The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[player 1]

- Albo's been clear that when saying 'the full statement', he means the single-page statement about constitutional recognition. Further, this is all that's being asked of the public for the referendum.

If this was true, and you know it isn't, the referendum would pass with a 90% yes vote.

Why are lefties such blatant liars?

[ism22]

If this was true, and you know it isn't, the referendum would pass with a 90% yes vote.

Why are lefties such blatant liars?

The proposed drafting is public. Have a read if you don't believe me.

It's okay to oppose it if you have a valid reason. However if you're borrowing from Peta Credlin's playbook by trying to claim you've been lied to about the length of a document then you're off-topic.

I mean why are Peta Credlin, Lidia Thorpe and Jacinta Price now your warriors of 'the truth'? IMO it's pretty opportunistic to get behind them and parrot their line that 'he lied to us about the length of the Uluru Statement' when you can't think of a valid line centring around 'I don't think we should have it because'.

I mean... imagine for one minute that he was actually caught out and didn't realise it was actually 26 pages... or was that 15 pages... long? Who gives a fark?!? The question is whether you support the proposed drafting or not! Not whether the Statement includes '25 additional pages detailing broader consultations during the lead-up to its publication'. Even if it did, the point would be moot...

[Andrew Walker]

QUESTIONS WITH NO ANSWERS THUSFAR

1. How many people will be appointed to "The Voice"
2. How will people be selected to be part of The Voice.
3. How much will they paid, and what other perks will they get; paid staff, car, office, travel etc ?
4. How long is their term and can they be dismissed ?

[mightyrooster]

Please disregard, unless you are in desperate need of a weather update as I was clearly half asleep when I posted this here.

Wild, gusty and COLD winds today. Not one of my favourite types of days here in Canberra but very typical of early Spring weather. The rain last night was very welcome though.

[Andrew Walker]

Wild, gusty and COLD winds today. Not one of my favourite types of days here in Canberra but very typical of early Spring weather. The rain last night was very welcome though.

OH MR This is not the weather thread

[mightyrooster]

OH MR This is not the weather thread

Oh dear, not sure how I managed that. How embarrassing. I'll have to copy and paste my most valuable weather report to the correct thread.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Uluru - Kata Tjuta area


Sunny. Winds southeasterly 20 to 30 km/h tending easterly 25 to 35 km/h in the morning then decreasing to 15 to 25 km/h in the evening.

[Andrew Walker]

Uluru - Kata Tjuta area


Sunny. Winds southeasterly 20 to 30 km/h tending easterly 25 to 35 km/h in the morning then decreasing to 15 to 25 km/h in the evening.

Would you stop deliberately trying to derail threads Jaxxxxxx. We are discussing the Uluṟu statement from the heart not the weather in Uluṟu Id have thought a staunch and vocal NO supporter such as yourself would have had something positive and possibly even meaningful to contribute to this thread. Your behaviour this last week has been quite erratic I’m getting many PMs expressing concern for you

[ism22]

QUESTIONS WITH NO ANSWERS THUSFAR

1. How many people will be appointed to "The Voice"
2. How will people be selected to be part of The Voice.
3. How much will they paid, and what other perks will they get; paid staff, car, office, travel etc ?
4. How long is their term and can they be dismissed ?

These answers are actually all inside the 272 page report on the design process...
https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/f...l-report_1.pdf

1. Up to 26 members (see next point).

2. Indigenous people from 35 geographic regions would vote for 24 members and those selected could then appoint 2 more members. Regions would be based on the head-count of indigenous Australians.

3. They would be paid part-time award wages for meeting attendance, in-line with what members of other government boards are paid.

4. Terms would be for 4 years on a 2 year rotation basis. As there's a 'fit and proper person', one could be dismissed if they fail the test.

---

TBH it would be pretty similar to what already goes on at a state level. There's indigenous groups that select members from their communities and then make collective representations to government.

This would really just formalise these processes and recognise them in the constitution so that nobody can disband them or discredit them as being an unrecognised lobby group.

Literally anybody can make representations to government. This is not a special power that they'll be gaining. Also, other indigenous groups (e.g. Price and Thorpe's politically motivated groups can also make representations). There would simply be a formal structure... which is what was asked for in the Uluru Statement!

[zac]

These answers are actually all inside the 272 page report on the design process...
https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/f...l-report_1.pdf

1. Up to 26 members (see next point).

2. Indigenous people from 35 geographic regions would vote for 24 members and those selected could then appoint 2 more members. Regions would be based on the head-count of indigenous Australians.

3. They would be paid part-time award wages for meeting attendance, in-line with what members of other government boards are paid.

4. Terms would be for 4 years on a 2 year rotation basis. As there's a 'fit and proper person', one could be dismissed if they fail the test.

---

TBH it would be pretty similar to what already goes on at a state level. There's indigenous groups that select members from their communities and then make collective representations to government.

This would really just formalise these processes and recognise them in the constitution so that nobody can disband them or discredit them as being an unrecognised lobby group.

Literally anybody can make representations to government. This is not a special power that they'll be gaining. Also, other indigenous groups (e.g. Price and Thorpe's politically motivated groups can also make representations). There would simply be a formal structure... which is what was asked for in the Uluru Statement!

and there's an incentive to get bipartisan support - no one wants the make up of the voice to change after every change of government. both sides of politics want a voice so surely if the yes vote gets up they can work something sensible out

[player 1]

Zac and Izzy, and even Paddo (your knowledge of footy is impressive - and your political leanings are no more biased than mine - it's just easier to see the other guy's faults), I just think this is a bad idea - not the constitutional recognition but the bit about making representations to the executive (high court) if the advice is not taken, that's what worries me. It just potentially gives a bit too much power to the more extreme of the activists - I mean, if it's a lottery and the tickets are free why not ask for money if there's no disincentive (like having to pay your own legal costs). Plus I think a lot of this is Albo's ego - he wants to be another Whitlam, but he's no where as smart or charismatic as Whitlam, and he has not thought this through rationally. he could have framed this in a way that received bipartisan support and was a slam dunk. But he turned out to be a race baiter.

[ism22]

Zac and Izzy, and even Paddo (your knowledge of footy is impressive - and your political leanings are no more biased than mine - it's just easier to see the other guy's faults), I just think this is a bad idea - not the constitutional recognition but the bit about making representations to the executive (high court) if the advice is not taken, that's what worries me. It just potentially gives a bit too much power...

The High Court is not part of the executive, it's the judiciary.

The executive is the government of the day. I repeat... literally ANYBODY is allowed to make representations to the executive. This is not a special power.

[player 1]

The High Court is not part of the executive, it's the judiciary.

The executive is the government of the day. I repeat... literally ANYBODY is allowed to make representations to the executive. This is not a special power.

Ah but there's the rub - if it's not a special power why include it in the wording of the proposed alteration of the constitution? Why has Albo not simply said we are seeking recognition (which almost all of us agree on) ? Why risk defeat by having this extra wording that you insist has no legal weight?

[ism22]

Ah but there's the rub - if it's not a special power why include it in the wording of the proposed alteration of the constitution? Why has Albo not simply said we are seeking recognition (which almost all of us agree on) ? Why risk defeat by having this extra wording that you insist has no legal weight?

1. Because they asked for it in the Uluru Statement.

2. Similar bodies already exist but can lack leadership/direction/status. That or they get disbanded when there's a change of government. Having it in the constitution makes it official and nobody can disband it.

3. Leaders risk defeat because they are paid to be leaders.... not to just make a heap of weak policy decisions that they know won't be defeated. Like the official sorry... this is one of those things that they think is worthwhile (whether or not it wins them political brownie points). As you may have noticed, it's not a Libs v Labor thing. A number of state Liberal leaders have come out to say they'll be voting 'yes'.

[player 1]

1. Because they asked for it in the Uluru Statement.

2. Similar bodies already exist but can lack leadership/direction/status. That or they get disbanded when there's a change of government. Having it in the constitution makes it official and nobody can disband it.

3. Leaders risk defeat because they are paid to be leaders.... not to just make a heap of weak policy decisions that they know won't be defeated. Like the official sorry... this is one of those things that they think is worthwhile (whether or not it wins them political brownie points). As you may have noticed, it's not a Libs v Labor thing. A number of state Liberal leaders have come out to say they'll be voting 'yes'.

1. So what?

2. Nobody knows how this thing will operate and there are serious doubts by many over its likelihood to "close the gap" - in reality that requires bilateral action and attitude change, not just demonising 97% of Australians forever for events none of us participated in. What we do know is many of the indigenous authors of the Voice, such as Thomas Mayo for one, have gone on the record threatening the government will be "punished" for not legislating whatever the Voice advises - he even said in an interview the Voice should have a say in Superannuation policy, which would be a convenient pile of people's savings that could be used for the massive "reparations" and "rent". No doubt about it, many of the authors of this thing are full of hate for non indigenous Australians and will take the chance to "punish" them if offered. Albo should have spent more time and brains coming up with an explanation of how and why it would be any more effective than the other "similar bodies" you describe, but he hasn't because he really has no idea. Retaining the ability to disband an organisation that is harmful or is ineffective/wasteful is a good thing.

3. Dividing the country by race is not leadership.