Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the ‘yes’ campaign have been touting their promise to implement the Uluru Statement “in full” after the referendum, which includes the establishment of a treaty and a “truth-telling” commission. However, in recent weeks, Albanese has been avoiding using the word “treaty”. This has raised suspicions about what they might be hiding.
To shed light on the matter, the full Uluru Statement has been released under Freedom of Information laws. This document reveals the true intentions of the ‘yes’ campaign and PM Albanese after the referendum. It states that a treaty could involve various aspects such as decision-making participation, truth commissions, reparations, financial settlements, resolution of land and resource issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples.
While some parts of the statement were mentioned in the Final Report of the Referendum Council, the complete document provides a clearer understanding of what the ‘yes’ campaign is advocating for. According to news.com.au, the statement suggests that taxpayers might be required to make reparations for “past, present, and future criminal acts” through a fixed percentage of the GDP via rates, land tax, and royalties.
But how does this relate to the Voice, which has become a contentious topic in the referendum discussion? Despite claims by the ‘yes’ campaigners, including the Prime Minister himself, that the Voice has nothing to do with a treaty, statements from members of Albanese’s referendum advisory group suggest otherwise. Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid have emphasized that a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament is essential for enforcing and protecting treaties, including reparations and returning land to Indigenous peoples.
Noel Pearson, a prominent spokesperson for the ‘yes’ campaign, has also expressed that the Voice is the starting point before discussing a treaty. This contradicts the Prime Minister’s repeated assertion that the referendum is solely about the Voice and not a treaty. The truth is that the Voice is just the initial step towards a larger package deal, as Pearson himself described it. Voting ‘yes’ to enshrining the Voice in the Constitution also means endorsing the activists’ push for a treaty, which could have significant financial implications.
In conclusion, it is evident that the referendum on the Voice is not simply a minor Constitutional alteration, as PM Albanese tries to convey. The release of the full Uluru Statement has exposed the true intentions of the ‘yes’ campaign and its desire for a treaty and truth-telling commission. The Voice is just the first door towards achieving these goals, and endorsing it would lead to further discussions on a costly and extensive treaty. It is crucial for Australians to consider the broader implications of their vote and the potential consequences of enshrining the Voice in the Constitution.
Source link
