indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

In other words, like Indo, deep down they know it's the right thing to do.

Clearly your projecting.

Because feep down im sure you know its wrong to give any group extra power or say based on race/ethnicity, because by definition its racism.

You and others justify you decision/position because you believe it will change the life's of disadvantaged indigenous people.

It's that simple.

Nah not projecting at all.
I just feel that despite your far right schtick, you are in reality just trolling for shits and gigs and deep in your heart you’re not really that sort of person.
And I expect this has been said ad nauseam but - it’s not about giving indigenous people “extra” powers, it’s about trying to lift them as a group up to something near the rest of society as a whole.
I don’t necessarily believe that the Voice will miraculously change the lives of indigenous people but considering how things have gone in the past and also considering how the concept of the voice has come from a grassroots level and will consist of people elected by communities, it’s a good shot at addressing the generally dire situation of indigenous people in Australia.

@indo , if JP was pro yes for the voice would that change your opinion ? The LNP were originally wanting this when Abbot was PM , what changed besides Labor now being in power ?

If two sovereign nations can coexist peacefully within the one country, then I’m all for it. Two nations is fine.
Everyone wants aboriginal people to feel important and valued as well as prospering in the modern British style world as I said before in my last post.
There are however many differences of opinion within aboriginal groups themselves which is why there are 250 mobs in Australia.
If it can all run smoothly then I’m into it , but if it can’t it’ll just be a field day for lawyers.
Australia is already an expensive place to live for the average Joe, pumping billions and billions more into lawyers pockets over obvious approaching legal issues will leave everyone broke.
My concern is that everything is going pretty good these days , much better than the crap deal aboriginal people used to get.
Everyone aboriginal I know and there are many , are doing fine , all happy living good lives.
The horrid past their ancestors endured is behind them and the future is rosy for them now should they choose to enjoy the current benefits.
They also are well represented in parliament. There will always be people white or black who will never be happy with life no matter what.
I understand that the power of sovereignty and constitutional recognition would be meaningful for them too.
I think I’m just scared of seeing the whole thing turn into long court cases and arguments every night on telly. Then everyone will be over it.

@sameaswas , so you believe this whole voice business and where and how it started is just part of a bigger scam to line the pockets of a few individuals ? I do agree with you on the homelessness needing addressing . The focus coming from Spud on the voice and not looking at a wide range of issues like cost of living and homelessness for many Australians is a little puzzling and makes me question who’s pushing spud to take this path ? Maybe he realises many of today’s issues are because of his mob’s performance over the last decade and doesn’t want Labor highlighting this and prefers to play a look over here game . My question to you sameaswas is , as far as the voice is concerned, what would you personally like to see happen ? Change or leave things as they are ? I respect you have your views and have a right to opinion.

@optimist , I’m happy for the black fellas that are doing well near you , just curious to what towns in Australia you’re referring too ? Have you visited any towns in the Pilbara or far north ?

Nah, Optimist thinks Pilbara/Yorta/Pit people should get over themselves and get a unit in Syd West, Moe or Elizabeth where there are no social or economic issues...

Trust me, they wouldn’t want to live next door to you.

mean.

Optimist is a self declared christian missionary and has stated here many times he believes indigenous culture is secondary to belief in his “one true god”.

IMO that disqualifies him from being taken seriously on pretty much everything he says about this topic.

AndyM wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

In other words, like Indo, deep down they know it's the right thing to do.

Clearly your projecting.

Because feep down im sure you know its wrong to give any group extra power or say based on race/ethnicity, because by definition its racism.

You and others justify you decision/position because you believe it will change the life's of disadvantaged indigenous people.

It's that simple.

Nah not projecting at all.

I just feel that despite your far right schtick, you are in reality just trolling for shits and gigs and deep in your heart you’re not really that sort of person.

And I expect this has been said ad nauseam but - it’s not about giving indigenous people “extra” powers, it’s about trying to lift them as a group up to something near the rest of society as a whole.

I don’t necessarily believe that the Voice will miraculously change the lives of indigenous people but considering how things have gone in the past and also considering how the concept of the voice has come from a grassroots level and will consist of people elected by communities, it’s a good shot at addressing the generally dire situation of indigenous people in Australia.

Its pretty crazy that anyone can think wanting people to be treated equally under the constitution is even right wing, let alone far right, or believing the key to closing the gap with practically real life solutions like education, employment and all the other services we all enjoy is right wing.

I mean god in my post yesterday i even pointed out how how indigenous people are no different to non indigenous people and all have the same needs to prosper etc

The question is how did we get to this point where values that were traditionally left wing not only can be seen as right wing, but even labeled far right?

And you say im trolling you....FFS....

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , if JP was pro yes for the voice would that change your opinion ? The LNP were originally wanting this when Abbot was PM , what changed besides Labor now being in power ?

Said this before but will say it again, myself and many others dont have an issue with trying another Indigenous advisory body such as the voice.

The issue is with cementing it in constitution, thats a very very different thing.

My views on that wouldn't change by who supports or doesn't support this but of course I would be disappointed with Jacinta if she did.

Could you please provide some evidence of you claim of Tony abbott?

My understanding is when he was in power 2013-15 the voice wasn't even a thing at that stage?...(but i could be wrong) I mean we barely know what it is even now.

BTW. I will vote no because i dont think its right to cement it in the constitution and divide us along ethic lines, and im always happy to provide some balance in the forum and dont mind a good debate, so probably come across more passionate about this than i really am.

But its not something im going to rally in streets about or lose sleep over if it gets up, also as i said when this Voice discussion started a fair while ago i do think if it get up there is a silver lining, as it kind of ensures indigenous people take more ownership of their issues, instead of just blaming so called white people all the time.

And when change doesn't happen it's going to be harder to blame others.

Of course by then it will be, our problems wont be fixed until we have a treaty.

And if voice doesn't get up, its also going to be annoying because the excuse will always be, change is not happening because the voice didn't get up, we even saw some silly politician the other week claiming Alce Springs issues wouldn't be happening if we had the voice.

The organisation that I work for has an official policy that ensures that there are Aboriginal representatives who are an integral part of decision-making processes because a significant portion of our clientele is Aboriginal. Makes sense, doesn’t it? It’s also a way of making the Aboriginal community feel that their contributions are valued, which is especially important after over two centuries of them being silenced and marginalised. I think The Voice in federal parliament will serve a similar purpose.

There he is again, hard to have a rational discussion with.a muppet.

@indo , I posted this on the previous page , I mentioned Tony A because he wanted it written into the constitution which I know is what you’re mainly against . ……. Tony Abbott wants a referendum to be held in May 2017 to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution, but won't commit to a date until he is confident it will succeed………..While he favoured putting the question on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, Mr Abbott said: "But I do not want it to fail because every Australian would be the loser. It is more important to get this right than to try to rush it through………https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-vows-to-sweat-blood……….Mr Abbott told the fundraising dinner he was a supporter of constitutional recognition because he wants our country "to transcend the 'them and us' mindset to embrace 'all of us' in the spirit of generous inclusion that has always marked Australians at our best".

"Like John Howard before me – and like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and it seems at least 60 per cent of the population – I am a supporter of constitutional recognition," he said. BTW it’s worth reading the whole article.

Optimist wrote:

There he is again, hard to have a rational discussion with.a muppet.

Your god and the bible had/has much to say about hypocrites optimist. Perhaps more reflection and less false piety would be a good start.

BTW please reread your 2nd last post, here, nothing rational about it

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , I posted this on the previous page , I mentioned Tony A because he wanted it written into the constitution which I know is what you’re mainly against . ……. Tony Abbott wants a referendum to be held in May 2017 to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution, but won't commit to a date until he is confident it will succeed………..While he favoured putting the question on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, Mr Abbott said: "But I do not want it to fail because every Australian would be the loser. It is more important to get this right than to try to rush it through………https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-vows-to-sweat-blood……….Mr Abbott told the fundraising dinner he was a supporter of constitutional recognition because he wants our country "to transcend the 'them and us' mindset to embrace 'all of us' in the spirit of generous inclusion that has always marked Australians at our best".

"Like John Howard before me – and like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and it seems at least 60 per cent of the population – I am a supporter of ," he said. BTW it’s worth reading the whole article.

Um i dont mean to be patronising but im honestly very surprised that you clearly dont know that constitutional recognition of indigenous people is different to the voice, they are two different things.

The LNP officially support constitutional recognition of indigenous people (and yes has a history of doing so) but doesn't support the implementation of the voice in the constitution.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-party-to-oppose-voice-t…

My understanding is constitutional recognition of indigenous people, just means an official recognition of indigenous people in the constitution as the first nation people my understanding possibly in the preamble which is basically the introduction of the constitution.

So you would expect it might say something like we recognise Indigenous Australians as the first people of Australia having lived here for 60,000 years before settlement by the British, and possible going on about how we are now all Australian's and equal under law and rights etc

Yeah its surprising this isn't already there especially after the 1967 referendum. you would have thought it would have been changed then.

IMHO the referendum should be at least a two part question, basically

1. Do you support constitutional recognition of indigenous people?

2. Do you support the implementation of the voice in the constitution ?

Id vote for one but not two.

And while we are wasting all this money, why not get our moneys worth and throw in a third question, the Australia day question and put that whole issue to bed.

So you’re ok with constitutional recognition of FNP so long as they don’t get to have any input into affairs that effect them directly written into the constitution ?

There isn't any reason to include the voice in the constitution, it can be implemented as policy.

Only reason people want it in the constitution is to prevent it being removed or scrapped if it doesn't work, which doesn't make any sense.

If it works no government is going to remove it, future government's would only scrap it if it doesn't work.

As ive said why not just get an agreement between all political parties that its given a set trial period like 15 years with an independent body to evaluate its success at that point.

@indo , you do understand that it’s only input from FNP to government and that government has final say ? FNP are represented in parliament now , some would say overwhelming so . What is the guarantee there will always be fair representation ? A voice in the constitution simply guarantees that concerns and input are heard when it comes to decisions that directly affect them . There was a RC in 2016 with recommendations made but not implemented so at the end of the day it’s still up to government of the day .

Haven't commented in this thread (and am wary to get involved), but saw this explainer-vid a few days ago and thought it did a good job of boiling down the key points (and providing a nice history lesson).

This is a great explainer pic.twitter.com/bFRevEXZMf

— chef mark best (@markbest) April 15, 2023

“ … Only reason people want it in the constitution is to prevent it being removed or scrapped if it doesn't work, which doesn't make any sense.….”

What or who do you mean by the use of the word “people” @info?

thermalben wrote:

Haven't commented in this thread (and am wary to get involved), but saw this explainer-vid a few days ago and thought it did a good job of boiling down the key points (and providing a nice history lesson).

https://twitter.com/markbest/status/1647135614934872064

Thanks for posting that, she puts it simply and nicely...
Wonder if some of the negative commentators here have actually read the Uluru statement?

https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/

How would the constitution change?

If the referendum is successful, the constitution will be amended to add a new chapter, "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples", which will include this wording:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/what-is-voice-to-parliament-refe…

Cheers for that thermalben, I understand why you haven't weighed in, haha. Next job: lightening up the Religion thread!

thermalben wrote:

Haven't commented in this thread (and am wary to get involved), but saw this explainer-vid a few days ago and thought it did a good job of boiling down the key points (and providing a nice history lesson).

https://twitter.com/markbest/status/1647135614934872064

I was actually hoping someone would draw a picture .

basesix wrote:

Cheers for that thermalben, I understand why you haven't weighed in, haha. Next job: lightening up the Religion thread!

Give me five.

indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

In other words, like Indo, deep down they know it's the right thing to do.

Clearly your projecting.

Because feep down im sure you know its wrong to give any group extra power or say based on race/ethnicity, because by definition its racism.

You and others justify you decision/position because you believe it will change the life's of disadvantaged indigenous people.

It's that simple.

Nah not projecting at all.

I just feel that despite your far right schtick, you are in reality just trolling for shits and gigs and deep in your heart you’re not really that sort of person.

And I expect this has been said ad nauseam but - it’s not about giving indigenous people “extra” powers, it’s about trying to lift them as a group up to something near the rest of society as a whole.

I don’t necessarily believe that the Voice will miraculously change the lives of indigenous people but considering how things have gone in the past and also considering how the concept of the voice has come from a grassroots level and will consist of people elected by communities, it’s a good shot at addressing the generally dire situation of indigenous people in Australia.

Its pretty crazy that anyone can think wanting people to be treated equally under the constitution is even right wing, let alone far right, or believing the key to closing the gap with practically real life solutions like education, employment and all the other services we all enjoy is right wing.

I mean god in my post yesterday i even pointed out how how indigenous people are no different to non indigenous people and all have the same needs to prosper etc

The question is how did we get to this point where values that were traditionally left wing not only can be seen as right wing, but even labeled far right?

And you say im trolling you....FFS....

The reason I say that you've got far right tendencies is because in the past you've said you're in favour of authoritarian or possibly dictatorial government.
You also said that you favour violence against peaceful protestors.
And by saying things like "the closer indigenous people are to their culture, the more violent and dysfunctional they are", you come across as racist and implicitly, in favour of some kind of forced assimilation.

Now as I've said before, I don't really believe that's the real you, I think you're just trolling.

And with regards to "wanting people to be treated equally under the constitution", do you understand that indigenous people are far from being treated equally, regardless of what the Constitution says, and hence the need to amend it?
Do you not understand that this is what it's all about?
Or are you yanking my chain?? :)

Indigenous Australians die younger, are incarcerated more, have a system of law and a cultural connection to country that dates back over 40,000 years, they had their lands colonised, their children stolen, their human rights ignored, their culture marginalised or destroyed, their art and artifacts misappropriated,or in the case of the Juukan Gorge just fucking blown up for ore by Rio Tinto, their place names ignored in favour of Colonial names, their ancestors enslaved, poisoned and murdered; one even had his head cut off and taken to England to be displayed as a trophy and was only recently returned, not because any Australian government demanded it, it fell upon one of his descendants to fund and find it; etc, etc, etc. But do go on Indo about how Indigenous Australians are no different to non Indigenous Australians, it's fucking fascinating.

But it’s the FNP that need educating .

Did Spud speak with Aunty Jack or Aunty ABC ? I think it was probably Aunty Gina , he won’t release the details . https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2023/04/22/dutton-ref…

indo-dreaming wrote:

zenagain wrote:

Hey Indo, for all intensive porpoises it's 'beck and call'.

ha ha okay

Hey Zen. FWIW, it's "intents and purposes." (not tryin to be snarky... have a good one.)

Bens Chef Mark post was very good...clear and simple.

wax24 wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

zenagain wrote:

Hey Indo, for all intensive porpoises it's 'beck and call'.

ha ha okay

Hey Zen. FWIW, it's "intents and purposes." (not tryin to be snarky... have a good one.)

Your humour is lost on some zen but I got it . It actually reminded me of Guru Adrian riding the porpoise of life , remember having fun is half the fun .

wax24 wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

zenagain wrote:

Hey Indo, for all intensive porpoises it's 'beck and call'.

ha ha okay

Hey Zen. FWIW, it's "intents and purposes." (not tryin to be snarky... have a good one.)

wot

I liked it zen, thought it was a nice little dad-ism to lighten the mood and set you apart from indo's vitriolic grammar-correctors:

zenagain wrote:

Hey Indo, for all intensive porpoises it's 'beck and call'.

Intensive porpoises?
I might just fade into Bolivian and have some breakfast.
Bone apple tea!

Thanks Base. Can't help myself sometimes is all. In the future I will just have to resort to Stu‘s favourite Go-Go‘s song- Alex the Seal.

Nice Andy. Enjoy your good apple tits.

Back on topic please guys, we don't tolerate homophonic language in these forums.

AndyM wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

AndyM wrote:

In other words, like Indo, deep down they know it's the right thing to do.

Clearly your projecting.

Because feep down im sure you know its wrong to give any group extra power or say based on race/ethnicity, because by definition its racism.

You and others justify you decision/position because you believe it will change the life's of disadvantaged indigenous people.

It's that simple.

Nah not projecting at all.

I just feel that despite your far right schtick, you are in reality just trolling for shits and gigs and deep in your heart you’re not really that sort of person.

And I expect this has been said ad nauseam but - it’s not about giving indigenous people “extra” powers, it’s about trying to lift them as a group up to something near the rest of society as a whole.

I don’t necessarily believe that the Voice will miraculously change the lives of indigenous people but considering how things have gone in the past and also considering how the concept of the voice has come from a grassroots level and will consist of people elected by communities, it’s a good shot at addressing the generally dire situation of indigenous people in Australia.

Its pretty crazy that anyone can think wanting people to be treated equally under the constitution is even right wing, let alone far right, or believing the key to closing the gap with practically real life solutions like education, employment and all the other services we all enjoy is right wing.

I mean god in my post yesterday i even pointed out how how indigenous people are no different to non indigenous people and all have the same needs to prosper etc

The question is how did we get to this point where values that were traditionally left wing not only can be seen as right wing, but even labeled far right?

And you say im trolling you....FFS....

The reason I say that you've got far right tendencies is because in the past you've said you're in favour of authoritarian or possibly dictatorial government.

You also said that you favour violence against peaceful protestors.

And by saying things like "the closer indigenous people are to their culture, the more violent and dysfunctional they are", you come across as racist and implicitly, in favour of some kind of forced assimilation.

Now as I've said before, I don't really believe that's the real you, I think you're just trolling.

And with regards to "wanting people to be treated equally under the constitution", do you understand that indigenous people are far from being treated equally?

Do you not understand that this is what it's all about?

Or are you yanking my chain?? :)

Ha ha WTF?

When on earth have i been in favour of authoritarian or possibly dictatorial government.??????

Authoritarian or dictatorial governments can be left or right anyway, while communism and full true socialism isn't always run under these premises, it is more often than not.

Like most conservatives especially during Covid i was vocal about being against the authoritarian or possibly dictatorial mind set that we were slipping into, in Victoria we saw the first stages of this big time and we even saw peaceful protestors hit with rubber bullets and tear gas, and there was very little push back here against that from left leaning posters or in media and the very left leaning state government that did it got voted back in.

But yeah im the bad guy because i get frustrated when i see protestor's breaking the law and intentionally trying to piss the public off with illegal acts like glueing or bolting themselves to roads or paths to prevent public access, and then when the police do react its like the pace of a turtle, then if sent to court they get a slap on the wrist, ready to do it all again making a complete mockery of things.

All i want is the public to be able to legally use a ressonable degree of force to physically remove these people (let people take the risk of law of using to much force), so people can actually not be disadvantaged by selfish clowns and I also want proper sentences given so repeat offender's dont keep reoffending and the law is taken seriously and law and courts not made a mockery off, far from far right wing beliefs, more just common sense approach.

BTW. these protest are very different from true peaceful protest with permits and not aimed at pissing people off.

Now that quote on cultural drivers to violence etc im sure is not mine, so if you are going to do that, at least note that you are paraphrasing me please..

I really dont want to get into this discussion because basically nobody here can have it in a mature manner where it doesn't just turn into a shit fight of name calling etc like the typical racist bullshit that you have already done.

I will say one thing though to understand how culture influences violence especially towards women you only have to look at PNG where its impossible not to accept the main driver is a cultural element, doesn't at all mean that Papuans dont have good and positive cultural practice's, all cultures like most things in life are not perfect and have positive and negative aspects, to ignore this is crazy.

In regard's forced assimilation i purposely made it clear in post on the last page on Friday that im not talking about forced assimilation i said

" i wasn't really suggesting assimilation policy especially forced assimilation just being realistic about human needs and how to close the gap. (education, employment, services)"

Its half the problem with these issues because of bad past policy its very hard to deal with these issues, because people always jump to accusations of assimilation or another stolen generation, so in effect it can make things worse, for instance if it was a non indigenous child in danger from parent's authorities are much more likely to intervene when needed and ensure the child doesn't go back unless safe to do so, but historic aspects and racial aspects make it much harder for authorities when indigenous, which in many case's means child or wife etc suffers and problem is much worse than needed. to be.

Its a dammed if you do dammed if you dont scenario.

As for indigenous people being treated any differently and not equal to other Australians, then i dont know what to say, if you really believe this im probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise, i do think some media like ABC have been very irresponsible and not educating people properly on issues like deaths in custody, and happy for people to believe deaths in custody mean deaths at the hands of police which is almost unheard off, or that rates of deaths between indigenous and non indigenous are actually different (well indigenous are slightly lower based on 100 in custody) or that very high indigenous prison stats are not a reflection of crime rates but a reflection of policing or courts being unfair. (made worse by media like Guardian who will then trawl case's looking for a case that doesn't add up and use it as proff, when in fact you can do exactly the same for non indigenous people, especially when the bigger picture of a case and history is not always shown)

Anyway im pretty much at the stage where i think i just have to ignore your post because you often being completely disingenuous and pretty much lie misquoting me and my ideas.

Im sure it was you who tried to paint me as some eugenics guy, which was pretty easy to completely bust seeing i have mixed race kids with brownish skin, but it sucks that i even need to defend myself against such silly accusations.

The problem is i honestly get you and the other Andy mixed up and dont know who said which in the past.

So note to self AndyM is the one to just go yeah whatever dude and not engage and the other Andy plays more fair.

Oh but you ARE effluent darling!

All good Indo. I like how you conduct yourself and put your point forward in good faith. I can't lie- more often than not, I quite agree with you. Sometimes not of course but then it wouldn't be a debate if everyone was in agreeance.

Just for once I‘d love to see those knuckleheads that glue themselves to things left there while everybody else heads to the pub. My Mum used to say if you're foolish enough to get into that situation then you should be foolish enough to get out of it.

Nice one Ben. I saw what you did up there. I‘ll use that.

Thanks Zen, i honestly think in some cases that would be a good approach or just to set up a temporary safety barrier with screen around them so cant be seen and redirect traffic, and just let them be and see how long they can go.

I just think there is a big difference between peaceful well intentioned protest like a march/rally that generally needs a permit and protest that aim is just to irritate or disrupt people going about their everyday life's or the trend now overseas is do crazy stunts like splash paint over artworks generally covered by glass, but there still is a risk of ruining an artwork of real historic importance that people get enjoyment from.

If nothing else Indo I appreciate the time you put into your reply.
Let’s just say that using accepted definitions you really are a fair way out to the right on the political spectrum, that’s just the way it is.
Believe it or not I actually agree with you with regards to the media distorting the black deaths in custody thing.
The stats that I’ve seen support what you said above.
At the same time the incarceration rate for indigenous people is totally off the scale compared to non-indigenous people.
But if you think that indigenous people in Australia aren’t, generally speaking, grossly disadvantaged then I really don’t know what else to say.
And it’s so disappointing to think that you wouldn’t want to support what quite clearly appears to be their best chance in lifting themselves up.

…. and the time I smugly accused @info of being nativity in prosecuting an argument only to be picked up by @stu hours later! :))

Misleading or lies ? https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/email-misleads-with-secret-voice-d…

JP has been promoted because she’s shown promise as a student of spuds bullshit ……..
FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty which will take a large portion of GDP and rent from all white Australians and abolish flag
APR 17
Posted by Editor, cairnsnews
By Senator Jacinta Price

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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230418132550/https://cairnsnews.org/2023/…
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”.

Supafreak wrote:

JP has been promoted because she’s shown promise as a student of spuds bullshit ……..

FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty which will take a large portion of GDP and rent from all white Australians and abolish flag

APR 17

Posted by Editor, cairnsnews

By Senator Jacinta Price

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230418132550/https://cairnsnews.org/2023/…

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”.

proffessor marcia langdon at the beginning of the voice "kaffufle" and was pressed what it meant said "if ppl knew all the details they would'nt vote for it"...no bull! she said that.
well it looks like jp has let the cat out the bag.
the fact is it's in print they want cash compo and a lifetime % of gdp, it took a foi looky by jp to uncover this fact, it's there, has'nt been axed, denied, just waiting till voice ok'd.
i hope the voice leaders answer this press release and give a definitive explanation of it's interpretation of fnppls eg no compo no gdp, or what??

@sameaswas , did you read the article above my post ? https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/email-misleads-with-secret-voice-d… Do you honestly believe that if what JP has written had any truth to it at all , that all major news outlets would then ignore and cover it up ? Someone at those meetings could have said that all Australians besides FNP should be put on temporary visas, does that mean it’s going to happen if the voice gets up ? Sounds like JP has a conspiracy going , it’s a bit desperate .

Reading that it's still a worry that it does have some roots in truth and this is the kind of things being talked about in meetings, obviously that's the end goal and more for some.

"Some" id expect being the academic/elite/gravy train/activists types, all about power and money for those types.

Supafreak wrote:

@sameaswas , did you read the article above my post ? https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/email-misleads-with-secret-voice-d… Do you honestly believe that if what JP has written had any truth to it at all , that all major news outlets would then ignore and cover it up ? Someone at those meetings could have said that all Australians besides FNP should be put on temporary visas, does that mean it’s going to happen if the voice gets up ? Sounds like JP has a conspiracy going , it’s a bit desperate .

Calling 100% nonsense....