So that’s why they hid the full Uluru statement

So that’s why they hid the full Uluru statement. By Robert Gottliebsen.

At the base of the Uluru statement is a deep hostility to the actions non-aboriginal people who came to Australia after James Cook visited and triggered an “invasion”. But that hostility extends to present day where on a proportionate basis “we are the most incarcerated people on the planet”.

The 13 dialogues showed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait island communities had no interest in a patronising preamble to the constitution, which merely sets out their role in Australia’s history. Many Australians believe a “Yes” vote deliver such a preamble to unite the nation.

Division, literally:

That’s not what the Uluru statement is about. Many will see it as a very divisive document.

The Uluru statement requires recognising “the ancient jurisdictions of First Nation law” and the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have never ceded “our sovereignty”.

Under the Uluru statement, the voice body should be designed so that it “could support and promote” a treaty-making process which is seen as “a pathway to recognition of sovereignty” and “the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government”.

The Uluru statement states: “A Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”

While the Uluru statement wants the voice body to foster a treaty that involves reparations that might be related to the GDP, It does not spell out how the calculation might be made. But a low starting point of, say, one per cent of GDP each year would equal around $23bn.

Clogging power, guaranteed by the Constitution, is the stick:

Assuming it is properly resourced (and the High Court is likely to ensure that it is) then the voice body can use its power to make representations on vast numbers of public service decisions which will clog up the system and make government unworkable. A treaty will be the only way out. …

The constitutional change should have been worded in a way that prevented the voice body from having that clogging power  …

Liberals furious at traitorous corporations, taexes will folloow:

Parts of the Liberal Party have a deep fury that leading companies are advocating that Australians vote “Yes” and therefore embrace on such a divisive and financially dangerous course.

If big reparations are required and the Coalition gains power, then almost certainly they will demand that the large companies meet the bill.

And the anger that has been created is so great that at least on the agenda is consideration of a much higher rate of tax for all large companies, with the proceeds (assuming no reparations) going to help smaller enterprises.

When large organisations play blatant politics, advocating a policy against the current opinions of the majority of Australians to please the Prime Minister of the day, they play a dangerous game. The current generation of CEO’s should learn from their predecessors.

What fools they must take us for. No sensible electorate will vote for this, and that was always foreseeable.

All is proceeding to plan. A racial division will follow, with the left championing aboriginal race-based uber-rights that they know will never be enacted because the sensible center will never allow such nonsense. Meanwhile, the left will harvest the racial divisions for moral vanity points for decades to come.