Warren Mundine on the Uluru Statement

Warren Mundine had a very thoughtful op-ed on the Uluru Statement  in the AFR yesterday.

One is there be “a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution”. The statement doesn’t detail what this means but the idea comes from a model proposed by the Cape York Institute of a representative body enshrined in the constitution to table advice in Parliament on “matters relating to” Indigenous people and requiring both houses of Parliament to consider the advice in debating those laws.

I’ve always disagreed with this proposal and still do.

He is exactly right – this smacks of the 1983 Apartheid constitution that created separate and unequal political chambers for racial minorities in South Africa.

I realise this may be controversial but I am open to the second proposal – a treaty or as Warren Mundine suggests treaties.

I’ve always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. I use the plural deliberately. In Australian politics people talk about a treaty between Indigenous people as a whole and the government. This idea has never got anywhere and never will. No one speaks for Indigenous people as a single group. Even if government offered a treaty and identified someone to sign it, Indigenous people wouldn’t recognise it. We identify with our nation group or our “mob” as we call it. I’m Bundjalung. I’d only recognise a treaty between a government and the Bundjalung nation.

I’ve proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas. There should be an established governing body for each nation group representing it on matters specific to the group: to hold any native title, land and other assets, to be the responsible body for cultural and heritage rights and language. Only members of a nation should be members of its governance body using an objective, transparent test for membership. Having a single, authorised and identified representative body for each First Nation also provides certainty for organisations needing to deal with Indigenous people on projects on traditional lands.

Let’s clear away some deadwood. I’m happy to accept that the broader Australian population might not like the idea and I’m happy to accept that any actual treaty (or treaties) that ever got negotiated might not be good treaties. But I would still like to hear the arguments for and against and keep an open mind to the idea.

Although this seems more radical, it’s actually happening now. Native title groups already enter into agreements with governments which, once registered, bind all members of the group, even those who didn’t personally sign it. These are, in a sense, a form of treaty.

What’s more we don’t need a constitutional amendment to implement it. Governments can do it now.

It seems to me that a lack of economic opportunity drives a lot of indigenous disadvantage and social dislocation. If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities it is, at least, well-worth exploring the idea.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Innovation, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Warren Mundine on the Uluru Statement

  1. stackja

    ATSIC achieved what? And ‘secret women’s business’?

  2. Os

    Google the Noongar Native Title agreement between the Noongar and the WA Government. Trust fund, management of lands powers, etc.

  3. Allan Charles

    So who would represent the Australian pygmies, if any of them or their decendents can be found?

  4. Suburban Boy

    We’ve had a wish-list from indigenous activists asking for yet more from the white Australians, called the “Uluru Statement”.

    Perhaps now white Australians should present a list of demands to the indigenous community, requiring standards of behaviour from them that are already expected from the broader (non-indigenous) community.

    This wish-list from white Australia could be called the “Ayers Rock statement”.

  5. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Google the Noongar Native Title agreement between the Noongar and the WA Government. Trust fund, management of lands powers, etc.

    IIRC, the agreement that the Federal Court has just rejected because FOUR Noongars didn’t sign off on the agreement?

  6. A Lurker

    Sinc. writes: “It seems to me that a lack of economic opportunity drives a lot of indigenous disadvantage and social dislocation. If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities it is, at least, well-worth exploring the idea.”

    I ask:
    How many billions of taxpayer money has already been spent on the black-hole called the Aboriginal industry?
    How many billions more would need to be thrown into that black-hole if a treaty/treaties were agreed to?
    How would the general wellbeing of a small and neglected Aboriginal child in a remote settlement be improved by the implementation of a treaty/treaties?
    How can we be assured that a treaty/treaties won’t be rorted and abused in order to favour the powerful few, rather than the needy?
    Can Australia really afford to go down the treaty path knowing from past experience, that this is more than likely a cash grab by greedy people?
    Isn’t the idea of a treaty just another way to divide the Australian people along racial lines?

  7. Diogenes

    No, no, no and hell no.

    Each of the borders have to be defined between the various mobs. This will cause endless lawfare.

    How large does each level has to be to be recognised as a people ? At the “big 8” level – ie Koori , or at the land council area (eg Darkinjung) or language map area (Awabakal) , or even a smaller group ? Examples could all be applied locally

    As a student teacher we got a talk from the head of the uni’s indigenous unit, supposedly to highlight specific issues with educating indigenous students – what we actually got was a 2 hour rant about her people being left off “the map” http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/default.htm.

    Locally there are issues between the Awabakal & Darkinjung peoples – with the Darkinjung Land Council , who . are self-appointed caretakers of the Central Coast of NSW Australia. They do not claim to be the traditional owners of the area in which they reside (from wikipaedia which references the old Gosford Council website) – which pisses of the Awabakal no end.

    I look forward to the cultural appropriation movement getting involved in indig affairs, eg here on Awabakal lands (/sarc) the didge was unknown until this century, yet every local school has a didge group. – so it is a culturally appropriate as teaching them the bagpipes !

  8. struth

    To humour any of this or dignify these race activists parasites with a comment regarding their tax payer funded wank in Yulara is not going to happen except to say that no one can represent a race.

  9. Roger

    I’ve always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations.

    There are no “first nations” with which a treaty could be signed.

    Treaties are signed by nation states or recognised international bodies and bind parties in international law while they are in force.

    The idea of a treaty between the Commonwealth or a State and an indigenous clan group is a nonsense, since the members of that group are already Australian citizens.

  10. C.L.

    There were no “nations” in Australia prior to 1788 (or 1901, if you prefer).

  11. johanna

    If we believe that signing “treaties” (which, as others have pointed out, is a nonsense) would be the end of it, there just might be some merit in it.

    But, that’s not how the Aboriginal Industry works. Its well paid and endlessly dissatisfied members just move on to the next ambit claim, ad infinitum. At all times, the objective is to deflect responsibility from Aborigines and send us another hefty bill for problems we have nothing to do with and which won’t be fixed by rivers of taxpayer cash.

  12. H B Bear

    Just the latest move of the goalposts by the Aboriginal Industry’s Warren Mundine. Those goalposts spend more time on walkabout than the guys in possum skin underpants.

    Just the latest “If only we had …” to explain the tens of billions of dollars evaporated every year with little if any effect. Truly a Sorry business.

  13. Just Interested

    There are two conceptual issues that challenge the utility of the treaties concept.

    The first is identifying with whom to treat. Using a geographic basis is difficult because of the difficulty in determining precise boundaries (the First Nation ‘map’ referred to above is a laugh (but does exist; I’ve seen it) giving the nomadic nature of the clans); language groups nebulous because of the different interests of different clans, again discussed above); and ‘Aboriginal land councils’ somewhat artificial.

    The second is what the treaty is supposed to deliver. Take the Awabakal example, discussed above. It is located in the northern Central Coast/southern Newcastle area. The land there is predominantly alienated for contemporary community uses and the relevant population largely dispersed within the overall population.

    It is difficult in this case to identity what the relevant coherent ‘community’ is, and what precise gift can be given to drive ‘economic activity’ in a way that is superior to all the ‘Closing the Gap’ type programmes, that are having less than stellar success.

    Until the two issues discussed above can be determined, I can’t see how the treaty idea can be anything other than a virtue placebo for the inner urban left.

  14. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    But, that’s not how the Aboriginal Industry works. Its well paid and endlessly dissatisfied members just move on to the next ambit claim, ad infinitum. At all times, the objective is to deflect responsibility from Aborigines and send us another hefty bill for problems we have nothing to do with and which won’t be fixed by rivers of taxpayer cash.

    Well said. For my money, reconciliation and a treaty are just further exercises in shifting the goal posts.

  15. Bruce of Newcastle

    In the Constitution all citizens of Australia should be equal before the law.

    None should be more equal than any others.

    That is all.

  16. johanna

    Those goalposts spend more time on walkabout than the guys in possum skin underpants.

    Pay that one, Bear. 🙂

  17. sabena

    Here is a question for everyone.
    On what basis can anyone say they are descended from so called “first peoples”?
    Is there a DNA test for indigenousness/aboriginality?What is it?
    Any claim otherwise has no written record to collaborate it-and most persons claiming to be aboriginal cannot show by written record that they are so descended.Anybody who can will find that the label of being aboriginal was determined by a white official based on appearance.

  18. Warty

    John Howard’s idea of constitutional recognition, along the lines of a simple ‘they were here first . . . end of story’. May have ‘got up’; anything else would, in a biblical sense, be pissing against the wall. (Picture a dog lifting its leg, if you will).
    Now this treaty business, without any public input, without any yea or nay from me, is utterly undemocratic. We already know that the sons of bitches in government, regardless of political persuasion nowadays, are progressive to their pink undies, and will delight in indulging in identity politics beyond satiety, increasing division in our country. But it all smacks of overreach.
    We talk about creeping Islamisation as being the major threat to this country, but believe me, Gramsci’s long march through all our institutions tops it, by a long way.
    We need a Trump, by God we need a Trump, or we’re all ‘rooned said Hanrahan’. Seriously.

  19. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Hey, if Aborigines are prepared to pay for a Lobby group to ensure that they have some input into laws, I would have no trouble with that! Same as any other lobby group.
    Another area of contention- which laws only apply to aborigines? Wouldn’t all laws potentially apply to them, since Aborigines might turn up anywhere? Some Aboriginal actors (and some part-aboriginals!) are acting in a play in the Sydney Wharf theatre- must this be vetted in case the wrong woods are being used, or Aboriginal tools are not handled appropriately? Indeed, should only ‘local’ Aborigines be allowed to act ‘locally’? And if you are a part-Aborigine, does it apply only partially?

  20. Haidee

    Each of the borders has to be Defined Between the Various Mobs??

    Like a heap of others in the country, they’ll never be satisfied.

  21. .

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #2398234, posted on June 2, 2017 at 10:57 am
    In the Constitution all citizens of Australia should be equal before the law.

    None should be more equal than any others.

    That is all.

    Damn straight. All race powers ought to be removed.

  22. .

    C.L.
    #2398150, posted on June 2, 2017 at 9:47 am
    There were no “nations” in Australia prior to 1788 (or 1901, if you prefer).

    Didn’t Philip Cunningham or some other Irish rebel declare himself Emperor of Australia in one of the revolts in the early 1800s?

  23. Dr Fred Lenin

    Its amazing the number of useless buggers in this countrywho spend their miserable lives ,trying to find new ways of getting taxpayers money for doing nothing . Put the welfareist class on productivity payments Untill they actually produce something. anything ! As confucius said m”no workie no rice ,you starve “.

  24. Pedro the Ignorant

    Under no circumstances should any government of any colour be allowed to institute any legal “treaties” with one or more aboriginal groups.

    It will be the first step on the road to Australian apartheid, cost billions of dollars and will never, ever end.

  25. .

    It will be the first step on the road to Australian apartheid, cost billions of dollars and will never, ever end.

    “I felt a great disturbance in the zeitgeist, as if thousands of consultants suddenly cried out in terror and their Volkswagen Jettas were suddenly silenced. I sense something fantastic has happened.”

  26. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    It will be the first step on the road to Australian apartheid, cost billions of dollars and will never, ever end.

    Looking at the legal rock fight going on in Western Australia, where the Barnett Government was trying to reach a final settlement on all native title claims with the Noongar “nation”, you are right.

  27. Jessie

    Serious cost benefit question

    How do the polygamists and their wives (and children) who belong to differing language groups make the time in their daily lives and travel the distances including state borders, to attend ALL the meetings and re-meetings to arrive at economic solutions? The cost (that’s only the human capital in economic largesse) must be astronomical after attending to the normal Australian daily duties of a family/household, ceremonies.

    Notwithstanding that people are or have been silenced/assaulted/raped/murdered/died* for standing up and stating the truth. Of whom ‘owns’ what. What boundary, watercourse, sacred site, what marriage and moiety, what dreaming track thru cataracted eyes.

    Endless permutations …….. for next 200 years.

    And that question doesn’t include the cost-benefit of analysis in time/energy to attend to the individual or collective group’s non-indigenous lives of family obligations: cultural, schooling, employment, social, political or otherwise.
    Eg: heritage or DNA (50/50: 25/75: 10/90%: oops Italian/African mis-identified) that is.

    *died after spending entire lives ‘negotiating’.

  28. Empire

    I’ve always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. I use the plural deliberately. In Australian politics people talk about a treaty between Indigenous people as a whole and the government. This idea has never got anywhere and never will. No one speaks for Indigenous people as a single group. Even if government offered a treaty and identified someone to sign it, Indigenous people wouldn’t recognise it. We identify with our nation group or our “mob” as we call it. I’m Bundjalung. I’d only recognise a treaty between a government and the Bundjalung nation.

    I’ve been waiting for some time for a public figure to state the obvious. There is no homogeneous “indigenous Australia”, so there can never be a treaty between the state and Aborigines. The entire premise is ridiculous.

    Well done Warren Mundine.

  29. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    I’d only recognise a treaty between a government and the Bundjalung nation.

    And if I chose not to recognise any “treaty” signed on my behalf?

  30. Roger

    I’d only recognise a treaty between a government and the Bundjalung nation.

    And I’d only recognise a treaty with the Bundjalung nation if members of said “nation” first relinquished Australian citizenship and accepted that all welfare and other monies hitherto paid them by the nation of Australia were deemed sufficient compensation for past wrongs, real or perceived.

    But it’s merely hypothetical, Warren, because:

    1. As citizens we don’t get to accept or reject treaties on an individual basis; the government enters into them on our behalf.

    2. Any treaty that the government did enter into with an indigenous clan group would be challenged and rejected by the High Court because there is no legal basis for recognising aboriginal sovereignty. Mabo established that once and for all; by accepting the concept of native title indigenous people implicitly acknowledged the sovereignty of the Crown/Commonwealth.

    You can’t have it both ways, Warren.

  31. Dr Faustus

    If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities it is, at least, well-worth exploring the idea.

    That general principle would require that the agreements delivered national certainty by resolving the issues completely and finally, carried accountability, and actually helped create economic outcomes other than the distribution of welfare. Without destroying the joint.

    Sadly, my personal experiences over many years of dealing with native title issues in the resources industry tells me that nothing this tidy could be achieved. Add loose money to the complexity of brawling, unsettled family/language group/tribal relationships and the whitefella concept of binding legal agreements generally becomes a joke for the benefit of lawyers and urban main chancers.

    Nevertheless, it is a road we will all be exploring at some cost.

  32. Ez

    It seems to me that a lack of economic opportunity drives a lot of indigenous disadvantage and social dislocation. If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities it is, at least, well-worth exploring the idea.

    CIS report, August 2016 (via the Oz):

    It documents annual spending on indigenous-specific programs by the federal government of $3.28bn, state and territory governments of $2.35bn and the indigenous not-for-profit sector of $224 million.

    With such generous hand-outs to this particular group, it’s very difficult to believe there is a “lack of economic opportunity”. The outcomes are unquestionably poor, relative to investment, however there appears ample opportunity for able-bodied, motivated, people who are able to claim indigenous ancestry.

  33. Just Interested

    Any treaty that the government did enter into with an indigenous clan group would be challenged and rejected by the High Court because there is no legal basis for recognising aboriginal sovereignty. Mabo established that once and for all; by accepting the concept of native title indigenous people implicitly acknowledged the sovereignty of the Crown/Commonwealth

    Mabo technically dealt with the issue of the nature of land title, and concluded that the Crown had ‘radical’ title over land, but there were circumstances where native title could still be said to be present (largely unalienated lands). But that’s all.

    Pl.51 (xxvi), usually called the ‘aboriginal affairs’ power, is very wide and would probably be wide enough to enable a lot of ‘sovereignty’ (a term of indefinite ambit that could include things other than land – but who knows(!)) to be created with the right leftie government (Liberal or Labor)

  34. Deplorable

    I agree Sinc there should be a treaty.
    It should read , If you work like 50% of Australians of working age do then you will be paid a wage. No work No pay and NO $30.3 billion handouts. Pay your own way.

    Now that’s a treaty.

  35. Ez

    Where I agree with Richard Denniss …
    Posted on 9:24 pm, May 17, 2017 by Sinclair Davidson

    …Richard Denniss is quite correct to suggest that rising unemployment is not caused by generous benefits. Rather it is caused by poor economic performance by the private sector. That poor performance in turn is caused by increasing levels of poor policy. Various taxes and levies, increasing regulation, red tape, green tape, and high levels of regime uncertainty (usually referred to as sovereign risk).

    Wouldn’t creating a system where a private enterprise must also (potentially) navigate multiple treaties or differing terms, with different interest groups, give us a business environment with even more regulation? (at least more complex) Black tape?

    Wouldn’t then create fewer economic opportunities for the groups this system is supposed to help? (the large majority, I mean)

  36. Aussiepundit

    What exactly is the goal of a treaty? What legal or govnernance problem is it designed to fix?
    If a treaty or some other legal instrument is introduced, will it in fact fix the problem it is supposed to fix?

  37. thefrollickingmole

    Sinclair Davidson

    And this will be the final demand, all agencies shut, no more to be done?

    Because weve heard that sort of thing before and Im far more comefortable with “no sod off” as an answer to creeping never ending claims at the start than another 5-10 arbitary “we just want this'” down the track.

    Give every Aboriginal $1,000, 000 tomorrow and shut every agency, rent paid, do what you want with it.
    Want to buy special country collectively then knock yourselves out, but no more claims, ever.

    Then Id consider a proposal.

  38. Sisipus

    The fact that we are talking about dividing Australia is a suprise. Why don’t we duggi just piss off back to where our forebears came from , and leave it to them to manage. They would’nt know how to make the plagons let alone the contents. They still would not be happy.

  39. Dr Fred Lenin

    The semi indigenius aparheit scam is in danger now due to Trumps paris climate scam withdrawal , Fairnes is the national green laboral u.n.communust party s strong point , have you noticed all the tv ads are in favour of the scam very fair ,typical comrade ruddbull crap? Like a QA panel and audience . You

  40. Dr Fred Lenin

    Since when did any country make a treaty with ts own citizens ? And dom] t give me that aboriginal nation crapm they were a bunch of feuding ,violent primitives with no. nstional identity .pretty mucj]h like they are today only without grog ,drugs and oetrol to sniff .

  41. Diogenes

    If treaties are signed with “nations”, they become by definition “foreign powers” and people identify as or claim to be subjects of these nations would section 44 i) of the constitution kick in, and all would immediately become ineligible to sit in the “real” parliament ?

    Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:

    (my emphasis)

  42. .

    Diogenes

    I reckon no, autonomy seems different to dual citizenship. Interesting though, because I reckon the caselaw would be against them and you’d be right and I’d be wrong.

  43. Roger

    Pl.51 (xxvi), usually called the ‘aboriginal affairs’ power, is very wide and would probably be wide enough to enable a lot of ‘sovereignty’ …

    51 xxvi is a thin foundation on which to build such a legal structure, JI.

    It would all come tumbling down rather quickly, imo (not to mention the political shit storm that would erupt).

  44. test pattern

    ‘a treaty or as Warren Mundine suggests treaties.’

    National Treaty is a job for the next gen, decades hence, with the T&J Comm as the bridge. In the meantime regional/state based/language group based treaties as proposed by Mundine, but conceptualised a long time ago by others, will have been agreed to and will have taken the scare factor away from a National Treaty. In the end it comes down to self interest, so carrots and sticks. No Treaty no development will have pulled business into line very early. They are in fact lining up already.

  45. Dr Fred Lenin

    As I have been saying for years. Liberate aboriginals from socialist opressionn,ensure they have Exactly the same rights and Obligations all othercitizens have . Free aboriginals from the alp /communist opressors .

  46. Leo G

    So who would represent the Australian pygmies, if any of them or their decendents can be found?

    Start the build, and they will come.

  47. Major Elvis Newton

    Under Native Title, a “treaty” with the so-called “indigenous” inhabitants of Australia will see our descendants forever renting the land from which they draw sustenance with no expectation of tenure certainty or continued access without ongoing restitution.
    This over-entitled mob have already locked up vast tracts of valuable land under the Act and behave worse than property developers in demanding government and business patronage.
    If these “First Peoples” want to live as their ancestors did, I’d be happy to ring fence a section of the outback which they can use to generate wealth for themselves. Build a cashino; target local and international tourists. Keep whatever you make, tax free.
    The catch is you need generate sufficient income to support all those who claim Aboriginality and who access whitefella government funding.
    You want sovereignty…there it is. Take it or leave it.

    No chance I’m going to die from holding my breath.

  48. .

    Didn’t we already sign a treaty? Gough?

  49. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Vincent Lingiari, I solemnly hand to you these deeds as proof, in Australian law, that these lands belong to the Gurindji people and I put into your hands this piece of the earth itself as a sign that we restore them to you and your children forever.

    Gough Whitlam formally handed the Gurindji people at Wattie Creek in the Northern Territory title deeds to part of their traditional lands on August 16, 1975.

    Not a treaty, no. There was one proposed in 1988, but, when the terms were made public, that scuttled it.

  50. gbees

    ” If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities” … and just how pray tell would a treaty create economic activity? All I see it creating is another tax bill for Australian land owners, the “treaty tax”. I’m already paying through strata fees on a property which was built on ‘traditional owner’ lands. At the end of the day this is all about financial reparations. I cannot support it.

  51. test pattern

    ‘how pray tell would a treaty create economic activity’

    Done properly in Arnhem Land, it would open up avenues for development currently blocked. And, if not agreed to, will almost certainly lead to a block on development elsewhere in the north. But it won’t come to that. A National Treaty will be a reality in 20 years.

  52. Bruce of Newcastle

    Done properly in Arnhem Land, it would open up avenues for development currently blocked

    Like Coronation Hill…?

  53. .

    ‘how pray tell would a treaty create economic activity’

    You could just grant allodial title with transferability over native title lands.

  54. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    We would all like Allodial title, but no government will willingly give it! Our homes would be effectively sovereign states!

  55. .

    “Every man a sovereign!” The state ought to merely act as our agent.

  56. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    So how do we arrange this uprising? Allo, allo, allodialism! Not quite catchy enough.

  57. candy

    I’m still happy with the amendment to the Constitution to include the history of the indigenous – First People. I’m good with that. Because it’s history and true. I think it would pass in a referendum but the cost of such is just silly right now, when people are struggling, with wages going backwards and under-employment. It seems such a trivial issue right now.

    My hunch is that talk of land, assets, ownership, treaty will turn people right off. Because look at outback communities with the abuse of their little ones, in utero as well. If the indigenous can’t control this issue and keep their little ones safe, why should a treaty make any difference at all. It’s really sad.

  58. John constantine

    It will be a land tax, not in the cities, because too many votes, but the obsolete food bowl will be land taxed into Zimbabwe.

    Just like Zimbabwe, it will take Chinese involvement to make the land productive again, in the far future.

  59. .

    Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
    #2398810, posted on June 2, 2017 at 6:28 pm
    So how do we arrange this uprising? Allo, allo, allodialism! Not quite catchy enough.

    Listen to me carefully, I shall say this only once…

  60. Tel

    No one speaks for Indigenous people as a single group. Even if government offered a treaty and identified someone to sign it, Indigenous people wouldn’t recognise it. We identify with our nation group or our “mob” as we call it. I’m Bundjalung. I’d only recognise a treaty between a government and the Bundjalung nation.

    A very good point. They were (and some still are) essentially tribal people (hardly nations at all) and it’s ridiculous to expect one tribe to negotiate on behalf of another.

    I’ve proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas.

    Right, that’s a state government issue, and it’s not a treaty because there’s no other nation involved. It’s a land ownership and property rights question, which is handled by state governments. Unfortunately, there’s no support for private ownership of coastal waters in Australia, but in theory something could be organized… it would have to be open to all Australians though because the last thing anyone wants is two classes of citizenship.

  61. Rayvic

    Warren Mundine talks a lot of sense.

  62. Jimf

    FFS here’s my proposal for indigenous “advancement”:
    – move people living in abject squalor off remote settlements. There’s no hope of anything positive that can come from distant outposts with clan hierarchies and entrenched low self worth. Not to mention rampant criminality.
    – demand and force the poor bloody kids to go to school . If the “adults” can’t do cope with this take the kids (under 10’s – the older ones are already buggered) away from them .
    – continue welfare cards ( and by the way roll this out everywhere) vs cash as the new norm . As taxpayers we have the right/ obligation to determine where the money is spent .
    – boot every NGO/ govt board / rent seeking white man parasite entity off the teat.
    Even the normally sensible Noel P has become enamoured with gesture politics around treaty blah blah .
    – create private enterprise training and employment tax havens for long term rescue programs for these blighted , hopeless communities . The govt will never save them . In fact many of the Libtards , ALP , Greens pollies and lobbyists like the status quo just fine thank you very much .
    Mainstream taxpayers ( shrinking but still statistically recordable) have had enough of the corrupt money pit that is the aboriginal industry in this self hating country of ours .

  63. Jimf

    Every time I see tokenistic dances / ceremonies performed by pot bellied indigenous blokes who have clearly been living on KFC, VB and all the other shit we love it just makes me think “stop the fraud”.
    If aboriginals want to drink piss and eat shit that’s their business I don’t care . But this fake romantic cargo cult of the wandering warrior is a cruel hoax. The VAST majority of Aboriginal people are no more connected spiritually to the “land” than anyone else . It’s BS and we all know it . We all know it . We all know it.
    Modern Australia is a soulless western cesspit just like any other western nation state that needs to compete,grow, have winners and losers in order to stay in the game.
    Indigenous political posturing seems like a patronising oddity that we keep up the facade with. Tough love please ..

  64. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Every time I see tokenistic dances / ceremonies performed by pot bellied indigenous blokes who have clearly been living on KFC, VB and all the other shit we love it just makes me think “stop the fraud”.

    I ran a farm in rural Western Australia. To get a Government grant for fencing, and reclamation of salt affected land, I had to “ask permission of the traditional owners of the land.”

    The” traditional owner” lived two hundred kilometers away, and had never set foot on the place in her life..

  65. Jimf

    Is there anything more defining of the totally hopeless state of the indigenous industry than the inner city, euro-indigenous tertiary educated , grant-sucking , PS funded warriors that Fairfax/ABC love to represent as some kind of beacon for hope? The elephant in the room is that they have succeeded because of integration,not despite it.
    While these Larissa-esque “inspirations” revel in their virtue in the pages of the SMH ,9 year old girls in Alice Springs and Moree are smoking pot and getting raped by family members .. but we can’t talk about that outside the prism of victimhood.
    It is sick.

  66. steve

    Each of the borders has to be Defined Between the Various Mobs

    See, this is beautiful.

    Tell them that we will talk about treaties as soon as they sort out the borders between themselves.

    It will never happen and we are out of the fight until they do.

  67. steve

    Letting the indigenous community fight between themselves over land is like two leftards fighting over a government grant. No one will give up until their share is bigger.

  68. steve

    perhaps unfair, perhaps I should have said Indigenous Industry. Anyway, all I know is I won’t vote yes in a referendum until I can feel the love coming from them. While they hate my guts, they don’t get my vote.

  69. Jessie

    dot at 5.15
    I guess the elders or those touting continued connection [NTT owners] could formally grant estovers to their subjects?
    Which they do so now anyway.

  70. Jessie

    And who pray buys their art ad nauseum to adorn their city offices?
    And who pray invites ‘the more conservative of recent indigenous-identifying’ to speak at their conservative think-tank forums?
    There are some v wealthy and influential elephants in those rooms, lobbying for policy based on their economic dreams for the <300,000 'true' Aborigines of deserts and flooding plains.

    Jimf at 12:41 am

    Is there anything more defining of the totally hopeless state of the indigenous industry than the inner city, euro-indigenous tertiary educated , grant-sucking , PS funded warriors that Fairfax/ABC love to represent as some kind of beacon for hope? The elephant in the room is that they have succeeded because of integration,not despite it.
    While these Larissa-esque “inspirations” revel in their virtue in the pages of the SMH ,9 year old girls in Alice Springs and Moree are smoking pot and getting raped by family members .. but we can’t talk about that outside the prism of victimhood.
    It is sick.

Comments are closed.