It is absolutely irrelevant whether the Uluru Statement From the Heart is presented as a one-page abbreviation, or the multi-page full version.
The only thing relevant is the intentions and goals of the Statement.
The abbreviated version provides no details regarding those intentions and goals.
How could it, in just one page?
It is more likely to distort and corrupt the all-important context of the much longer full Statement.
In contrast, the longer version clearly sets out the three core components of the Statement – Voice, Treaty (Makarrata) and Truth Telling.
Some of the things included in those three core components are: a percentage payment of the national GDP, various rates including land tax and royalties, reparations, abolition of the Australian flag and much more.
All the main proponents and activists of the Voice relentlessly repeated and advocated for the contents of those core components, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who, on many occasions, proudly announced: “My Government is committed to the Uluru Statement From the Heart in full”.
Now it seems they have all decided to reject the full Statement, insisting that the one-page abbreviated version IS the full Statement.
Albanese is directing voters to also reject the multi-page full Statement when deciding how to vote.
Voters should have as much information as possible to enable them to make the best decision for themselves.
I have not read or heard any information to convince me to vote for the Voice.
Email, Sep 15
Paul Davis, Wyong
Please Vote Yes
I urge you to reconsider your stance on the vote. I’ve devoted time to compiling the arguments below, believing that even if you see imperfections in the proposition, it’s preferable to indefinitely postponing a decision—especially when there’s no clear objective or defined participation. Not addressing this now could mean missing a once-in-a-lifetime chance to truly understand and address the challenges faced by a community that’s endured prejudice since the British first arrived in Australia.
I understand the hesitation in aiding those who seem unable or unwilling to help themselves. But isn’t it our responsibility to ensure we don’t unfairly judge based on our own capabilities and circumstances? Supporting the Indigenous Voice is a defining moment for Australia, reflecting not just our history but also our values as we move forward.
The Indigenous community, often seen as a ‘forgotten minority’, may not possess the contemporary tools of trade or politics to counteract those who marginalize them. Yet, their perspective is vital—not only as a testament to their resilience but also as guardians of profound wisdom about nature and survival that many of us have overlooked. By denying them a ‘voice’, aren’t we tacitly reinforcing a “survival of the fittest” mindset, relegating them to the fringes of our society? Consider a scenario where, from the very beginning, we embraced unity.
Our global landscape is rapidly shifting. Democracies are threatened by the rise of autocratic powers with no room for dissent. Even nations with deep-rooted traditions of liberty could, if they’re not watchful, succumb to authoritarianism. With the potent mix of advanced weapons and technology, the very essence of free speech is at risk.
Let’s be fully aware of the ramifications of our decisions. We could soon find ourselves in a world where silence is our only refuge from persecution. And perhaps, in that stifling quietude, we’ll genuinely grasp the everyday reality of an Aboriginal person.