Real voices in referendum debate gagged by grand gesture to absolve white guilt

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/real-voices-gagged-by-grand-gesture-to-absolve-white-guilt/news-story/85ddf8ebd8fce2c2212e344c980462d6

In the lead-up to this year’s Indigenous voice to parliament referendum, you’ll hear repeatedly that Aboriginal people overwhelmingly want the voice.

I don’t believe it. I meet a lot of Aboriginal people from all over the country and I always ask them what they think of the voice. Without fail, the response I hear is they oppose it, don’t understand it, or think it will just cement the monopoly of a small minority who already advise government.

Those who claim Aboriginal people want the voice point to consultations leading up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart and the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Report to the Australian government by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. Both consultation processes were flawed.

The Uluru statement was endorsed at a convention attended by just 250 delegates selected from 14 community “Dialogues”. These were capped at 100 attendees with only 60 per cent of places allocated to Indigenous people. Attendance was by invitation only, which, according to the Referendum Council, was to ensure each dialogue reached a consensus. In politics the word for that is stacked. Despite being hand-picked, several delegates rejected the Uluru statement and walked out of the convention.

Consultation for the report was also flawed. It wasn’t real consultation at all because it was based on an imposed assumption the voice is the only solution to address issues in Indigenous communities (without ever articulating what these issues are). It informed people of the voice as a fait accompli and they had little opportunity to suggest alternatives.

The co-design group interacted with about 9400 people over four months, of which only 5400 actually met with them. We’ve no idea how many were Indigenous. But even if all were, that’s a little over 1 per cent of the adult Indigenous population. In research practice a good sample is more like 10 per cent, less for very large numbers, but never as low as that.

Astonishingly, about 90 per cent of submissions to the co-design group and 80 per cent of surveys came from non-Indigenous Australians. In these submissions, support for a voice was especially strong. This raises the question – are we seeking to improve Aboriginal lives or absolve white guilt with grand gestures?

The report itself admits community consultation sessions found some participants weren’t supportive of a national voice because it would centralise power away from local communities or the breadth of issues would be too diverse for a single national body. These are very astute observations of how the voice will cut across existing communication channels between Aboriginal people and government and create deep structural problems. The report’s response to such concerns is a meaningless word salad, referring to “an expectation that members of a national voice would consider how essential policy matters affected all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the national level as well as linking into local and regional voices”. Good grief.

The consultation process gave no meaningful opportunities for feedback on the voice itself. Some Aboriginal organisations made subsequent submissions covering broader concerns they couldn’t raise in consultation. These concerns are very telling. They don’t suggest overwhelming support and uniform consensus at all. But they do contain repeated warnings from local traditional owner groups of the difficulties of being incorporated with other groups at the “local and regional” level when they aren’t the same people.

The Central Land Council’s submission referred to a lack of full transparency and accountability in the consultation process, calling for an independent observer to assess whether it was fair, open, and transparent and providing full and equitable opportunities to participate, be heard and listened to.

The Ngaanyatjarra Council is the principal representative body for traditional owners in an area the size of the UK in the tri-state region of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Its submission indicates it wants direct communication with the four governments it needs to deal with, not bundled with other non-representative organisations that have emerged in its community. It is concerned the proposed model of 25 to 35 Indigenous groups may in fact silence the voices of the Ngaanyatjara people.

The La Perouse Aboriginal Community Alliance is a network of local service providers collaborating in engagement with governments in the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council, an area now recognised as a discrete Aboriginal community with unbroken links to early Sydney.

Its submission also voices concern about local and regional “voices” including Aboriginal people who’ve migrated from other areas. It warns a failure to set clear boundaries on who can speak for country will create further friction between local service delivery organisations and traditional owners, benefiting none. Aboriginal people aren’t the same. No Aboriginal person can easily speak for another country or other people, only their own.

Years ago, I told early proponents of the voice that a national representative voice made no sense because any representative model needed to be drawn from the traditional owner groups. This idea was bastardised into a “local and regional voice” model that means nothing to anyone.

The Ngaanyatjarra Council’s submis­sion put it bluntly: there’s “a real risk that distilling voices from 500 Indigenous clans into a collection of regional groups would effectively nullify authentic Indigenous voices, rendering them meaningless, allowing governments to claim that they have ‘consulted’ Indigenous people”.

The entire concept of the voice is based on a false assumption of the homogeneity of Aboriginal people across the nation, as one race. This is something Indigenous Australians have tried to counter for decades. Now we find a government striving to entrench this in the Constitution. It won’t end well.

Nyunggai Warren Mundine is director, Indigenous Forum, Centre for Independent Studies, and president of Recognise a Better Way. Acknowledgments to academic, historian and Warraimaay woman Vicki Grieves Williams for her research and contribution to this series of articles.

i dont get this criticism

abos became a broader pan identity ages ago, they may pay lip service to "mob" but they overwhelmingly all speak the same language and want the same sh1t (gibs)

if they spoke collectively via a 'voice' mechanism who would that nullify and why


you could make the same argument about representative democracy or any system that lumps people into collective units

JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour?

Why is it that the ignorant white proponents of "the voice" are always the most eager to dismiss the voices of real aboriginal people as being somehow illegitimate? Do they want the voice because it will validate their racist views of aborigines as some kind of mindless collective?

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 12:15pm:

JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour?

that is what we already have though

"we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo

im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different

I will note, in passing, that the same criticism has been raised about 'land claims' and such as regards immigrated groups of Indigenous participating at the local level.  Look at Sydney and Goat Island - most of those on that council are not local derivatives.

None of this will end well.

JC Denton wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 12:20pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:15pm: JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour? that is what we already have though "we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different

You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. The only democratic bit is the initial change to the constitution. After that it will be a government-appointed dictatorship.

Do you prefer dictatorship to democracy?

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

JC Denton wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:15pm: JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour? that is what we already have though "we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. The only democratic bit is the initial change to the constitution. After that it will be a government-appointed dictatorship. Do you prefer dictatorship to democracy?

One single racial group over which the electoral process has no control..... and no rights of intervention.

Madness... pure madness.

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 12:05pm:

Years ago, I told early proponents of the voice that a national representative voice made no sense because any representative model needed to be drawn from the traditional owner groups. This idea was bastardised into a “local and regional voice” model that means nothing to anyone. The Ngaanyatjarra Council’s submis­sion put it bluntly: there’s “a real risk that distilling voices from 500 Indigenous clans into a collection of regional groups would effectively nullify authentic Indigenous voices, rendering them meaningless, allowing governments to claim that they have ‘consulted’ Indigenous people”. The entire concept of the voice is based on a false assumption of the homogeneity of Aboriginal people across the nation, as one race. This is something Indigenous Australians have tried to counter for decades. Now we find a government striving to entrench this in the Constitution. It won’t end well. Nyunggai Warren Mundine is director, Indigenous Forum, Centre for Independent Studies, and president of Recognise a Better Way. Acknowledgments to academic, historian and Warraimaay woman Vicki Grieves Williams for her research and contribution to this series of articles.

The Voice is undoubtedly a stupid thing as far as making any change on the ground. It is a sinister thing because the harm it will do to Australian governance and law-making.

But it would also be stupid, on a different level, to have 500 different tribal voices. That is taking identity politics to the Nth level of stupidity. Not only makes it Aborigines distinct from everyone else but it makes Aborigines distinct from other Aborigines for the purpose of civil society and laws. Add in that most Aborigines are half or three quarter something else altogether and you have a set up that puts 'Balkanisation' and 'Bantustanisation' to shame for being models of unity and homogeisation.
It would be going down the path of the Holy Roman Empire, with hundreds and hundreds of little constituent sovereign statelets that had no real differences any more than 500 Aboriginal tribes and clans do in the 21st century.

JC Denton wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

i dont get this criticism abos became a broader pan identity ages ago, they may pay lip service to "mob" but they overwhelmingly all speak the same language and want the same sh1t (gibs) if they spoke collectively via a 'voice' mechanism who would that nullify and why you could make the same argument about representative democracy or any system that lumps people into collective units

No they don't all speak the same language....

yes many want the same shyte ... whatever they can get for nothing ... on the Govt dime therefore the tax payers dime.

But there are white ferals with the same mindset.

There's nothing traditional with white ferals though.... they aren't looked upon as a museum piece that needs to be protected & preserved at all costs.

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 12:04pm:

Real voices in referendum debate gagged by grand gesture to absolve white guilt https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/real-voices-gagged-by-grand-gesture-to-absolve-white-guilt/news-story/85ddf8ebd8fce2c2212e344c980462d6 In the lead-up to this year’s Indigenous voice to parliament referendum, you’ll hear repeatedly that Aboriginal people overwhelmingly want the voice. I don’t believe it. I meet a lot of Aboriginal people from all over the country and I always ask them what they think of the voice. Without fail, the response I hear is they oppose it, don’t understand it, or think it will just cement the monopoly of a small minority who already advise government. Those who claim Aboriginal people want the voice point to consultations leading up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart and the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Report to the Australian government by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. Both consultation processes were flawed. The Uluru statement was endorsed at a convention attended by just 250 delegates selected from 14 community “Dialogues”. These were capped at 100 attendees with only 60 per cent of places allocated to Indigenous people. Attendance was by invitation only, which, according to the Referendum Council, was to ensure each dialogue reached a consensus. In politics the word for that is stacked. Despite being hand-picked, several delegates rejected the Uluru statement and walked out of the convention. Consultation for the report was also flawed. It wasn’t real consultation at all because it was based on an imposed assumption the voice is the only solution to address issues in Indigenous communities (without ever articulating what these issues are). It informed people of the voice as a fait accompli and they had little opportunity to suggest alternatives. The co-design group interacted with about 9400 people over four months, of which only 5400 actually met with them. We’ve no idea how many were Indigenous. But even if all were, that’s a little over 1 per cent of the adult Indigenous population. In research practice a good sample is more like 10 per cent, less for very large numbers, but never as low as that. Astonishingly, about 90 per cent of submissions to the co-design group and 80 per cent of surveys came from non-Indigenous Australians. In these submissions, support for a voice was especially strong. This raises the question – are we seeking to improve Aboriginal lives or absolve white guilt with grand gestures? The report itself admits community consultation sessions found some participants weren’t supportive of a national voice because it would centralise power away from local communities or the breadth of issues would be too diverse for a single national body. These are very astute observations of how the voice will cut across existing communication channels between Aboriginal people and government and create deep structural problems. The report’s response to such concerns is a meaningless word salad, referring to “an expectation that members of a national voice would consider how essential policy matters affected all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the national level as well as linking into local and regional voices”. Good grief. The consultation process gave no meaningful opportunities for feedback on the voice itself. Some Aboriginal organisations made subsequent submissions covering broader concerns they couldn’t raise in consultation. These concerns are very telling. They don’t suggest overwhelming support and uniform consensus at all. But they do contain repeated warnings from local traditional owner groups of the difficulties of being incorporated with other groups at the “local and regional” level when they aren’t the same people. The Central Land Council’s submission referred to a lack of full transparency and accountability in the consultation process, calling for an independent observer to assess whether it was fair, open, and transparent and providing full and equitable opportunities to participate, be heard and listened to. The Ngaanyatjarra Council is the principal representative body for traditional owners in an area the size of the UK in the tri-state region of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Its submission indicates it wants direct communication with the four governments it needs to deal with, not bundled with other non-representative organisations that have emerged in its community. It is concerned the proposed model of 25 to 35 Indigenous groups may in fact silence the voices of the Ngaanyatjara people. The La Perouse Aboriginal Community Alliance is a network of local service providers collaborating in engagement with governments in the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council, an area now recognised as a discrete Aboriginal community with unbroken links to early Sydney. Its submission also voices concern about local and regional “voices” including Aboriginal people who’ve migrated from other areas. It warns a failure to set clear boundaries on who can speak for country will create further friction between local service delivery organisations and traditional owners, benefiting none. Aboriginal people aren’t the same. No Aboriginal person can easily speak for another country or other people, only their own.

Paywalled.  Yay Effendi.  Who wrote that?

Quote:

Who wrote that?

It's explained at the end of the article.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 1:00pm:

I will note, in passing, that the same criticism has been raised about 'land claims' and such as regards immigrated groups of Indigenous participating at the local level.  Look at Sydney and Goat Island - most of those on that council are not local derivatives. None of this will end well.

From what I can see there is endless infighting amongst competing Aboriginal groups. I expect it would disappear overnight if the enormous carrot did.

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something?

I believe this is all a stepping stone to changing the constitution.
For complete control of this society, the constitution has to change, or be torn up.
Give them an inch and they'll never back off.

This corporate government isn't about an amicable outcome.
They do not listen to the people. They double down and go even harder when met with resistance.
The agenda is set and they need this voice for something.
That something is not being disclosed, and will only be disclosed once the voice is in.

I bet this goes through and the votes will be rigged for a yes.
That's why the propaganda box is playing nothing but favouritism for the yes vote, but when you actually pound the pavement and ask the real people, it's the complete opposite.

The government is not a democratic government.
It's a corporation.
Corporations do not reason with anyone for anything.
They only do what benifits them, at the cost of everyone else.

This whole voice is a con job, you watch.

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 7:10am:

Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something?

WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 8:40am:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D

You usually do..................

Warren Mundine the former Chairman of Abbott government's Indigenous Advisory Council wrote the article???

Here is another take on the Voice which is not tainted by the Murdoch media!!!


Quote:

Voice to parliament: migrant and refugee groups reject ‘divisive’ no campaign proposal for constitutional recognition Chair of body representing culturally diverse communities says Warren Mundine’s push for ‘symbolic’ recognition is a ‘red herring’ The nation’s peak body representing culturally diverse communities has criticised the voice to parliament no campaign’s push for constitutional recognition of migrants as “offensive” and “divisive”, saying they never asked for or discussed such a possibility. Warren Mundine, a leading organiser of the no campaign, said on Sunday the campaign would propose symbolic constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and migrants through a new preamble, via another referendum. This approach was previously rejected by multiple rounds of consultation including the 2017 Uluru statement from the heart, which called for a voice to parliament.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/30/voice-to-parliament-migrant-and-refugee-groups-reject-divisive-no-campaign-proposal-for-constitutional-recognition

Captain Caveman wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 7:57am:

I believe this is all a stepping stone to changing the constitution. For complete control of this society, the constitution has to change, or be torn up. Give them an inch and they'll never back off. This corporate government isn't about an amicable outcome. They do not listen to the people. They double down and go even harder when met with resistance. The agenda is set and they need this voice for something. That something is not being disclosed, and will only be disclosed once the voice is in. I bet this goes through and the votes will be rigged for a yes. That's why the propaganda box is playing nothing but favouritism for the yes vote, but when you actually pound the pavement and ask the real people, it's the complete opposite. The government is not a democratic government. It's a corporation. Corporations do not reason with anyone for anything. They only do what benifits them, at the cost of everyone else. This whole voice is a con job, you watch.

Spot on.  Always look for the true reason behind some agenda - qui bono?  And I don't mean the short-term 'benefit' for some small and noisy group of losers.... there is always a long term goal in mind when any political movement pushes a clear agenda, and it will always be for their benefit -  not yours.

What can be gained from the stabbing of this voice idea into the heart of the Constitution?  That is the true question.... and not what can be gained for the Cheers etc ...

The watering down and eventual dissolution into tears of rage of the Constitution will lead us to what?  The demand for a NEW Constitution... to achieve what and benefit whom?

Perhaps The Who had the answer at the back of their minds years ago when semi-formed but illuminating ideas were more the norm  - it can be amazing how prophetic some of the sixties music was....

"… I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution" ....

"… Yeah
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss".

What any movement will require out of such a change is a new dictatorship where they will be the ruling elite and the rest will obey or be punished.  Why, you ask?  Well - because they always know better than you do what's best for you!  Don't you know that, you silly peasant?

Within every politician resides the spirit of a true despot...... within every person of the people is a tyrant struggling to get out.... look at any movement - say the 'queer' - always demanding the incredible - "Should the phones of anti-trans people be tapped and recorded?"  "Should the voting rights of transphobes be removed?"

Or an Albaneser ...."Should anyone who oppose changes to their Constitution be put on public trial and condemned out of hand as racists and bigots, and thus become fair game for assault and abuse?  Maybe they should have their voting rights curtailed and be turned into second class citizens!!" 

Is this what you expect in a 'prime minister' and his mad party paid out of the fattest in the land?  Is there a single sane voice left in Labor?

As in - WTF???

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 9:31am:

Captain Caveman wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:57am: I believe this is all a stepping stone to changing the constitution. For complete control of this society, the constitution has to change, or be torn up. Give them an inch and they'll never back off. This corporate government isn't about an amicable outcome. They do not listen to the people. They double down and go even harder when met with resistance. The agenda is set and they need this voice for something. That something is not being disclosed, and will only be disclosed once the voice is in. I bet this goes through and the votes will be rigged for a yes. That's why the propaganda box is playing nothing but favouritism for the yes vote, but when you actually pound the pavement and ask the real people, it's the complete opposite. The government is not a democratic government. It's a corporation. Corporations do not reason with anyone for anything. They only do what benifits them, at the cost of everyone else. This whole voice is a con job, you watch. Spot on.  Always look for the true reason behind some agenda - qui bono?  And I don't mean the short-term 'benefit' for some small and noisy group of losers.... there is always a long term goal in mind when any political movement pushes a clear agenda, and it will always be for their benefit -  not yours. What can be gained from the stabbing of this voice idea into the heart of the Constitution?  That is the true question.... and not what can be gained for the Cheers etc ... The watering down and eventual dissolution into tears of rage of the Constitution will lead us to what?  The demand for a NEW Constitution... to achieve what and benefit whom? Perhaps The Who had the answer at the back of their minds years ago when semi-formed but illuminating ideas were more the norm  - it can be amazing how prophetic some of the sixties music was.... "… I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution Take a bow for the new revolution" .... "… Yeah Meet the new boss Same as the old boss". What any movement will require out of such a change is a new dictatorship where they will be the ruling elite and the rest will obey or be punished.  Why, you ask?  Well - because they always know better than you do what's best for you!  Don't you know that, you silly peasant? Within every politician resides the spirit of a true despot...... within every person of the people is a tyrant struggling to get out.... look at any movement - say the 'queer' - always demanding the incredible - "Should the phones of anti-trans people be tapped and recorded?"  "Should the voting rights of transphobes be removed?" Or an Albaneser ...."Should anyone who oppose changes to their Constitution be put on public trial and condemned out of hand as racists and bigots, and thus become fair game for assault and abuse?  Maybe they should have their voting rights curtailed and be turned into second class citizens!!"  Is this what you expect in a 'prime minister' and his mad party paid out of the fattest in the land?  Is there a single sane voice left in Labor? As in - WTF???

Agree.

The Chinese North korean social credit system has been alive in this country for nearly 20yrs.
Were just to stupid to see it.
But being a higher earning tax payer, I can assure you that it does exist.
Every social media platform has a cia operative at the top.
They've been profiling morons for the last 15 to 20yrs.
You can be made out to be anyone they want you to be
They own the media, so they own people's opinions.
It's all golden unicorn farts and rainbows for any agenda set by the corporations.

I can't agree that 'recognition' as first settlers and installation in the constitution with special voting rights for their own exclusively and special right to impose their views on governments are even remotely the same thing.

If I buy a house or a used car or a used 50 foot sailboat - it is always acknowledged - and it's there on the documents - that the PREVIOUS owner was there first...... so what?  At the moment of transfer the rights of the previous owner to ALL ownership pass to me.

That makes it pretty simple, eh?

There is no turning back to the Indigenous colonialist imperialist style of 'ownership' pre-1788. NOBODY these days can claim ownership of lands held in the past by force of arms or even by the lack of other people in it apart from some small wandering group across thousands of square miles.  The Belgians etc cannot go back to The Congo and claim it back.... there are European nations that today cannot claim back pieces of their country lost over the years... such as Alsace and Lorraine.  The Argentines can't claim The Falklands even though they may have been there before the British.  The Chinese cannot claim the South China Sea and all in it even though they may have moved across it millennia ago like some Abo group wandering across a swathe of land covering thousands of square miles ....... the British can't claim back their Empire.... (hello, turkeys)...

Times Have Changed! It's time legislators, courts and various tribunals got that idea into their heads and changed with them.

No More Land Claims!  No More Special Rights!

It's 2023 - not 03 AD.

Native Title has already been recognised in Australian law by the High Court....The voice will make no difference to what is already ensrined in Australian law!!!


Quote:

The High Court of Australia has already ruled Native Title is recognised in Australian law The judgements of the High Court in Mabo overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius (land belonging to no one), and acknowledged that Indigenous people have lived in Australia for many thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. The Court found that those rights survived colonisation, and they are now recognised and protected by the Australian legal system. The NTA was passed in 1993. It established a process for claiming and recognising native title lands and waters in Australia. The NTA aims to balance Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, and sets out how native title rights and interests fit within Australian law.

::) ::) ::)

https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/native-title-and-pbcs/native-title-rights-and-interests

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:23am:

Native Title has already been recognised in Australian law by the High Court....The voice will make no difference to what is already ensrined in Australian law!!! Quote: The High Court of Australia has already ruled Native Title is recognised in Australian law The judgements of the High Court in Mabo overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius (land belonging to no one), and acknowledged that Indigenous people have lived in Australia for many thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. The Court found that those rights survived colonisation, and they are now recognised and protected by the Australian legal system. The NTA was passed in 1993. It established a process for claiming and recognising native title lands and waters in Australia. The NTA aims to balance Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, and sets out how native title rights and interests fit within Australian law. ::) ::) ::) https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/native-title-and-pbcs/native-title-rights-and-interests

A mistake made once can always be set right...... we can all see now how that 'balance' is working out, eh?

"The judgements of the High Court in Mabo overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius (land belonging to no one), and acknowledged that Indigenous people have lived in Australia for many thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. The Court found that those rights survived colonisation, and they are now recognised and protected by the Australian legal system."

And there are your problems in a capsule form...

Mabo already has acknowledged that Indigenous people have lived here etc.. no further acknowledgement is required, so that's out of any referendum.

There is a problem with 'according to their own laws and customs' - those laws and customs of conquest and colonisation by force or arms are no longer accepted throughout the world as the way to grab property - not to mention that such a retention of squatted land, as it then was under that massive change of worldwide rules, demanded unbroken possession and an utter lack of conflict with others who have purchased etc.

Yet we have demands for the settled coast of NSW and even the entire Perth CBD, long settled and legitimately owned areas.

Those 'rights' could not 'survive colonisation', since they were overtaken - as surely as colonisation was - by a totally different set of rules that demanded a different proof of ownership.  NO former ownership by conquest and simply settling exists now other than in primitive countries, and even those who settled by squatting on original large plots of land here in Australia post 1788 had to pay to retain possession of their land.

Squatting alone is not sufficient reason to demand possession of land any more, and clearly the court was wrong (again), and the legal system has been wrongfully employed in promoting privileges for one small group over all others, which shows clearly how fatally flawed is both our system of law here in this poor colony - my country - and its political stewardship.

Put simply - for too long the courts and governments have run their own race here without proper consideration of the people and their rights and especially their right to be treated equally under the law.  The exercise of law must abide by its own rules, especially in providing equal treatment which also means not permitting wallet lawfare**, or it becomes nothing more than despotism - which it clearly is to anyone who has ever been entangled in it.

**no person should be denied justice and fair play because they have a thin wallet and their assailant has a fat one.... equal treatment must prevail... therefore simple matters of defamation should apply to all and be handled at the cost of a $25 application fee with a legal requirement of truth and not twists and turns, so as to ensure that poor people have the right to not be defamed and libeled by fat cats such as the media.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 11:26am:

A mistake made once can always be set right..

I doubt it, once you were born we were stuck with you

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 6:08pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 11:26am: A mistake made once can always be set right.. I doubt it, once you were born we were stuck with you

Ditto for you 'tard.

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 8:40am:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D

Are you trying to disagree with me, John?

Or are you afraid to actually say something?


John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 7:06am:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

JC Denton wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:15pm: JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour? that is what we already have though "we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. The only democratic bit is the initial change to the constitution. After that it will be a government-appointed dictatorship. Do you prefer dictatorship to democracy?

The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King.

Does he represent your voice?

I'm curious.

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 8:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:40am: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D Are you trying to disagree with me, John? Or are you afraid to actually say something? John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

  No, I'm laughing AT you fd. I thought that was obvious  ::)

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:40am: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D Are you trying to disagree with me, John? Or are you afraid to actually say something? John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D   No, I'm laughing AT you fd. I thought that was obvious  ::)

Well, WE are laughing AT you, planks.

Frank wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:26pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:40am: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D Are you trying to disagree with me, John? Or are you afraid to actually say something? John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D   No, I'm laughing AT you fd. I thought that was obvious  ::) Well, WE are laughing AT you, planks.

You also wear shoes made off wood ya idiot.  :D

Karnal wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: JC Denton wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:15pm: JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour? that is what we already have though "we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. The only democratic bit is the initial change to the constitution. After that it will be a government-appointed dictatorship. Do you prefer dictatorship to democracy? The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious.

Utter rubbish.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: JC Denton wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 12:15pm: JC, would you be happy for one "voice" to represent you and all other white people to government on account of you all speaking the same language and having the same skin colour? that is what we already have though "we" are represented by members of overwhelmingly two political parties, that all support the same poo and do the exact same poo im not happy about it but that's how f@ggot democracy works, why should the voice be any different You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. The only democratic bit is the initial change to the constitution. After that it will be a government-appointed dictatorship. Do you prefer dictatorship to democracy? The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Utter rubbish.

Do you want to tell Grappler about the constitution, FD?

He's confused. Can you point him in the right direction?

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:40am: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D Are you trying to disagree with me, John? Or are you afraid to actually say something? John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D   No, I'm laughing AT you fd. I thought that was obvious  ::)

Are you like this in real life? Always talking, but never anything to say?

Karnal wrote on Apr 21^st, 2023 at 10:25pm:

The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious.

Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians...

Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice...

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2023 at 8:02am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice...

Australia has 'two' voices: Politics and Music.
Australia has 'two' visualisations: Art and Writing
...etc, etc.

Jasin wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2023 at 8:06am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 8:02am: Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice... Australia has 'two' voices: Politics and Music. Australia has 'two' visualisations: Art and Writing ...etc, etc.

It just goes on and on, doesn't it?

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2023 at 8:02am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice...

`````````````
They have the right to vote & be part of the 50%+1 ... like the rest of us.

They already have many special voices & rights over their country.

Gnads wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 9:57am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 8:02am: Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice... ````````````` They have the right to vote & be part of the 50%+1 ... like the rest of us. They already have many special voices & rights over their country.

why would it be a case for giving ONLY Blacks a spercial voice?  If your case holds true, that applies to everyone.. every Hottentot and Eskimo living here as a citizen.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 6:59pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 9:57am: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 8:02am: Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice... ````````````` They have the right to vote & be part of the 50%+1 ... like the rest of us. They already have many special voices & rights over their country. why would it be a case for giving ONLY Blacks a spercial voice?  If your case holds true, that applies to everyone.. every Hottentot and Eskimo living here as a citizen.

It's not blacks, we have a lot of blacks that are not Aboriginal. Indian, Africans, so called African-Americans, loads of tinted. Aboriginals can be any colour. Blond, redheaded, straight haired, curly, white as a lilly, don't go out in the sun, to as dark as the sun is bright.

Setanta wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 7:06pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 6:59pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 9:57am: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 8:02am: Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice... ````````````` They have the right to vote & be part of the 50%+1 ... like the rest of us. They already have many special voices & rights over their country. why would it be a case for giving ONLY Blacks a spercial voice?  If your case holds true, that applies to everyone.. every Hottentot and Eskimo living here as a citizen. It's not blacks, we have a lot of blacks that are not Aboriginal. Indian, Africans, so called African-Americans, loads of tinted. Aboriginals can be any colour. Blond, redheaded, straight haired, curly, white as a lilly, don't go out in the sun, to as dark as the sun is bright.

Of course, but I'm paying out the rope for dividie.... a little bit at a time....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 7:22pm:

Setanta wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 7:06pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 6:59pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 9:57am: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22nd, 2023 at 8:02am: Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... Maybe a case for giving blacks a special voice... ````````````` They have the right to vote & be part of the 50%+1 ... like the rest of us. They already have many special voices & rights over their country. why would it be a case for giving ONLY Blacks a spercial voice?  If your case holds true, that applies to everyone.. every Hottentot and Eskimo living here as a citizen. It's not blacks, we have a lot of blacks that are not Aboriginal. Indian, Africans, so called African-Americans, loads of tinted. Aboriginals can be any colour. Blond, redheaded, straight haired, curly, white as a lilly, don't go out in the sun, to as dark as the sun is bright. Of course, but I'm paying out the rope for dividie.... a little bit at a time....

I guess having to tell me that spoiled your plan. :-/

freediver wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 7:42am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:26pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 8:40am: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:10am: Are you trying to disagree with John? Afraid to actually say something? WTF? You're in so much of a lather that you've lost the plot completely. Are you asking me if i disagree with myself? :D :D :D Are you trying to disagree with me, John? Or are you afraid to actually say something? John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 7:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2023 at 1:07pm: You are confused JC. The "voice" is the opposite of democracy. ;D ;D ;D ;D   No, I'm laughing AT you fd. I thought that was obvious  ::) Are you like this in real life? Always talking, but never anything to say?

Only idiots struggle to understand me, luckily for me, most of them are on ozpol and not in my real life.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 8:02am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2023 at 10:25pm: The Governor General is the supreme voice of all Australians, FD. He reports to the King. Does he represent your voice? I'm curious. Surely the Parliament is the supreme voice of "all" Australians...but in practice it's the voice of 50% + 1 Australians... ..

Nothing will change in that regard.  Parliament will still have the final say and it will still represent their 51 donors

John Smith wrote on Apr 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023 at 8:10pm:

Nothing will change in that regard.  Parliament will still have the final say and it will still represent their 51 donors

And those who supported it will treat it only as advice? ::)

They won't feel as if they have to agree with any "advice" because they supported the Voice? ::)

John is right. The referendum is completely pointless. We are filling the constitution with gibberish. What could possibly go wrong?