John,

"The statement itself was indeed only one page."

Here are some quotes from two of the Uluru Statement authors that contradict your claim:

"Here’s Professor Megan Davis, one of the Uluru Statement’s authors, denying the PM’s claim that it’s just one page:

In her 2018 Parkes Oration: "The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn’t just the first one-page statement; it’s actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages, and a very powerful part of this document reflects what happened in the dialogues."
In a 2022 article in The Australian: "The Uluru Statement… is occasionally mistaken as merely a one-page document… in totality (it) is closer to 18 pages and includes… a lengthy narrative called 'Our Story'".
In a webinar for the Australian Institute in August 2022: "It's actually like 18 pages, the Uluru Statement. People only read the first"
At the recent Sydney Peace Prize award ceremony: "It's very important for Australians to read the statement, and the statement is also much bigger it's actually 18 Pages"

Likewise, Barry noted that Uluru dialogue Co-Chair Pat Anderson had gone on ABC 7.30 to respond to Credlin’s claim. But again he failed to mention that Ms Anderson had likewise claimed at Melbourne University last year “the Uluru Statement is in fact 18 pages long”. "

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/abc-media-watch-disputes-rmit-fact-check-finding-on-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-says-facebook-should-have-branded-it-disputed-not-false-information/news-story/30b53950848bc89c12fcb06ae7e9b1d1

Would cult leader Albo have suppressed such reporting if he'd been able to? Argument about the Uluru Statement's length is a good argument against making anyone an arbiter of truth.

Fester,

The first quote you provided is actually just Michaelia Cash paraphrasing Megan Davis, who later clarified the matter confirming that the Uluru Statement is indeed one page - after the No campaign seized on this in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion - and that the additional pages are background documents that provide context about the consultations and dialogues that led to the formulation of the statement:

http://nit.com.au/09-08-2023/7150/megan-davis-slams-misinformation-on-breadth-of-uluru-statement-from-the-heart

The Uluru statement was still only one page. It can be found right here, if you want to see for yourself:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

The additional documentation merely provided clarity and context, which is standard practice for significant reforms. Had the additional documents altered the core message of the Uluru Statement or introduced new obligations, then yes, Albanese would have lied.

So, the second two quotes you provided are false.

//Argument about the Uluru Statement's length is a good argument against making anyone an arbiter of truth.//

As I explained previously, the bill wouldn’t make anyone the arbiter of truth.

The No campaigners read the additional documents and they’re all still accessible. All they were doing was spreading fear and distrust.

http://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page

"You’re probably now asking “But who decides what is factually correct?”

Anyone with the time and solid media and information literacy can do it"

Really John? You make it sound like a simple fact checking exercise when the reality will be that "what is factually correct" is whatever cult leader Albo says is the case. He gave a Trump like denial of the referendum, claiming the outcome a result of misinformation, something he intends to address with the misinformation bill. Given that cult leader stood on the floor of parliament and equated those questioning the length of the Uluru Statement with Q-anoners and moon landing conspiracists, I would expect the misinformation bill to be a tool of political censorship.

Fester,

No, I definitely didn’t make it sound like fact checking was always simple (although, sometimes it is). You even quoted me mentioning that it could take time, and solid media and information literacy - skills that don’t come easily to everyone.

Albanese did express concerns about the role of disinformation in the Voice campaign, but that doesn't mean he or any politician will be in control of deciding what constitutes truth.

The process outlined in the bill involves fact-checking by independent bodies. It's about verifiable facts, not just opinions or political disagreements.

His statement about the length of the Uluru Statement, that comparison was intended to highlight how some misinformation takes innocuous details (like the supporting documentation) and twists them to sow confusion.

Equating questions about the Uluru Statement’s length to conspiracy theories was hyperbolic, yes, but his point was that these arguments were being used to deliberately mislead the public, much like how QAnon or moon landing conspiracy theories spread.

Dear John,

«So, telling me that you are like everyone else in that regard is rather pointless. It also misses my point entirely.»

Then please state your point.

«What you’ve described is not a crime.»

Ah, that could make you a good defence lawyer,
but does it not imply that should my act been against the letter of the law rather than, as it stands, just against its spirit, then you would inform the police about it?

«It is a rationally justifiable implied agreement.»

Anything can be justified, somehow, but justifications not a truth make.

«now you just want to know who it will benefit?»

No, I asked whom this bill is PRESUMED to benefit.

«but the answer to your question is ‘everyone.’»

Correct, and that includes myself, so either thus believe some idiots in parliament; or they are not such idiots after all to believe it themselves, but want the rest of us to believe so.

And since it includes myself, it becomes my duty to protest, "NOT IN MY NAME".

«Well, it’s become necessary now because it is foundational to your rejection of the concept of the social contract.»

What is foundational is that different people have completely different, if not even opposing, outlooks on life, thus even if there hadn't been this important issue of chaos vs. cosmos, there still would be many other fundamental differences sufficient to prevent a true contract between strangers.

On that specific fundamental difference, nor can you prove that the world is chaotic.

«Easily - by those believing in a cosmos demonstrating, through their actions, that they are happy to benefit from the systems and structures put in place by society when it suits them.»

In other words, by showing any human weakness.

The final weakness that broke Winston's will in Orwell's "1984" was his fear of rats, then the book says that he finally "won", now that "he loves Big Brother". Having in return for his complete surrender happily benefited by not being bitten by the rats, wouldn't that be considered a fair "contract" in your world?

Yuyutsu,

My point was that the world just isn’t that exciting. Personally, I would find it exciting if, say, the Jews really were plotting a New World Order, or if governments were filled with people who were so selfless as to devote their entire lives to grand evil plots.

Some conspiracy theorists actually find comfort in ‘New World Order’ conspiracies because it would at least mean that someone is in control. The idea that no one is at the wheel terrifies them more than evil cabals.

No, I wouldn’t inform the police even if it were against the law to have relatives send you plastic bags from overseas.

//Anything can be justified, somehow, but justifications not a truth make.//

I know. That’s why I said “rationally justified”.

//No, I asked whom this bill is PRESUMED to benefit.//

This is irrelevant nitpicking because my answer would be the same either way.

//And since it includes myself, it becomes my duty to protest, "NOT IN MY NAME"//

Again, it’s not in your name. It’s not in anyone’s name.

The social contract is a mutual agreement where individuals exchange certain freedoms (like absolute autonomy) for the benefits of living in an organised society. It's more practical than philosophical - those who benefit from roads, healthcare, and security inherently accept that they are part of a larger social system.

//What is foundational is that different people have completely different, if not even opposing, outlooks on life …//

The social contract doesn't require that everyone shares the same worldview (chaos vs cosmos), but that we agree on some basic rules to allow society to function. This doesn't mean surrendering to power, as in Orwell’s world, but participating in a system of shared governance where we can challenge laws, influence policy, and protect our freedoms.

The social contract doesn't mean or assume that every law or policy will be universally agreed upon by all; it’s a balance of interests. You may disagree with a law or a bill, but participating in the system also gives you the tools to change it through voting, advocacy, or protest.