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 !