Mega manipulation. Vote no to advertise yourself as an official racist.

Why do we suffer these clowns in Canberra so peacefully: Is the answer gutless or is the answer powerless?

You left out the Coalition of Peaks amongst the plethora of advisers. If we want to close the gap, we need to look at the main reasons why the Gap is not closing.

For a start, it won't close until the Bush Aboriginals are brought in from the cold. That assumes that that is what they want and from where I sit, many of them are quite happy being where they are. All they need is medical treatment, better housing, which doesn't have to be any more than a roof, electricity and a toilet. Walls, doors and a floor seem to be optional if you look at what remains in many dwellings. The government could provide all that, at minimal cost, anything additional should be provided by the occupants. Those who require a higher standard of accommodation should have to show that they are capable of maintaining their premises to a reasonable standard. If they want jobs, then they need to shift to where there are jobs, don't expect the jobs to come to them. That is what I did in my youth.

Having got that out of the way, we then need to do what needs to be done about improving the social conditions under which they live. A lot of the brutal ancient customs need to be discarded. A man should no longer be able to treat his wife as a chattel to be abused for the least misdemeanor. Children should be treated with respect and not sexually abused and sent to school every day. The practice of punishing women for reporting acts of family violence to authorities should be outlawed.

Finally, the finances of tribal elders and Land Councils should be more closely audited so that largesse distributed by the government is more equitably distributed.

Because of the Voice and some of its supporters, Jacinta Price now has 24/7 police protection. Nothing more need be said.

Forcibly removing the elitist minority in Canberra, would work towards reestablishing a workable society again built on recognition of Europeans as the historical driving force behind a sophisticated society that Australia once was.

I believe we should have a treaty, recognition and reconciliation before we decide on or not, a voice.

This is cart before the horse, stuff. 3% of Australians already have sovereignty over more than 50% of Australia, thanks to native title and Marbo.

The referendum should be postponed until other issues are solved. Like the cost of energy and just getting by, affordable housing etc.

With that done, folk might be a little less stressed and more charitable.

That said, the voice cannot be about never ceded sovereignty! That horse has run its race.
Alan B.

If we are going to recognise first nations, we should also recognise Anglo, Chinese, New Zealand and European Australians.

2. that many Indigenous people would have been victims of colonization of this continent; and thus,

3. their claims for compensation are worthy of attention for redressal, going forward.

Almost no living Aboriginal people are the victims of colonisation and hence virtually none deserve compensation. So the premise on which this article is based fails at the very start.

Bernie

That's right. In fact Jacinta Price outlined the benefits of colonisation to aborigines then an now, and was abused by the Yes side for saying so. She is now under police protection because of threats from some Yes voters.

.

Dear Dinesh (the author),

.

You wrote :

« I have read all 26 pages of Uluru Statement and can tell you it is NOT about taking care of our First Nation people, …»
.

That is a very serious accusation, Dinesh. Here is what the Prime Minister declared at the House Question Time on 8 August 2023 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9t1ug86hM&t=622s&ab_channel=AbouttheHouse%3AtheofficialchanneloftheAustralianHouseofRepresentatives

Are you suggesting that the Prime Minister was lying to Parliament ? If so, would you kindly provide details of your evidence together with source references so that we may check it out ?

Many thanks.

.

would you kindly provide details of your evidence together with source references so that we may check it out ?
Banjo Paterson,
Would you kindly provide details that the Voice is what it claims to be ?

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You wrote :

« Would you kindly provide details that the Voice is what it claims to be ? »
.

I did not affirm that “the Voice is what it claims to be”, Individual. The Prime Minister did that – as you may have noticed on the video to which I posted a link in my comment to Dinesh, the author of the article on this thread.

I’m sure the PM’s office would be happy to provide you with the details you are looking for.

Dinesh, of course, claims exactly the opposite. His accusation that the PM lied to Parliament is extremely serious and should not be taken lightly.

.

His accusation that the PM lied to Parliament is extremely serious and should not be taken lightly.
Banjo Paterson,
We're all aware of that & he explained his findings, it's the PM & the Yes panel who still have to provide an explanation !

Come on Banjo Paterson, the only time Albo is not lying when he opens his mouth, is when he complains about being a welfare kid.

I stopped reading at "...I have read all 26 pages of Uluru Statement ,,'

It's simply impossible to discuss anything logically with someone so willfully blind (or possibly something more sinister?).

It seems true - facts don't care about your emotions.

.

Dear Hasbeen,

.

You wrote :

« Come on Banjo Paterson, the only time Albo is not lying when he opens his mouth, is when he complains about being a welfare kid. »
.

I’m not so sure about that, Hasbeen. I suspect that anybody who manages to fight and struggle his way to the top of the heap in our political jungle dispenses quite a few truths in his discourse if only to fool the enemy.

You can be sure that Aesop’s fable “The boy who cried wolf” (or “no wolf”) holds no secret for Albo or any of our Prime Ministers – past or future. It’s just that some are better at lying than others. ScoMo happened to be something of an exception. He simply didn’t know there was any difference at all between the two, lies and truth.

I don’t think the problem is there, Hasbeen. I think it’s more psychological, a personality trait, more to do with our outlook on life. If we are optimistic, we tend to see things positively and are generally confident and hopeful of what the future holds. We see the world as full of potential opportunities. If we are pessimistic, we tend to observe mainly the negative aspects of everything around us, thinking of all the potential dangers and pitfalls on the way. Of course, we can also be a little bit of both, alternately.

Unfortunately, to make things even more complicated, conspiracy theories have become rife since Donald Trump’s false accusation that the US presidential election in 2020 was rigged. The phenomenon spread like wildfire and has had a negative impact worldwide in a multitude of social and political domains. Disinformation and misinformation are now permeating and polluting almost every aspect of our lives.

Research published by the American Psychological Association found that people can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The research also revealed that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.

While those who come under that category are probably only a relatively small minority, their compulsive negative attitude automatically sets off a snowballing effect across social media, and 24-hour news cycles that is stimulated and amplified by increased accessibility to information.

Having grown up in the Queensland bush with a large amount of autonomy and used to defending myself, I am not one to run with the herd of pessimists and paranoiacs of this world. I try to get to the facts, make up my own mind about things, face the foe and stand my ground. It’s not the Haka of would-be opponents that impresses me.

As I see it, Hasbeen, enshrining the Voice in our old colonial constitution is aimed at protecting the lobby of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from possible future hostile governments and parliaments, which seems to me both reasonable and understandable – knowing just how unreasonable they have sometimes been in the not so distant past in their dealings with our indigenous peoples.

As they say : "Once bitten, twice shy."

I don’t see why I should refuse them their modest voice lobby. Quite the contrary, I think we should all be united in helping them to achieve it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Seekers%2C+we+are+Australian&rlz=1C1ASVC_enFR879FR890&oq=The+Seekers%2C+we+are+Australian&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQLhiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIKCAcQABiGAxiKBTIGCAgQRRhAMgYICRBFGEDSAQkxNDMwNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&ip=1&vld=cid:bccdb99e,vid:KrLTe1_9zso,st:0

.

enshrining the Voice in our old colonial constitution is aimed at protecting the lobby of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from possible future hostile governments and parliaments, which seems to me both reasonable and understandable
Banjo Paterson,
No objections there but where does it say anything about protecting non-indigenous Australians from the unwarranted future hostilities we already see & hear from the activists in the Yes camp ?
I have heard Yes campers proclaim that "just wait till we have the power" & "time for paying the rent" or "reparations" etc etc.
Also, can you please refer to the page in the Uluru statement where it states the responsibilities of the Indigenous & their supporters for the Yes because I can't find anything on that.
As someone who has lived & worked alongside indigenous I have now witnessed sufficient evidence that no matter the outcome on the 14th, irreparable social damage has already occurred just by the proposal of the Voice. I really hope I'm wrong though !

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You ask :

1. « … where does it say anything about protecting non-indigenous Australians from the unwarranted future hostilities we already see & hear from the activists in the Yes camp ?

I have heard Yes campers proclaim that "just wait till we have the power" & "time for paying the rent" or "reparations" etc etc. »
.

The sole object of the referendum is to put the following question to those Australian citizens eligible to vote and determine if the majority response is YES or NO :

« A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? »

In the meantime, Common Law continues to apply throughout the country. If, as you indicate, there are “unwarranted future hostilities we already see & hear from the activists in the Yes camp”, they should be reported to the police and the perpetrators brought before justice.

The same goes for any “unwarranted future hostilities from the activists in the No camp”.

As for threats and attempts at intimidation such as : "just wait till we have the power" & "time for paying the rent" or "reparations" etc., that is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote :

« It’s not the Haka of would-be opponents that impresses me. »

I grant you that such behaviour is most unpleasant. It is a sign of weakness, powerlessness, and frustration. But as I understand you intend to vote with the predicted, quasi-certain, majority of NO voters, I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you, Indyvidual. That’s just the Haka before the match.

You are almost certain to beat all those poor devils.
.

2. « … can you please refer to the page in the Uluru statement where it states the responsibilities of the Indigenous & their supporters for the Yes because I can't find anything on that. »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an invitation in the form of a petition to the Australian people from First Nations Australians. It asks all Australians to walk together to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution, and the establishment of a Makarrata Commission for the purpose of treaty-making and truth-telling.

Like most invitations, it does not define any responsibilities, though some invitations might, very exceptionally. For example, you might receive an invitation to a tea party in which you are asked to bring your own tea bags. That’s your responsibility. It is presumed that the host will supply the teacups and the hot water. That may be deemed his or her responsibility.

The invitation of our First Nations peoples does not specify any responsibilities other than to accompany them “to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution, and the establishment of a Makarrata Commission for the purpose of treaty making and truth-telling”.

The question in the referendum makes no mention of “the establishment of a Makarrata Commission”. We are not asked to condone or reject any such “Makarrata Commission”.

We are only asked “to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”.

That is an important deletion. “ Makarrata” in the minds of many First Nations peoples is interpreted to mean “treaty making”, but, I understand it means more broadly “coming together after a struggle”.

I, personally, am not in favour of establishing treaties with our indigenous peoples. I consider that we are all citizens of one and the same indivisible nation. I see no sense in a particular group of Australian citizens establishing treaties with the rest of the nation. I find that divisive and inappropriate.

It would be counterproductive. The objective is unity, not division.

In my view, parliamentary legislation should remain the standard and exclusive procedure for the establishment of any future legislation relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.

.

Banjo Paterson,
Are you writing from experience with indigenous affairs or simply with innocent emotion ?
Will the Voice panel be on a constant path to the High Court whenever feasibility issues arise from the rejection of advise ?
What prevention measures are proposed to prevent the Voice from becoming another Cash Cow for Lawyers as is presently the case ?
Emotional & idealistic rhetoric does not translate into workable solutions, it merely provides a path to more corruption & misappropriation simply because of the absence of effort & commitment by those constantly demanding from those who already provide more to the wrong people most of whom aren't even indigenous !

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You paint a rather pessimistic picture there, Indyvidual.

Since, as you say, we have such ample experience of so much wrongdoing and subsequent failure of previous attempts to correctly manage Aboriginal affairs, it’s not unreasonable to hope that we might eventually get it right.

When we officially endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2009, the Rudd Government stated its intent was to reset relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and to build trust in order to work together to overcome the legacy of the past and shape the future together.

And in our pledge as candidate to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Abbott government committed to giving practical effect not only to UNDRIP but also to the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’.

Article 18 of UNDRIP :

« Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. »

Article 19 of UNDRIP :

« States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. »

Item 3 of the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ :

« We reaffirm our support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007,2 and our commitments made in this respect to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them, in accordance with the applicable principles of the Declaration. »

The Voice referendum aims to honour those international commitments made by our successive governments.

.

.

Also, Indyvidual,

.

As regards your comment about “the Voice … becoming another Cash Cow for Lawyers as is presently the case” :

Allow me to explain if need be, that the legal profession in Australia is represented at the national level by The Law Council of Australia. It speaks on behalf of the State and Territory law societies, bar associations and law firms. It promotes the administration of justice, access to justice and general improvement of the law, advising governments, courts and federal agencies on ways in which the law and the justice system can be improved for the benefit of the community.

This is what the Law Council of Australia recommended to our Federal Senate on 24 June 2022 for the application of the UNDRIP provisions in our current legal framework :

http://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/fbfd761e-43fe-ec11-945c-005056be13b5/2022%2006%2024%20-%20S%20-%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20Application%20of%20the%20UNDRIP%20in%20Australia.pdf

.

Banjo Paterson,
Let us know please when Legal Aid is available for every citizen who is a victim & not just for the perpetrators !

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

I’m afraid I am not familiar with what may or may not be available in Australia as regards free legal services for victims.

Perhaps you could make some enquiries by contacting National Legal Aid (NLA) at http://www.nationallegalaid.org/ and perhaps also the Law Council of Australia (LCA) at http://lawcouncil.au/contact-us.

They may be able to point you in the right direction.

But I’ve got good news for you, Indyvidual :

It’s gonna be a sunshiny day !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSdOyh1HaM&ab_channel=ORIGNALAUSTRALIAN

.

Banjo Paterson,
i should have bought a lottery ticket for knowing up front that this is how you'd reply !
Seriously, "may or may not be available in Australia" isn't that exactly the crux of the problems with Bureauracy ? Stuff the 'may' we need certainty ! The Voice is one massive uncertain "may" which will keep the gap open & that is not a "maybe" that is a definite "will" !

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You didn’t say if you contacted either of the organisations for which I posted links, hoping that it may be of assistance to you, Indyvidual.

Is your interest purely theoretical ?

Also, you wrote : “Stuff the 'may' we need certainty !”.

Some of us need it more than others, Indyvidual. Life is full of uncertainty. It’s impossible for us to be certain of everything we encounter during our lifetime.

For some of us, uncertainty is a major source of anxiety and stress. We can’t control it, and only relax when we feel certain about what we know or expect. However, the world is full of uncertainty and so are most aspects of our life.

But instead of looking for certainty where it does not exist, we would be better off learning to appreciate it and how to deal with it.

I’m not so sure everyone would really like to know with certainty exactly what life has in store for him in matters such as health, well-being, good or bad fortune, pain and suffering, life and death etc.

I’m not so sure we all need or even want to know all or any of that with certainty.

It could make life unbearable.

.