@ SR, yes of course, just pointing out how a lot of people feel on this issue. Anyway, most of the extreme left activists FNP are voting no because it doesn't go far enough. I fully respect your thoughtful, caring stance but you can't change history. Cheers mate.

Fair enough @olddog and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It's been cool observing you being open to changing your perspective over the last few weeks.
Very admirable quality.
Cheers.

wax24 wrote:

Na you have to really get into the back catalogue to appreciate how good he is... :)

@ AndyMac

Well, i think Sadie #2 shoulda been Sadie #1.

And, as Forrest Gump would say, "that's all have to say about that."

Wax24, i embarassingly recall singing Sadie the Cleaning lady to Parko and his missus Monica as i cleaned up a Margarita off their beautiful wooden floors of their pad up above Kirra many moons ago. Don't reckon they knew what the hell i was singing and were probably wondering why they invited this strange fella from the surf into their home! That song haunts me.
And Andy M and Seeds, if you're reading. Go on. Have your fun! haha. Apologies for all that previous carry on.
Different time and headspace.

Geez IndoDreaming u dont offer much other than confused repetition... no wonder u naysayers are so perplexed. A voice in policy is subject to the whims of changing governments. Every Aboriginal advisory body has been deleted by usually Lib governments... actually it's only ever been Labour governments which have promoted Aboriginal rights. If the majority of Aboriginal people want a voice then isn't it about time. I think what people like you Indo are so fearful about is the machinations of powerbrokers as u state... but you know blackfellas have been around a long time and had a pretty stable social-cultural complex so I'm sure they'll work something out. Isn't it about time us whiteys listened for a change. When Native Title came in all the fearful whiteys were hysterical about losing their backyards... same old thing. And how a voice divides is beyond me... You know Aboriginal people had their own laws for 1000s of years?? Well maybe a voice would allow them some respect for their own cultures and philosophies (which are surprisingly similar across the country). But don't forget Indo, us whiteys will never cede total power so u got nothing to worry about really

indo-dreaming wrote:

"A few reasons to vote No

1. The basic moral aspect of equality and not dividing us and rights based on race, a proper democracy has, one person=one vote=one influence on matters, not one vote for some and one vote, plus extra influence for others, especially through people that havent even been democratically elected."

[/quote]

Wrong its to allow advice affecting ASTI people not the rest of Australia your point has no relevance

indo-dreaming wrote:

"2. There is zero reason for the voice to be in the constitution, it could be legislated as policy tomorrow, if it was nobody loses anything and it comes with no risk."

Wrong it allows recognition and advice that cannot be taken away without conferring any powers there is no risk this has been confirmed by the last Chief Justice of the high court along with other justices of the high court.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"3. It's much more than just about voice, it's really a whole package no matter if Albo admits it or not, Voice-Treaty-So called truth telling, and its driven by activist some clearly full of hate wanting some weird type of revenge"

Wrong the vote is to allow recognition and for advice on ASTI matters nothing more it has no powers outside of this modest proposal. As a further safe guard the operation of the Voice will be determined democratically through the parliamentary system and is at the behest of any sitting parliament Please note if a government pleases they can do what you say tomorrow without having the Voice you point is baseless.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"4. Nothing should be put in the constitution unless its a 100% known improvement, and this is an unknown but what we do know is all previous federal advisory bodies have been problematic full of issues, putting something so unproven and untested in the constitution is down right crazy."

Wrong its been supported across the political spectrum as being an opportunity to benefit ASTI people.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"5. The complexity of it's reach politically and legally is disputed but it does come with unknown's and risk, all made much worse by it's poor structure and lack of detail, one thing for certain though having direct access to parliament pretty much unlimited funding with no fear of being removed and if it got up backed by the Aus public, means it would wield much political power, as Thomas Mayo says it would be a brave government that doesn't listen and he also said they will make politicians pay"

Wrong the Voice has no powers other than to provide advice and that it will be public. Clearly this will be a problem for all governments and given the last 10 years of subterfuge from the Coalition more so for them. Transparency is a good thing it adds to the functioning of a democracy also please note the latest Productivity Commission report that noted advice followed by government in regards to ASTI people had much higher outcomes than when advice was ignored.

Right now no one knows where or whom to the money goes, no one knows what advice is received and what is listened to by government.
For the Voice this will be made public an un intended outcome could be a light is shone on the above issue the Voice will also come under the Federal Corruption Commission.

Indo the No position currently is a political one never a good look.

harrycoopr wrote:

Why vote No?

Voting 'no' is one thing, but going on and on and on and on and ON about it... well that speaks to something else.. spectrum? loneliness? unhappiness? If it's garden-variety narcissism, consider the beast fed (yet again). Here's one for you harry, entitled 'why the sustained fussin?':

... wanting to feel self-important and in-control-of-the-narrative by ceaselessly invoking irrelevant US-style culture-war politics, until everyone falls into exhausted apathy comas.

(obviously) I'm with you harry, I'm as tired as you are mate. The more the 'no' is pedaled, the more I feel for the poor buggers that dared to ask for something, after being asked what they would like to see happen. After all the posts, all the noise, I'm still just gonna go 'yup' and leave it with the people who it affects to do with it what they will.. hope they get the opportunity.

southernraw wrote:

sameaswas wrote:

southernraw wrote:

You can call it what you want

But it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Fuck that, homie

You can come and wave your flag

But it don't mean a thing to me

No, it just don't mean a thing

Fuck that, homie

You can call it what you want

But it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Fuck that, homie

You can come and wave your flag

But it don't mean a thing to me

No, it just don't mean a thing

Fuck that, homie

They said, "Hey Briggs, pick a date" (okay)

"You know, one we can celebrate" (for sure)

"Where we can come together

Talk about the weather, call that Australia Day"

I said, "How about March 8th?" (That's a good one)

And we can do it on your Nan's grave (got that, bitch?)

We can piss up, piss on her face

Get lit up and burn out like Mark Skaife

They screamin' "love it or leave it" (love it)

I got more reason to be here, if you could believe it

Won't salute a constitution or who's underneath it

Turn that flag to a noose, put a cease to your breathin'

I can't get in my whip, I get a ticket for that

I get a DWB, and that's a "Driving Whilst Black"

I turn the other cheek, I get a knife in my back

And I tell 'em it hurts, they say I overreact

So fuck that (fuck that)

You can call it what you want

But it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

(Hey Briggs!) Fuck that, homie

You can come and wave your flag

But it don't mean a thing to me

No, it just don't mean a thing

I said celebrate the heretic anytime outside Jan 26 (anytime)

That's the date for them suckers doin' that sucker shit (that's true)

That's that land takin', flag wavin' attitude

Got this new Captain Cook dance to show you how to move (move it)

How you wanna raise a flag with a rifle

To make us want to celebrate anything but survival?

Nah, you watchin' telly for The Bachelor

But wouldn't read a book about a fuckload of massacres? (What?)

I remember all the blood and what carried us (I remember)

They remember 20 recipes for Lamingtons (yum)

Yeah, their ancestors got a boatride

Both mine saw them comin' until they both died

Fuck celebratin' days made of misery (fuck that)

White Oz still got the black history (that's true)

And that shirt will get you banned from the parliament

If you ain't havin' a conversation, well, then we startin' it

You can call it what you want

But it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Fuck that, homie

You can come and wave your flag

But it don't mean a thing to me

No, it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Nah, it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Nah, it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Nah, it just don't mean a thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Nah, it just don't mean a

Motherfuckin' thing

No, it just don't mean a thing

Wave it, wave it, baby

Wave it, wave it (eat the flag)

Wave it, wave it mama

Wave that flaggy (wear the flag)

Wave it, wave it, baby (what you gonna do?)

Wave it, wave it (wave it, baby)

Wave it, wave it mama

Wave that flaggy

wow! did u make that up or is it some fnp wannabe nigga rapper usa style?

the thing that worries me is the hate by the yes brigade towards are senior citizens.

a betoota advocate article was posted here awhile back it described old people as franking dividend, negative geared etc etc rich ppl, an ugly propaganda piece by a yes zealot comedian(?) paid by the yes fund...our taxes.

the no ppl i know are not angry at yessers, the govt and elite fnp scammers angry at.

we think a lot of pro voice ppl are going to gain financially and or career wise (academics, beuracrats) i get the ones who vote yes out of empathy, lied to by govt but time will prove who is right.

20yrs in the makeing, what a travesty, a scam. $370mil on b.s. and no mention of homeless by fnp, just memememe!!

oh and southern whats your opinion on preschoolers being guilt tripped, by yes teachers, babes 4-5yrs old?.

i call it state sponsored child abuse.

@sameaswas the fact this song exists, should be cause for concern. It's called reality. Yes, indigenous people are pissed off. Surely you understand why. The Deadly movement SHOULD strike fear into your heart. That's what you get from years of oppression. Especially if you're still clutching to the early colonialist mentality.

So 'yes' voters are angry? I haven't seen that at all. Maybe saddened and disappointed by the dinosaurs that still wear blinkers but not angry. I think you're misreading that one.

Your language is disgusting, absolutely disrespectful but not surprising. Good to know to avoid you in future conversations for the lowlife you are, like that other babbling twat that dominates this forum. Whats his name again.., the champion of the cu..u know whats.

As for your question on preschoolers....i got taught captain cook was a mighty conquerer and natives were just primitives to be pushed aside so the land could grow and be conquered under English rule.

Is that child abuse? Must be, if all these years later i'm sitting here debating with you on a surfing forum.

Thing is, as i grew up, i learned to question these things and change my perspective.

How any grown adult has not to this point is incredulous to say the least.

double wow!! u too aw, i used nigga not nigger there is a difference you wokers.
so southraw who wrote the lyrics?
"so yes voters are angry i have'nt seen that at all" your quote, unblvble truly, just read yours and aw's rants.
aw's meme's of rappers, all negative racist crap oh and all obese waste of spacers.
oh and racist? sr hows your "filthy dirty smelly poms" going? remember that one u came up with on the cricket forum? silent about the english soccer chics though...hey?
hypocrites.

southernraw wrote:

wax24 wrote:

Na you have to really get into the back catalogue to appreciate how good he is... :)

@ AndyMac

Well, i think Sadie #2 shoulda been Sadie #1.

And, as Forrest Gump would say, "that's all have to say about that."

Wax24, i embarassingly recall singing Sadie the Cleaning lady to Parko and his missus Monica as i cleaned up a Margarita off their beautiful wooden floors of their pad up above Kirra many moons ago. Don't reckon they knew what the hell i was singing and were probably wondering why they invited this strange fella from the surf into their home! That song haunts me.

And Andy M and Seeds, if you're reading. Go on. Have your fun! haha. Apologies for all that previous carry on.

Different time and headspace.

You’re alright with me. Never thought anything of it.

seeds wrote:

southernraw wrote:

wax24 wrote:

Na you have to really get into the back catalogue to appreciate how good he is... :)

@ AndyMac

Well, i think Sadie #2 shoulda been Sadie #1.

And, as Forrest Gump would say, "that's all have to say about that."

Wax24, i embarassingly recall singing Sadie the Cleaning lady to Parko and his missus Monica as i cleaned up a Margarita off their beautiful wooden floors of their pad up above Kirra many moons ago. Don't reckon they knew what the hell i was singing and were probably wondering why they invited this strange fella from the surf into their home! That song haunts me.

And Andy M and Seeds, if you're reading. Go on. Have your fun! haha. Apologies for all that previous carry on.

Different time and headspace.

You’re alright with me. Never thought anything of it.

Yeah same...
Could never really like his music... Seems like a good bloke though.
If the song helps the Voice get up, that will be a good think in my opinion, and I will happily sing along...!

I focus wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

"A few reasons to vote No

1. The basic moral aspect of equality and not dividing us and rights based on race, a proper democracy has, one person=one vote=one influence on matters, not one vote for some and one vote, plus extra influence for others, especially through people that havent even been democratically elected."

Wrong its to allow advice affecting ASTI people not the rest of Australia your point has no relevance

indo-dreaming wrote:

"2. There is zero reason for the voice to be in the constitution, it could be legislated as policy tomorrow, if it was nobody loses anything and it comes with no risk."

Wrong it allows recognition and advice that cannot be taken away without conferring any powers there is no risk this has been confirmed by the last Chief Justice of the high court along with other justices of the high court.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"3. It's much more than just about voice, it's really a whole package no matter if Albo admits it or not, Voice-Treaty-So called truth telling, and its driven by activist some clearly full of hate wanting some weird type of revenge"

Wrong the vote is to allow recognition and for advice on ASTI matters nothing more it has no powers outside of this modest proposal. As a further safe guard the operation of the Voice will be determined democratically through the parliamentary system and is at the behest of any sitting parliament Please note if a government pleases they can do what you say tomorrow without having the Voice you point is baseless.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"4. Nothing should be put in the constitution unless its a 100% known improvement, and this is an unknown but what we do know is all previous federal advisory bodies have been problematic full of issues, putting something so unproven and untested in the constitution is down right crazy."

Wrong its been supported across the political spectrum as being an opportunity to benefit ASTI people.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"5. The complexity of it's reach politically and legally is disputed but it does come with unknown's and risk, all made much worse by it's poor structure and lack of detail, one thing for certain though having direct access to parliament pretty much unlimited funding with no fear of being removed and if it got up backed by the Aus public, means it would wield much political power, as Thomas Mayo says it would be a brave government that doesn't listen and he also said they will make politicians pay"

Wrong the Voice has no powers other than to provide advice and that it will be public. Clearly this will be a problem for all governments and given the last 10 years of subterfuge from the Coalition more so for them. Transparency is a good thing it adds to the functioning of a democracy also please note the latest Productivity Commission report that noted advice followed by government in regards to ASTI people had much higher outcomes than when advice was ignored.

Right now no one knows where or whom to the money goes, no one knows what advice is received and what is listened to by government.
For the Voice this will be made public an un intended outcome could be a light is shone on the above issue the Voice will also come under the Federal Corruption Commission.

Indo the No position currently is a political one never a good look.[/quote]

""Thank you for taking the time to respond to those points.
Again these factors have been pointed out again and again on this thread but some refuse to understand/ accept them. Whether though bigotry, stupidity or fear I have no idea, but there we are.""

andy-mac wrote:

I focus wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

"A few reasons to vote No

1. The basic moral aspect of equality and not dividing us and rights based on race, a proper democracy has, one person=one vote=one influence on matters, not one vote for some and one vote, plus extra influence for others, especially through people that havent even been democratically elected."

Wrong its to allow advice affecting ASTI people not the rest of Australia your point has no relevance

indo-dreaming wrote:

"2. There is zero reason for the voice to be in the constitution, it could be legislated as policy tomorrow, if it was nobody loses anything and it comes with no risk."

Wrong it allows recognition and advice that cannot be taken away without conferring any powers there is no risk this has been confirmed by the last Chief Justice of the high court along with other justices of the high court.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"3. It's much more than just about voice, it's really a whole package no matter if Albo admits it or not, Voice-Treaty-So called truth telling, and its driven by activist some clearly full of hate wanting some weird type of revenge"

Wrong the vote is to allow recognition and for advice on ASTI matters nothing more it has no powers outside of this modest proposal. As a further safe guard the operation of the Voice will be determined democratically through the parliamentary system and is at the behest of any sitting parliament Please note if a government pleases they can do what you say tomorrow without having the Voice you point is baseless.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"4. Nothing should be put in the constitution unless its a 100% known improvement, and this is an unknown but what we do know is all previous federal advisory bodies have been problematic full of issues, putting something so unproven and untested in the constitution is down right crazy."

Wrong its been supported across the political spectrum as being an opportunity to benefit ASTI people.

indo-dreaming wrote:

"5. The complexity of it's reach politically and legally is disputed but it does come with unknown's and risk, all made much worse by it's poor structure and lack of detail, one thing for certain though having direct access to parliament pretty much unlimited funding with no fear of being removed and if it got up backed by the Aus public, means it would wield much political power, as Thomas Mayo says it would be a brave government that doesn't listen and he also said they will make politicians pay"

Wrong the Voice has no powers other than to provide advice and that it will be public. Clearly this will be a problem for all governments and given the last 10 years of subterfuge from the Coalition more so for them. Transparency is a good thing it adds to the functioning of a democracy also please note the latest Productivity Commission report that noted advice followed by government in regards to ASTI people had much higher outcomes than when advice was ignored.

Right now no one knows where or whom to the money goes, no one knows what advice is received and what is listened to by government.

For the Voice this will be made public an un intended outcome could be a light is shone on the above issue the Voice will also come under the Federal Corruption Commission.

Indo the No position currently is a political one never a good look

""Thank you for taking the time to respond to those points.

Again these factors have been pointed out again and again on this thread but some refuse to understand/ accept them. Whether though bigotry, stupidity or fear I have no idea, but there we are.""

.[/quote]
Amazing that people can be so naive, with all the information out there, all your points have been shown to be completely false time and time again

But when people can be convinced at 26 page document on a government website that its creators have said is more than one page, can be convinced its only one page, it no surprise at all.

harrycoopr wrote:

Geez IndoDreaming u dont offer much other than confused repetition... no wonder u naysayers are so perplexed. A voice in policy is subject to the whims of changing governments. Every Aboriginal advisory body has been deleted by usually Lib governments... actually it's only ever been Labour governments which have promoted Aboriginal rights. If the majority of Aboriginal people want a voice then isn't it about time. I think what people like you Indo are so fearful about is the machinations of powerbrokers as u state... but you know blackfellas have been around a long time and had a pretty stable social-cultural complex so I'm sure they'll work something out. Isn't it about time us whiteys listened for a change. When Native Title came in all the fearful whiteys were hysterical about losing their backyards... same old thing. And how a voice divides is beyond me... You know Aboriginal people had their own laws for 1000s of years?? Well maybe a voice would allow them some respect for their own cultures and philosophies (which are surprisingly similar across the country). But don't forget Indo, us whiteys will never cede total power so u got nothing to worry about really

Mate I gave you 5 key points, but you just come back with a piss weak reply and no substance at all, which is no surprise after the complete tripe you spilled yesterday about why you think people vote No

In regard to the typical excuse of why a voice needs to be cemented in the constitution

Over the last 50 years we have 5 governments so average ten years, if you cant make a policy work in ten years well it doesn't have much hope.

But yes when things dont work there does become a stage where governments go, well we need to scrap this and try something a little bit different.

ATISIC the most ambitious advisory body had a run of 15 years and had bipartisan support to be shut it down.

Your claim about Aboriginal rights is also bullshit it was under the LNP Menzies in 1962 that Indigenous people gained the right to vote.

The 1967 Referendum often called "Referendum for Indigenous rights" having indigenous people basically seen like everyone in the constitution, counted in the census and under same commonwealth laws was also under LNP (Holt)

1968 The first Ministers for Indigenous Affairs whom job it is to be a voice for Indigenous people and their rights first happened under LNP (Gorton)

BTW. For the 100th time, can we drop this non indigenous people = whitey bullshit, im the only white person in my household of four and Australia is super multicultural made up of ethnic groups and skin colours from around the world, for perspective just Chinese alone are 5.5% of the population a bigger ethnic group than indigenous people 3.2% of population. (many of which these days especially in cities are as white as me, hence the large increase in indigenous population numbers in the last census 25.2% increase)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-07/indigenous-cultural-fishing-cour…
3:00min mark in the vid - interesting legal quirks

sameaswas][quote=southernraw wrote:

sameaswas wrote:

southernraw wrote:

wow! did u make that up or is it some fnp wannabe nigga rapper usa style?

the thing that worries me is the hate by the yes brigade towards are senior citizens.

a betoota advocate article was posted here awhile back it described old people as franking dividend, negative geared etc etc rich ppl, an ugly propaganda piece by a yes zealot comedian(?) paid by the yes fund...our taxes.

the no ppl i know are not angry at yessers, the govt and elite fnp scammers angry at.

we think a lot of pro voice ppl are going to gain financially and or career wise (academics, beuracrats) i get the ones who vote yes out of empathy, lied to by govt but time will prove who is right.

20yrs in the makeing, what a travesty, a scam. $370mil on b.s. and no mention of homeless by fnp, just memememe!!

oh and southern whats your opinion on preschoolers being guilt tripped, by yes teachers, babes 4-5yrs old?.

i call it state sponsored child abuse.

@sameaswas the fact this song exists, should be cause for concern. It's called reality. Yes, indigenous people are pissed off. Surely you understand why. The Deadly movement SHOULD strike fear into your heart. That's what you get from years of oppression. Especially if you're still clutching to the early colonialist mentality.

So 'yes' voters are angry? I haven't seen that at all. Maybe saddened and disappointed by the dinosaurs that still wear blinkers but not angry. I think you're misreading that one.

Your language is disgusting, absolutely disrespectful but not surprising. Good to know to avoid you in future conversations for the lowlife you are, like that other babbling twat that dominates this forum. Whats his name again.., the champion of the cu..u know whats.

As for your question on preschoolers....i got taught captain cook was a mighty conquerer and natives were just primitives to be pushed aside so the land could grow and be conquered under English rule.

Is that child abuse? Must be, if all these years later i'm sitting here debating with you on a surfing forum.

Thing is, as i grew up, i learned to question these things and change my perspective.

How any grown adult has not to this point is incredulous to say the least.

double wow!! u too aw, i used nigga not nigger there is a difference you wokers.

so southraw who wrote the lyrics?

"so yes voters are angry i have'nt seen that at all" your quote, unblvble truly, just read yours and aw's rants.

aw's meme's of rappers, all negative racist crap oh and all obese waste of spacers.

oh and racist? sr hows your "filthy dirty smelly poms" going? remember that one u came up with on the cricket forum? silent about the english soccer chics though...hey?

hypocrites.

Gotta be blowin back again.
Fuck me now there's two absolute imberciles to sift through on here.

Indo... i get the feeling u just don't like the blackfellas

...and btw yr 5 key points have just been blown out of the water

harrycoopr wrote:

...and btw yr 5 key points have just been blown out of the water

Yep, yet refuses to acknowledge that.

harrycoopr wrote:

Indo... i get the feeling u just don't like the blackfellas

Harry has absolutely nothing so once again returns to the “racist” card.

Sad but not surprising.

Actually Indo i don't know what yr problem is... but i know yr misguided views probably represent the majority of Australians and i guess the referendum will fail... whether its underlying racism, bigotry, spite, stupidity or whatever i guess the blackfellas will once again be put in their place... as they're so used to.

harrycoopr wrote:

Indo... i get the feeling u just don't like the blackfellas

Another stupid nonsense comment.

And another, Yeah really blown out of the water...FFS he didnt even address the points i made.

harrycoopr wrote:

...and btw yr 5 key points have just been blown out of the water

Bang it's a trifecta of nonsense.

harrycoopr wrote:

Actually Indo i don't know what yr problem is... but i know yr misguided views probably represent the majority of Australians and i guess the referendum will fail... whether its underlying racism, bigotry, spite, stupidity or whatever i guess the blackfellas will once again be put in their place... as they're so used to.

My best mate whom was also my best man has clear Aboriginal heritage.

Id love to see Jacinta price one day become PM (long shot but who knows what could happen ten years from now if she can tough it out)

I often love people of all skin colours and i often hate people of all skin colours, skin colour and heritage for the most part its irrelevant to me.

I and many others though are sick of those that seek to divide us, this sums things up pretty good.

My Land
This is my land I love it so
Just as much as you.
But you say I don’t belong here
That I can never be true blue.
You tell me this is your land
it’s beauty yours to claim.
my ancestry you disregard
but isn’t yours the same.
This land was once a barren place
untouched by all mankind.
Your people came from o'er the sea
Just the same as mine.
We both have fought to keep her free
our love will never bend.
It’s history forged in mateship
lives lost her to defend.
Against those who would defile her
as they tried in days of old..
We cannot change the history
but her futures ours to mould.
We now come from many countries
from places near and far.
Bringing with us differing cultures
and that’s what makes us who we are.
We cannot change what happened in the past
for there can be no turning back.
But our lives are joined to mould the future
for those who follow down the track.
Six generations now precede me
and still my family line does swell.
I respect your history and your dreamtime
so should you do with mine as well..
So don’t tell me that I don’t belong
that this is not my land.
Don’t try and change the things I cherish
and just extend a loving hand.
And join with me to celebrate
for both, this is our land of birth.
Just be proud that we all live in
the greatest place on earth.
AUSTRALIA.
Bob Pacey ©

.

harrycoopr wrote:

Actually Indo i don't know what yr problem is... but i know yr misguided views probably represent the majority of Australians and i guess the referendum will fail... whether its underlying racism, bigotry, spite, stupidity or whatever i guess the blackfellas will once again be put in their place... as they're so used to.

Harry, my vote is being guided from my very good friend and very intelligent Bundjalung man. Does he hate “black fellas” too? Your bad use of words is far more racist and dividing than my vote.

If you wouldn’t call an indigenous Australian a “black fella” to their face, don’t type it.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/no-campaign-…

""The Voice is an advisory body. It cannot challenge laws set by Parliament. The suggestion that it can is so ridiculous that no well-meaning person would say it was so, unless they were willing to lie. Yet, this key foundational piece of misinformation is being used to convince Australians that the Voice is a legally risky scenario that gives Indigenous people rights to challenge laws set by Parliament, rights that do not exist.""

burleigh wrote:

harrycoopr wrote:

Actually Indo i don't know what yr problem is... but i know yr misguided views probably represent the majority of Australians and i guess the referendum will fail... whether its underlying racism, bigotry, spite, stupidity or whatever i guess the blackfellas will once again be put in their place... as they're so used to.

Harry, my vote is being guided from my very good friend and very intelligent Bundjalung man. Does he hate “black fellas” too? Your bad use of words is far more racist and dividing than my vote.

If you wouldn’t call an indigenous Australian a “black fella” to their face, don’t type it.

Blackfella is the preferred term of the many Indigenous Australians I have known... or Aboriginal... most disliked the term Indigenous. As for racist...nah...I'm just a realist who has experienced the widespread racism in this country that originated with the invasion and continues through to today

As for Indo... how does giving people a recognised voice divide people? You just dont make any sense

andy-mac wrote:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/no-campaign-…

Hi Andy,

I think most people have understood this but what do you think will happen if the voice succeeds but their continual recommendations then after are continually knocked back from government? Will this just not drive a bigger wedge between the two parties? Will they be frustrated that it has been all for not much change at all?

I know it’s a what if but we shouldn’t deny there are a lot of them.

""The Voice is an advisory body. It cannot challenge laws set by Parliament. The suggestion that it can is so ridiculous that no well-meaning person would say it was so, unless they were willing to lie. Yet, this key foundational piece of misinformation is being used to convince Australians that the Voice is a legally risky scenario that gives Indigenous people rights to challenge laws set by Parliament, rights that do not exist.""

harrycoopr wrote:

burleigh wrote:

harrycoopr wrote:

Actually Indo i don't know what yr problem is... but i know yr misguided views probably represent the majority of Australians and i guess the referendum will fail... whether its underlying racism, bigotry, spite, stupidity or whatever i guess the blackfellas will once again be put in their place... as they're so used to.

Harry, my vote is being guided from my very good friend and very intelligent Bundjalung man. Does he hate “black fellas” too? Your bad use of words is far more racist and dividing than my vote.

If you wouldn’t call an indigenous Australian a “black fella” to their face, don’t type it.

Blackfella is the preferred term of the many Indigenous Australians I have known... or Aboriginal... most disliked the term Indigenous. As for racist...nah...I'm just a realist who has experienced the widespread racism in this country that originated with the invasion and continues through to today

Being a white Australian I would never dream of calling my indigenous friend a “black fella” to him directly or behind his back.

But you keep up that casual racism Harry.

Don’t know what casual racism is? Look it up

“I will be voting No and I urge all Australians with a conscience, whatever their religion, to do the same. I am sick of burying our children, seeing education denied to them, seeing them incarcerated, living in dire poverty and taken from families that don’t know how to care for them. We want real solutions and decision-makers willing to listen to all of us, whatever our politics and the languages we speak. We need open ears, not a constitutionally embedded, bureaucratised, highly selective Voice set up and run by those who have controlled the narrative and the funds for decades while everything got worse for us.”- Bess Price
Mrs Price’s views from Quadrant.com Very inconvenient… How do we get her to shooosh? Our money!!!
Similar to Indo’s views…. and most Aussies…”Racist!” Right?…

https://www.smh.com.au/national/blak-black-blackfulla-language-is-impor…

Corpo press pfffftt!

Michael Adam wrote:

Corpo press pfffftt!

Yep, can't be trusted. The SMH is aligned with Big Blackfella.

stunet wrote:

Michael Adam wrote:

Corpo press pfffftt!

Yep, can't be trusted. The SMH is aligned with Big Blackfella.

Stu, you don’t believe that blackfella has underlying racism?

Burleigh, read the article above, written by a “black fella”. It’s one of the preferred terms.

Voice Reviews continued...[No] Team
[factcheck] Both Reads & represents as the Moral Majority
Rolls out exactly the same [NO] Team from last [=] Plebiscite.

Hedge Fund Manager : Simon Fenwick $1m + $250K (Underwrite)
US mega Global ~ A Team Evangelist Lobby ( RJ Dunham & Co)
Oz Religious Zealot Lobbies ~ (Darkside) of Govt hand fed Tax free Institutions)
Aust Christian Lobby
Whitestone (Christian Mobs)
Blackmores Miracle Cures
Pollies: Price $50,000 Pitt $45,000 Wilson $17,000 Wood $14,000 Cash $10,000 Dutto $6,500
[NO] Facebook spend 4x more than [YES]
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/01/coalition-no-cam…

Likes : Dividing & Conquering / Fear, uncertainty & sowing the Seeds of Doubt / Muddying the Issue.
Fav Sports : Hoopla / Hullabaloo / Ballyhoo / Blatherskate
Fav Gigs : Bedlam / Curmudgeon / Brouhaha
Fav Songs : If ya Don't Know Vote No / I'm against It
Dislikes : Walking around Australia / Those retarded Anthemic uplifting uniting King of pop songs

Aussies can't line up quick enough to put the boot in..
(re: One of Us - AO Cauldron 25m Aussies (vs) 1 o/s Tennis Pro ...(Now! Be like Wot! When! Who Us?)
Remove the Fear Factor & all are back to feeling warm'n'fuzzy.

Q: Vote for wot invasion you prefer to shock you on Polling Day!

[No] Campaign [L] Voice Leaders
[L] Pollies were either unceremoniously booted outta office or suffered a boot to the backside in 2022
Officially Voted by Australians as the least caring pack of miserable bastards ever assembled.
At last count this [NO] camp were least representative of First > Newest Aussies.

(former) Dep PM Andersen -17% Mundine -16% PM Abbott -13% PM Howard -4%
(current) Cash -9% Price -5% Dutto -3% Hanson -3% Joyce -2%
[+] Warm and Fuzzy [L] Pollies : Littleproud +0.3% Thorpe (resigned) +% Greens

Strategy : Divide & Conquer (3 Groups targeting different demographics)
This News Story breaks down the Massive [NO] Vote ~ State / City Spend
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/14/no-campaign-soci…

[ Not Enough ] (2 Lids waving their Little Pinkies) Chix that need & cry for More More More!
Spend big bucks $40,000 to infect you...
Target Market : Under 34 years Syd / Mbne CBD Rebel Yuppie Slogans
https://www.facebook.com/voiceisnotenough/

[ Referendum News ] Said to be a Fake News Site (Only one has difficulty accessing it?)
Target Market : 35-64 years (Mostly hittin' on Dipsy Chix!)

[ Fair Australia ] +65 years (Locks in the Boomers)
https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/

Advance Australia [ Price ] [ No Division ] MOR Regional Mob & Cockies
https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/
These are the guys that steal yer Corflutes & rebrand them with Greens / Chinese backing.
Made up of ... [L] Sky News / Chemist Guild / Christians
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/07/06/racist-no-ad-voice-…

[NO] Hate campaign was rocketing along their hot rails to hell...ain't nuthin gonna stop us now!
Then came Voldemort's bang on the head & [YES] Epiphany!
Dr [NO] comes out to share he loves the Voice so much & wants to buy another one his hunting lodge!
Either the most selfish dastardly evil exploitation of Aboriginal race or most fucked up brain snap ever!

[NO] As it stands...
2023 [L] Mandated their members to Vote [NO] For a Voice in Parliament
2025 [L] Mandated their members to Vote [YES] For No Voice in Parliament

Aborigines : We'll just be Voting to give the poor persecuted [L] Pollies the freedom to vote.

Of course the [NO] camp has a shit hot nasty Punk ditty to take down The King of Pop Dross.

Nah, they just report the news Stu. Why would they pick a side?

overthefalls wrote:

Burleigh, read the article above, written by a “black fella”. It’s one of the preferred terms.

I did. Still doesn’t change my feelings of the word. It has racist undertones. I believe to use the word is casual racism.

By your reply I guess you think it’s ok to call an indigenous Australian a black fella?

burleigh wrote:

stunet wrote:

Michael Adam wrote:

Corpo press pfffftt!

Yep, can't be trusted. The SMH is aligned with Big Blackfella.

Stu, you don’t believe that blackfella has underlying racism?

No.

Though I do know that language can change. For instance that Paul Kelly, when he toured the US, had to change the name of his backing band The Coloured Girls, because at the time 'coloured' wasn't a cool term to use. Now of course people are 'of colour'.

But blackfella, right now? No.

Most times I hear it it's informal, friendly, inclusive, a term of endearment even.

There's a few good paragraphs in that corpo news article where the corpo news journalist discusses the intent behind words and their use. Rules are hard and fast, they're not inclusive, and they're no fucking fun, but most people of sane mind can tell when a word is being used with negative intention.

As was posted earlier, The Warumpi Band sang it, and I sing along with them, sometimes really fucking loud. The song brings tears to my eyes, joy mostly but sometimes tinged with bitterness to the way things have turned out.

I'll use it with my neighbour Pete and he doesn't have a problem in the world with me addressing him that way. I'd probably hesitate to use it around people I didn't know, at least till I saw how they use language and if a bridge of trust had built up between us.

bluediamond wrote:

Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.

Love Blue Diamond x

The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices

Introduction – Compensatory Justice

Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.

In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.

I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.

Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:

Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.

The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)

There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.

So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?

I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.

Past injustices or present suffering?

One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.

To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.

Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )

This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.

In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)

This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.

Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)

Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?

Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.

The Solution?

So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?

I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.

As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

Conclusion

So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?

I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.

For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.

In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??

Bibliography

McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University

Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142

Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28

References

Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142

Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28

sr were you4yrs old when they told u about capt cook?
the last time there was state sanctioned hate indoctrination of 4yr olds was germany 1934.
i asked you do you consider this child abuse?
one good thing about this voice debacle is ppl are wakeing up to the fraud and what has been secretly going on in iso communities, and that is for the past 20yrs or so they have been corrupting their preschoolers to be racists towards whitey.
that is why we have angry fnp youths in alice springs etc.
all under the care of professor langdon and pearson et all.
please don't reply cos you are not kind to me...sob.

stunet wrote:

burleigh wrote:

stunet wrote:

Michael Adam wrote:

Corpo press pfffftt!

Yep, can't be trusted. The SMH is aligned with Big Blackfella.

Stu, you don’t believe that blackfella has underlying racism?

No.

Though I do know that language can change. For instance that Paul Kelly, when he toured the US, had to change the name of his backing band The Coloured Girls, because at the time 'coloured' wasn't a cool term to use. Now of course people are 'of colour'.

But blackfella, right now? No.

Most times I hear it it's informal, friendly, inclusive, a term of endearment even.

There's a few good paragraphs in that corpo news article where the corpo news journalist discusses the intent behind words and their use. Rules are hard and fast, they're not inclusive, and they're no fucking fun, but most people of sane mind can tell when a word is being used with negative intention.

As was posted earlier, The Warumpi Band sang it, and I sing along with them, sometimes really fucking loud. The song brings tears to my eyes, joy mostly but sometimes tinged with bitterness to the way things have turned out.

I'll use it with my neighbour Pete and he doesn't have a problem in the world with me addressing him that way. I'd probably hesitate to use it around people I didn't know, at least till I saw how they use language and if a bridge of trust had built up between us.

If you hesitate to use it around people you don’t know I would suggest that it’s not a word that should be used.

But that’s just my opinion

Black fella, or similar words has 100% is used by people as a derogatory term in the past and present

jesus this thread is weird.

basesix wrote:

jesus this thread is weird.

Isn't it!
Couple of people absolutely thriving on the attention they're getting, in the yes and no camp

burleigh wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

Burleigh, read the article above, written by a “black fella”. It’s one of the preferred terms.

I did. Still doesn’t change my feelings of the word. It has racist undertones. I believe to use the word is casual racism.

By your reply I guess you think it’s ok to call an indigenous Australian a black fella?

Sure, I think it's OK. My Aboriginal colleagues and friends use the term frequently when talking about themselves and they're happy for white fellas like me to use the term with reference to them. I know that they don't like the terms "indigenous" (which has connotations of references to flora and fauna) and "First Nations People" (which is a term borrowed from North America). What matters more about the term "black fella"? Your feelings or those of Aboriginal people?

Pretty sure the crew know this...
Peter Costello is chairman of 9 news & overlords (Former Fairfax Empire)
Crew may recall the stink over conflicted interest of Conservatives owning 100% Oz News
Alongside Murdoch / Costello / APN Sunny [L] Mayor Jamieson boss all Oz media
APN boss all provincial Pacific News
They also boss & feed all Town's Chambers / Yuppie Forums + TV Anti Groups.
Now run opposing " Red " unions to feed personalized patient detail to shock on Evening News

There is no possible way of Qldurrz getting Qld news from any other source than Libs...
Qldurrz bias on The Voice / Politics can only ever be fed & fuelled by [L] That won't ever change!
Even ABC # 1/2/3 is stacked with [L] Sky Journos & execs...[L] owns the Lot!

No way ever can a rogue ALP hack ever get near an Oz News Paper / TV News Desk

Costello bosses ...
News : AFR / Bne Times / Age / SMH / WA Today
TV : 9 (You'll notice is #1 ALP attack dog > Dedicate 10-15m News on Anti ALP issues)
WIN + Southern Cross (Oz regional) Ch 7 / 9 / 10
Radio. (All capital) Shock Jocks + Golden Oldies
Domain Real Estate
All them Goofball Lifestyle Mag sites : Cars / Moms / Babies / Food

Tim Costello is voting [YES]
Peter Costello voted [YES] Republic but warned of Wordy [YES] (re: Dutto)
Until we know other...Oz Costello Media is neutral due to ALP / Govt $Ads

I’ve spent a bit of time in the Kimberley. The aborigines up there mostly refer to people as either blackfellas or kartiya.
Kartiya (pronounced ‘gudia’) is white people.

burleigh wrote:

stunet wrote:

burleigh wrote:

stunet wrote:

Michael Adam wrote:

Corpo press pfffftt!

Yep, can't be trusted. The SMH is aligned with Big Blackfella.

Stu, you don’t believe that blackfella has underlying racism?

No.

Though I do know that language can change. For instance that Paul Kelly, when he toured the US, had to change the name of his backing band The Coloured Girls, because at the time 'coloured' wasn't a cool term to use. Now of course people are 'of colour'.

But blackfella, right now? No.

Most times I hear it it's informal, friendly, inclusive, a term of endearment even.

There's a few good paragraphs in that corpo news article where the corpo news journalist discusses the intent behind words and their use. Rules are hard and fast, they're not inclusive, and they're no fucking fun, but most people of sane mind can tell when a word is being used with negative intention.

As was posted earlier, The Warumpi Band sang it, and I sing along with them, sometimes really fucking loud. The song brings tears to my eyes, joy mostly but sometimes tinged with bitterness to the way things have turned out.

I'll use it with my neighbour Pete and he doesn't have a problem in the world with me addressing him that way. I'd probably hesitate to use it around people I didn't know, at least till I saw how they use language and if a bridge of trust had built up between us.

If you hesitate to use it around people you don’t know I would suggest that it’s not a word that should be used.

But that’s just my opinion

Black fella, or similar words has 100% is used by people as a derogatory term in the past and present

Well your opinion is wrong.

And it's also not a black/white thing.

Like, if I were to call someone I didn't know a bastard there might be a few raised eyebrows; good manners say I should hesitate to use it. But if that bastard were Craig, for instance, then there'd be no problems calling that bastard a bastard.

I don't know, you've got a very different outlook on matters than I do, so I'm not gonna get too caught up in it.

Alana_a wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/no-campaign-…

Hi Andy,

I think most people have understood this but what do you think will happen if the voice succeeds but their continual recommendations then after are continually knocked back from government? Will this just not drive a bigger wedge between the two parties? Will they be frustrated that it has been all for not much change at all?

I know it’s a what if but we shouldn’t deny there are a lot of them.

""The Voice is an advisory body. It cannot challenge laws set by Parliament. The suggestion that it can is so ridiculous that no well-meaning person would say it was so, unless they were willing to lie. Yet, this key foundational piece of misinformation is being used to convince Australians that the Voice is a legally risky scenario that gives Indigenous people rights to challenge laws set by Parliament, rights that do not exist.""

Hi Alana_a

I think I get what you are saying and it is a what if, as there is with any legislation, change in Constitution etc. Some could be positive and others negative,
I still think it is the best step forward at this point in time. As we have seen with this debate, Australia is still a very conservative risk adverse country. My thinking would be once the Voice was set up (thinking unlikely at the point re Polls) the recommendations would be of a rather practical nature and not very controversial to the Australian populace, otherwise they would be rejected by parliament.
I would also think that after the vote was done and dusted and the Voice was up and running, that it would be something we hardly hear about as the media bandwagon would have moved on and would make no difference to the vast majority of Australians.
So yes, we don't know if it will be a success or not, but it is a step towards hopefully starting to address the many challenges facing FNP's.
'No' will just be more of the same same and that is not working.
I personally believe it is worth the very small risk of what if's.
Native title did not result in having people's back yards taken from them as some suggested it would at the time.
Finally, I think it would add an element of transparency for all parties involved.

Blackfella, whitefella… it doesn’t matter, what ya colour…