“In combination, the practical effect of the above is that Indigenous Australians will thereby have two formal constitutional methods of influencing Federal Government laws and policies:

1. voting at federal elections (a right already held), and
2. representations made by the Voice to government between elections.

The method in 2 is not available to other Australians. They have a single constitutional method of influence, namely the right to vote in federal elections. There is no proposal to establish a taxpayer funded, representative, constitutional body to advocate for the interests of other Australians to government.”

Voice proposal must be carefully considered – Proctor

One of the big debates for 2023 is the creation of a First Nations Voice to Parliament and Executive Government. With many views and opinions yet to be canvassed, here's one perspective.

www.qlsproctor.com.au

 

[CM86]

Why not? I doubt there is an answer to the question that would satisfy some people in here.

Again- some people don’t want to go down the path of constitutional change for something they see as another layer of bureaucracy that wont accomplish anything. You may disagreee with the sentiment, but that does not make it unreasonble.

Twist however you want.

I'm calling out the way you replied.
You edited out everything, in order to virtue signal.

It makes you come across as dishonest.

I'm pointing out how you had to remove all the context of the post, in order to virtue signal.

 

[mcnulty]

If you genuinely believe there are many reasons to oppose your position... why are you holding your position?

It's not logical

Because I have a difference of opinion. You are being profoundly stupid here.

 

[CM86]

Pretty straightforward really:

“In combination, the practical effect of the above is that Indigenous Australians will thereby have two formal constitutional methods of influencing Federal Government laws and policies:

1. voting at federal elections (a right already held), and
2. representations made by the Voice to government between elections.

The method in 2 is not available to other Australians. They have a single constitutional method of influence, namely the right to vote in federal elections. There is no proposal to establish a taxpayer funded, representative, constitutional body to advocate for the interests of other Australians to government.

Voice proposal must be carefully considered – Proctor

One of the big debates for 2023 is the creation of a First Nations Voice to Parliament and Executive Government. With many views and opinions yet to be canvassed, here's one perspective.

www.qlsproctor.com.au

”

I don't know that website.
Is it a legitimate source?


I fear this might be a recurring question that you will not answer, so I'll number it.

2nd time:

Here is your statement: "it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians"​

How does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

​

Not vague possibilities, or possible legislation.​

But how does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

 

[CM86]

Because I have a difference of opinion from certain others. You are being profoundly stupid here.

So you will actively hold unreasonable positions?

 

[mcnulty]

I don't know that website.
Is it a legitimate source?


I fear this might be a recurring question that you will not answer, so I'll number it.

2nd time:

Here is your statement: "it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians"​

How does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

​

Not vague possibilities, or possible legislation.​

But how does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

It’s the Queensland Law Society.

 

[mcnulty]

So you will actively hold unreasonable positions?

Lol. I specifically said they are not necessarily unreasonable. You’re all over the place mate.

 

[QuietB]

WA cultural Heritage Act is the prime example.
Brought in and now repealed.

The timing was unfortunate however it is something that can not be ignored.

That is how these things should work. If legislation is shit change it.

That however has nothing to do with the Voice referendum.

 

[QuietB]

Good enough for who? The breathtaking arrogance of this. Let me let you in on a little secret- no one has to answer to you.

List your argument then?

 

[CM86]

Lol. I specifically said they are not necessarily unreasonable. You’re all over the place mate.

 

[CM86]

I don't know that website.
Is it a legitimate source?


I fear this might be a recurring question that you will not answer, so I'll number it.

2nd time:

Here is your statement: "it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians"​

How does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

​

Not vague possibilities, or possible legislation.​

But how does The Indigenous Voice to Parliament do that?​

mcnulty
3rd time: