-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
I don't know exactly what Abbott's (Tony not Bud right?) stance is on 'the Voice' but I can guess so how am I flying Abbott's flag?
I didnt mean you are flying abbots flag,
I meant the first point you made had coincidentally similarities to his.
I could see your intent is good
Worth the read…
This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.
But now it’s out and every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice.
You know how the PM keeps saying the Voice is a “modest change” to the Constitution?
Well, the real agenda behind his Voice referendum has finally been revealed.
Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process”1.
And what’s in the treaty?
According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.
The documents explain:
…a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…
This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:
“Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”
Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?
But it gets worse.
According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.
This is why I get so angry when Albo says this is a modest proposal.
What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as reparations?
Sounds like a bloody BIG change to me!
Just to be super clear, this is how their plan works:
They enshrine the divisive Voice in the Constitution and it’s there forever.
The Voice forces Australians into a “treaty”.
The treaty means Australians pay a percentage of the GDP – that is, a percentage of the entire nation’s economy – to the Voice … every year.
On top of that, Australians are forced to pay “rates/land tax/royalties” to the Voice.
This is why Albo wants you to think you’re voting on a “modest” change.
Because when Australians find out the truth, there’s no way they’d support it, let alone enshrine it in their Constitution forever.
Yours in unity,
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA
This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.
But now it’s out and every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice.
You know how the PM keeps saying the Voice is a “modest change” to the Constitution?
Well, the real agenda behind his Voice referendum has finally been revealed.
Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process”1.
And what’s in the treaty?
According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.
The documents explain:
…a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…
This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:
“Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”
Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?
But it gets worse.
According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.
This is why I get so angry when Albo says this is a modest proposal.
What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as reparations?
Sounds like a bloody BIG change to me!
Just to be super clear, this is how their plan works:
This is why Albo wants you to think you’re voting on a “modest” change.
Because when Australians find out the truth, there’s no way they’d support it, let alone enshrine it in their Constitution forever.
Yours in unity,
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA
Wow, what a load of alarmist BS.
Apart from anything else, there is nothing secret about the calls for a treaty and a truth commission, they were in the same document as the voice: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.
As for reparations, where has Jacinta been while the calls to pay the rent have been voiced for the last 5 or so decades?
Claims this will lead to a change in the flag now? Bloody good idea if you ask me, get rid of that stain in the top left corner for a start, this is not the UK. I'd go for the Indigenous flag or the Eureka flag. From a design perspective both are far better. Plus, the blue ensign which we all recognise as the Australian Flag only legally became the Australian Flag in 1954 under the Australian Flags Act (1953). In any case, changing the flag does not require a constitutional change, just an act of parliament so has nothing to do with any of this.
It is also worth remembering, while reading the alarmist crap right wingers are peddling, what the actual wording to be added to the constitution will be if the referendum succeeds, it is as follows:
Bears no relationship to the fictions being peddled above.
DS
Apart from anything else, there is nothing secret about the calls for a treaty and a truth commission, they were in the same document as the voice: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.
As for reparations, where has Jacinta been while the calls to pay the rent have been voiced for the last 5 or so decades?
Claims this will lead to a change in the flag now? Bloody good idea if you ask me, get rid of that stain in the top left corner for a start, this is not the UK. I'd go for the Indigenous flag or the Eureka flag. From a design perspective both are far better. Plus, the blue ensign which we all recognise as the Australian Flag only legally became the Australian Flag in 1954 under the Australian Flags Act (1953). In any case, changing the flag does not require a constitutional change, just an act of parliament so has nothing to do with any of this.
It is also worth remembering, while reading the alarmist crap right wingers are peddling, what the actual wording to be added to the constitution will be if the referendum succeeds, it is as follows:
Bears no relationship to the fictions being peddled above.
DS
With due respect, I believe Jacinta would have some idea.
It isn’t just about “The Voice” being in the Constitution but whether The Treaty would have a more reaching effect and fine detail. That’s how I read it anyway. I could be wrong.
Aren’t most advocating that The Voice and a Treaty go hand in hand?
I find it a bit strange that some Indigenous people are against it. If all the detail is as you posted, why are they? Just curious.
Shame none of the above is true though. The email is *smile*. But hey, if it aligns with your views, go ahead and post *smile* in this thread. It's nothing new here.Worth the read…
This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.
But now it’s out and every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice.
You know how the PM keeps saying the Voice is a “modest change” to the Constitution?
Well, the real agenda behind his Voice referendum has finally been revealed.
Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process”1.
And what’s in the treaty?
According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.
The documents explain:
…a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…
This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:
“Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”
Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?
But it gets worse.
According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.
This is why I get so angry when Albo says this is a modest proposal.
What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as reparations?
Sounds like a bloody BIG change to me!
Just to be super clear, this is how their plan works:
They enshrine the divisive Voice in the Constitution and it’s there forever.
The Voice forces Australians into a “treaty”.
The treaty means Australians pay a percentage of the GDP – that is, a percentage of the entire nation’s economy – to the Voice … every year.
On top of that, Australians are forced to pay “rates/land tax/royalties” to the Voice.
This is why Albo wants you to think you’re voting on a “modest” change.
Because when Australians find out the truth, there’s no way they’d support it, let alone enshrine it in their Constitution forever.
Yours in unity,
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA
Email misleads with ‘secret voice documents’ claim
An email warning of a 'bombshell' revelation has omitted some vitally important context.
www.aap.com.au
I posted it because I thought it was relevant to the thread topic. I thought it was a valid discussion point.Shame none of the above is true though. The email is *smile*. But hey, if it aligns with your views, go ahead and post *smile* in this thread. It's nothing new here.
Email misleads with ‘secret voice documents’ claim
An email warning of a 'bombshell' revelation has omitted some vitally important context.
I didn’t say anything about whether I agreed with it.
Funny, what you wrote suggests no one can have or post a viewpoint that differs to yours.
And if I want to post *smile*, I will. No different than what you or others have a right to do. I don’t tell other people what their views should or shouldn’t be or what they should or shouldn’t post.
Googling "Jacinta Price Bombshell" takes 10secs and the third hit will give you the facts.
No, I said nothing about views and what you can or can't post. I said don't post *smile*.
It's not that hard. I don't post any news link or story these days without doing a sanity check. You can't trust any news org or politician.
No, I said nothing about views and what you can or can't post. I said don't post *smile*.
It's not that hard. I don't post any news link or story these days without doing a sanity check. You can't trust any news org or politician.
She certainly has some idea about how to make up BS and distort the facts.
I'm not convinced that The Voice will lead to a Treaty, I reckon it should, but I'm not particularly hopeful.
DS
But it’s a bit like directing people to Paul Murray on sky and saying he’s got some balanced comments. He doesn’t because he’s a right wing *smile*.
If you were objective you would see through the *smile* in what you posted.
I get what you are saying but..................
Whose sanity do you check against then if you can't trust any news organisation or politician?
This statement is like the Waterfall by Escher.
I get what you are saying but..................
Whose sanity do you check against then if you can't trust any news organisation or politician?
This statement is like the Waterfall by Escher.
If it's crap it will be refuted pretty quickly by a number of sources. Plenty of fact checking organisations out there.
If instead you don't see it refuted, but counter arguments, then you can comfortably believe what's written.
It's really not that hard.
You and I think he is a right wing *smile*, but there are plenty of people who would say he has some balanced views.
The post Willow refers to is full of what I consider alarmist disingenuous rhetoric. But marginalising people with such views (and I am not suggesting Willow is one) from the debate is counterproductive to what the Voice is trying to achieve.
For the record, I will vote yes to The Voice but...............
I am still just a little uneasy about the lack of detail. Not because I think there is some subversive element to it or anything like that, but I just don't want to see it descend into some sort of *smile*show. I have lost faith in our politicians doing what is right and just. As the post Willow refers to demonstrates, there are plenty of people out there who will happily fill in the gaps given the opportunity.
There are no
Willow there are no Left Wing *smiles* just Right Wing *smiles* . If ya keep pushing the Nay you will be labeled a Right Wing *racist Smile*
Shame none of the above is true though. The email is *smile*. But hey, if it aligns with your views, go ahead and post *smile* in this thread. It's nothing new here.
Email misleads with ‘secret voice documents’ claim
An email warning of a 'bombshell' revelation has omitted some vitally important context.
Willow there are no Left Wing *smiles* just Right Wing *smiles* . If ya keep pushing the Nay you will be labeled a Right Wing *racist Smile*
The bit many people dont get about Free Speech Willo , is it comes with some obligation to the truth.
A bit like when you dive into a pool, theres an understanding theres water in it.
Personally, i dont think its a difficult or confronting concept
Last edited:
See, again embellishing the truth. I've only ever called you a racist *smile*. I've never used the Right Wing label.
Fair point. I thought it was factual and worthy of discussion. Next time I will fact check, as I’m sure everyone else does when they post. Or perhaps they only delve deeper when it suits. But anyway…
However after clicking baloos link, it seems there were some group discussions regarding the dot points I posted. Maybe not part of The Voice but who’s to say some might be included in The Treaty.
It’s premature to guess what would be included or not. Certainly some indigenous groups have raised most of those topics.
the Uluru statement from the heart, which was a prolonged consultative process, run by indigenous people, but not excluding viewpoints of white people.
using a consensus model, it spells out a 3-step process, which forms the desired actions in The Uluru Statement form the Heart, that credible polls show 80% of indigenous people support.
the process is 1. The Voice 2. Treaty 3. Reconciliation (truth-telling, history facing proposed similar to Arch Bishop Tutu-chaired process post Apartheid in South Africa).
One doesn't mandate the other, and the proposed Treaty will be by negotiation, being informed by The Voice, with the Australian Parliament retaining the power to ratify and enact any treaty.
Source: this is my understanding of the process, through extensive reading of source material, over a period of several years.
