"It's about recognizing them as the true custodians of this magnificent land."
C R A P. I don't need to read any more.

David

From the article: "Voting in the upcoming national referendum... is, in my view, a sacred responsibility for every Australian."

Well actually, its a legal responsibility. But the author seems to think its a sacred responsibility to vote as we've instructed by our 'betters' ie Yea. But in fact, its a sacred responsibility to vote for what the voter thinks is best for the nation, not what they've been told to do.

From the article: "Full credit is attributed to the Labor Government and the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who decisively abandoned the White Australia Policy in 1973,"

In fact, the White Australia Policy had already been dismembered by the preceding Menzies and Holt governments. Whitlam merely announced the symbolic end - as with most things concerning Whitlam, symbolism trumped actual good policy. Sadly, despite being completely wrong, this part of the article is its most accurate!

The article rushes to announce that Hanson and Dutton aren't playing nice on the Yes campaign. Somehow, it neglects to mention that Price and Mundine are also opposed to the procession the Yes campaigns thinks should be taking place.

If the Nays win, there's going to be some serious rending of garments to behold.

I don't see this as a sacred duty. But rather a method of giving a minority, superior rights to other Australians. And all but reverse apartied. Let's not play this game of playing a few off against others/poor white trash.

The past is a foreign country, and what some folks/governments did to other folks is hardly anything to do with those who came after! Let alone be asked to compensate for the actions of others/past governments.

The best thing we can do for all Australians is to give them a bill of irrevocable rights. And improve the lot of all Australians with a transition to nuclear energy that we the people own and control as MSR thorium.

There is only one constant in the universe and that is constant change. The first Australians hadn't changed for centuries and had change forced on them. And so had the Irish and the Scots.

Six million Muslims were slaughtered in the crusades. And millions of Jews in the Holocaust. And millions of Christians in wars fought for territory. Not unique to Australia and the first Australians.

Many voiceless Irish and Scots were slaughtered and ripped from their ancestral homelands and forced to relocate to all parts of the globe. Often as prisoners bound down in iron chains.
Alan B.

Voting in Australia is not some nonsensical "sacred duty": it is compulsory.

Indigenous people, all dead long ago, do not need acknowledging, nor were they "custodians" of this country. They did nothing to improve it, use it - they just kept it in the Stone Age.

Australia is no more their (modern aboriginal-identifiers) land than it is that of the last person to swear allegiance at a citizenship ceremony. The law says so. Australians are all equal under the law.

Albanese and yes voters do not want that equality to continue. They prefer inequality and division, properly identified as apartheid. That's the thing we used to refuse to play rugby with South Africa for, such high-minded people we once were.

High-mindedness, equality and a fair go for all are now under attack by a bunch of Marxist racists.

Multiculturalism is mentioned in this article, without the common-sense to realise that the Voice would make a mockery of that policy, which preaches equality of culture. Already, the 'multiculturals' are making murmurs about this contradiction of multiculturalism that the Albanese/white aboriginal Voice would be.

The Voice certainly would not be the "fair and equitable approach for every citizen" that the writer of this fantasy thinks it would be; it would be the dead opposite in fact.

The "heartfelt apology on behalf of the Australian Government" - not the Australian people, you will note - was a mere put up job by a egotistical politician, which many aborigines turned their backs on; a useless gesture that was never officially accepted or acknowledged by anyone, as far as I remember.

There will be no so-called reconciliation while there is no forgiveness or acceptance; and the Voice, if enough voters were stupid enough to endorse it, would only make matters worse - and more expensive!

Finally, this bloke loses all credibility by using the old "White extremist" epithet.

Nondisclosure of information.

Too frequent use of the throwaway insult "racist".

Politicians are being "tricky" when pushing the Voice.

They think that I am a mushroom.

I don't feel the Vibe!

I wonder if the extraordinary stoush in the past two days over what exactly is in the Statement from the Heart might be the final nail in the coffin of the Yes campaign.

Today’s Australian contains two fascinating articles, one from Professor Megan Davis arguing that there is only one Statement from the Heart, a single page document; and one from Peta Credlin, arguing that there are two versions – the familiar short one and a second, longer version, which includes a section called “our story” detailing an indigenous interpretation of Australia’s history since “invasion”.

Normally I’m no fan of Credlin, but the evidence she presents is compelling. There are several previous public comments from Professor Davis asserting that the Statement is not, in fact, only a one-page document; an email exchange with National Indigenous Australians Agency confirming that the longer version is the “Uluru Statement from the Heart – Long” (which surely suggests two versions, a long and a short one) and the papers from the National Convention in 2017, which clearly treat the longer version as a single document.

It is interesting to note that, for the time being at least, Wikipedia also lists “our story” as described as 'extracts from the Uluru Statement from the Heart’ in the final report.

Albanese has called these claims conspiracy theories, and tabled in parliament an AAP fact check purportedly debunking them. But while AAP correctly identified many items in the consultation documents published in March by the National Indigenous Australians Agency under Freedom of Information laws as reports of meeting and discussion not a “secret agenda”, document 14 in that release does appear to be a longer version of the Statement from the Heart.

https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf

Nothing sacred about that secular activity - voting in referendums is a profane legal duty.

I don’t care what happens, it’s my sacred duty to dodge politicians and their crimes, of which this voice “thing” definitely qualifies.

I won’t be voting, and I don’t give a tinkers if that is illegal or not.

Dear Rhian,

You write: "Normally I’m no fan of Credlin, but the evidence she presents is compelling."

No it isn't. Virtually nothing the Cretin has put is correct or with basis.

The idea that she had some bloody scoop through an FOI request is utterly ludicrous.

All this was presented in the Referendum Report in 2017.

"A synthesis of the Records of Meetings of the First Nations Regional Dialogues was produced by the Referendum Council. This synthesis, entitled ‘Our Story’, recounted the themes that emerged in the Dialogues and is reproduced below"

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf

The 429 word statement which the attendees signed off on is an extraordinary document and I have a reproduction on my wall.

To have the Cretin sullying it will all her crap is one thing but to have even half way intelligent people swallowing it hook line and sinker is just depressing.

We who are alive are the sole custodians of this land.
We are the ones who directly or indirectly regulate and control its use.
We are the ones who directly or indirectly define and defend its borders.
Let us be very clear about this.
No dead person can do any of those things.
Those alive here today are the sole custodians of this land.
Whatever happened in the past is history.
And we cannot and should not live in the past.

And hurt feelings is not a good reason to allow the claims of a few to flourish.
A state government nearly did, but pulled back in time.
Their error is an indication of what could happen if this nonsense is allowed to continue.
It would strangle Australia.
It IS strangling Australia.
So a good slogan might be:
Don't strangle Australia. Vote No.

Dear Ipso Facto,

And self serving tripe from you too it seems.

You talk of the past. The Uluru Statement from the Heart talks about the here and now.

"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately
criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This
cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene
numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the
torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own
country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in
two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country."

They are seeking a better future for their children. They have asked the rest of us to listen through the establishment of a Voice. It is a very simple ask and should not threaten anyone who is the least bit charitable in nature. It certainly won't strangle this country.

two hundred and fifty years ago, the then existing population lost its tenuous control of the land.
It was taken from them by a superior force.
Rightly or wrongly, that is the way it was back then.
And still the way of this world in the present day too.
Look at the Ukraine right now?
And we cannot go back and change history.
But note: THEY LOST whatever CONTROL of the land they had.
They could only pass on knowledge. They had no infrastructure to give anymore.
Fast forward to today.
Those who are loosely descended from those original inhabitants seem to think they still own the land.
They don't.

And why do they focus on one particular part of their ancestry?
Most of them are far more european than otherwise.
Why isn't their european side coming to the fore?
Because someone has found there is advantage to be had from pushing their strange narrow agenda?
And I blame the parents, the elders, for the behaviour of their offspring.
I have seen CHILDREN of their clan wandering the streets late at night.
They should be at home with their families.
Which is clearly the responsibility of the older persons there.
So until until those older persons clean up their act, set a good example, and exercise normal parental control, the problems will continue.
And that includes acknowledgement that they are just citizens like anybody else.
No special privileges or unreasonable advantage should be given to them.

So let us stop this nonsense about 'in their OWN land'.
It is OUR land, for as long as we can define its borders, and defend it.
It doesn't belong to just one little group.
If it did, how are they controlling and defending it?
Where is that group's navy, army, airforce, etc.
Where are their hospitals, schools?
Where is their seat of government?
For goodness sake, get a grip on the reality that is us?

Dear Ipso Facto,

Your land? What a blissfully ignorant thing to say much less believe.

You might not have heard of Donny and Colleen Costello but privately they own 92,000kms of this country. That is 3 times the size of Belguim. Gina owns another 50,000.

You can not enter on to their land without their express or delegated permission. You do not have free use of any part of it. It is not yours.

Rather as immigrants what we are prepared to defend in war is our concept of our country, what it stands for, and what it affords us in the way of a standard of living and its alignment to our ideals. If it doesn't measure up then we not only refuse to defend it we move. This is the story of so many of those who have arrived in the last 200 years.

This is a different concept of country to Indigenous Australians.

What is it in our migrant histories that allows us to be fine with individuals privately owning vast tracts of this country but have a problem with a certain group doing the same? It is hard not to consider a racial element at play.

Dear Steeleredux

There are two issues here – whether there is one version of the Statement from the Heart or one; and if there are two, whether the longer version has been in some way suppressed.

The evidence I find compelling is that two documents have been referred to as the Statement, the familiar one-pager or the longer version released earlier this year under FOI. The reasons I think this is as follows.

Megan Davis has on at least four occasions said that the Statement is not just a one-page document, despite now claiming it is just the one-pager.

In the documents released under FOI, the 26-page version is clearly treated as a single document. It is referred to as “document 14” and has consecutive page numbering. Its title is “Uluru Statement from the Heart”. Other documents released at the same time comprise meeting notes, minutes, suggestions etc which are not part of the Statement. But document 14 is the Statement.

https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf

In the email exchange between the applicant and the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the applicant asked:

Can you please confirm that the document you referred me to (Document 14 from FOI FOI 2223/016) is the Uluru Statement from the Heart (as referenced on p.16 of the Final Report of the Referendum Council referred to in my request)?

To which the agency responded:

"This is to confirm that the extracts in the Referendum Council's Final Report are taken from the Uluru Statement from the Heart - Long (Document 14 of FOI 2223/016)."

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/uluru_statement_from_the_heart#incoming-31477’

The fact that the NIAA uses the title “Uluru Statement from the Heart – Long” surely demonstrates that there are 2 versions of the document, and the 26-pager is the "long" version.

This does not necessarily support the resulting conspiracy theories about secret plots to destroy land rights – for example, the section of the Statement titled “our story” has been public for years. But it is pretty clear that the longer document has been considered to be a version of the Statement – at least until it became politically inconvenient.

Dear Rhian,

Strewth mate it really can't be that hard.

The 'long' version includes OUR STORY which as stated before is "A synthesis of the Records of Meetings of the First Nations Regional Dialogues was produced by the Referendum Council. This synthesis, entitled ‘Our Story’, recounted the themes that emerged in the Dialogues and is reproduced below".

All it is is semantics.

Please tell me a single thing the Cretin revealed in her supposed scoop FOI document which hadn't already been published in the Referendum Report 6 bloody years ago?

Again here is the link. Go for your life.

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf

What has been hidden?

And what is so objectionable about noting things like this?

"There was a concern that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was ‘advisory’ only, and there was support in many Dialogues for it to be given stronger powers so that it could be a mechanism for providing ‘free, prior and informed
consent’."

When you have finished scrambling through all the dust the Cretin is throwing up perhaps you could reflect on the words from the Statement which I posted. About the determination to see a better future for their children. And perhaps explain why you are so opposed to helping that to be realised through an advisory panel?

Dear Steeleredux

As I said, there are two contentions – one, that the 26-page document is a longer version of the Statement from the Heart; and the other, that it has been kept secret. I agree that most of the content of the 26-page document has been public for years, with the possible exception of the roadmap. Certainly, the section titled “our story” has been on the website for a long time. But even if its component have been made public, the fact that the 26-pager might also be considered a longer version of the Statement is not merely a matter of semantics. The government has committed to the Statement in full. If that commitment includes not just to Voice, Truth, Treaty, but also endorsement of the other statements in the longer document, people will have legitimate concerns. For example:

“The unfinished business of Australia’s nationhood includes recognising the ancient jurisdictions of First Nations law”.

“Australia was not a settlement and it was not a discovery. It was an invasion.”

I have never said I oppose the Voice – I can see strong (and weak) arguments on both sides, and have yet to make up my mind. But I think the government has handled the issue poorly, including this incident when it sneers at “conspiracy theories” when people raise reasonable concerns, and denies that the 26-page document has been viewed as a longer version of the Declaration when the Referendum Report, the FOI documents, emails from the NIAA and earlier statements by Megan Davis suggest otherwise.

Somebody doesn't understand ownership?
When we say we own something, it means we have (exclusive) control and use of it.
By ourselves, we cannot guarantee that that would continue forever.
Stronger forces could remove precious possessions from us?
So we have a government.
We have laws.
We have law enforcement.
These things enable us to have private use of something we have earned.
Such as a home, and even a computer?
How is your keyboard looking today?

The only reason people 'own' land is that the 'right' to do so is guaranteed by the government.
And at least theoretically, the government represents us.
So through our government, we collectively control and use this land.
We also defend it.
We have set up schools, universities, hospitals and so on.
We have an extended road system, and excellent communication avenues.
There are ports allowing extensive trade.
And oh yes, we have wheels too.
How much of this existed here 250 years ago?
Not much?

Our ancestors arrived, gained control, and set about transforming Australia.
I think they have done a pretty good job of it.
A few hiccoughs along the way admittedly.
However, it is now possible to live productively and comfortably here, in a modern setting.
Those who roam around, waving sticks, and refusing to go to school, need a good swift kick in the pants?
Some of them don't even speak our language.
Their days of wheedling and 'disingenuousness' must come to an end?
They need to move with the times.
This is not the first century, it is the TWENTY first century.

the multicultural people who have migrated from different parts of the world to Australia are in favour of this referendum and intend to vote 'YES'.

What a huge surprise coming from an anti-white agenda movement !

This has become ridiculous !
The whole idea falls in a heap if you do not define;
"What is an aborigine or Torres Strait Islander ?"
The intention of the voice is to enable compensation and/or the
endowment of rights in one form or another on the 2nd people.
The 1st people have barely survived but some I believe still reside
in Tasmania.
However be that as it maybe, the ATSI will demand something.
Should a person with 1/16th be awarded 100% compensation or 1/16th ?
Should the rent payable be 0% or 15/16th% payable.
However this is all decided these tick-a-boxers will cause real
argument between the 2nd people and the 3rd and 4th peoples.

It does not matter in the least whether the statement is one page or
26 pages, we all know what is the intent .
You would have to be under the blankets not to know.

Thank you for reminding me.
When I was at school, we were taught that the original inhabitants were likely what we know as the Tasmanian aboriginal.
Then another 'tribe' followed, and dispossessed them.
So the very original 'tribe' travelled south, and 'tasmania' was about as far as they could go.
The newcomers spread out and occupied the rest of the land for a longish time.
Eventually, the sea level rose, and 'tasmania' was isolated.
I wonder if the present 'mob' are willing to give it all back to the few remaining Tasmanian aboriginals?
After all, their ancestors took it from them by force.
And the Tasmanian 'mob' should have it back now?
Oh, I forgot.
They don't own it, so won't be able to give it back.
It belongs to a rather large and well organised group now.
There is no intent to be defamatory in anything I have written.
I have tried to use words I was taught at school, or those heard regularly when this subject is discussed.

Dear Indyvidual,

«the multicultural people who have migrated from different parts of the world to Australia are in favour of this referendum and intend to vote 'YES'.»

Please do not include myself.

It is hard not to consider a racial element at play.
Steeleredux,
Sounds fair enough but is it ? These vast properties have & are & will contribute to the relative cosy lifestyle of this Nation by the products harvested with input & effort. Do the indigenous or traditional land owners contribute ? Yes, there are a number of indigenous enterprises registered for entitlement of negative gearing & subsidies etc etc but do we have information on such enterprises actually being vital or just token ? I'm asking because the Qld Labor Govt has poured a lot & I mean a lot of our Tax Dollars in property buy-back of working enterprises which now seem to be idle. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong. Have the buy-backs created an economic viability in the way that subsidising has eased ?
I'd love to hear that these buy-backs are more than simply 'giving back land' !