Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (34)
It has become something of a pastime of mine to take issue with various utterances on the subject of the Voice by Chris Kenny. This time my problem is not with something Kenny has said, but something he has failed to say. Kenny talks only about the Voice as a source of useful advice to government on overcoming problems such as we see in Alice Springs, and as a practical – as opposed to symbolic – way to recognize Aborigines in the Constitution.
Let me deal with that last point first. Kenny acknowledges that Aborigines want more than symbolic recognition. That’s true. They’ve said it often enough and loud enough. But Kenny’s is a specious argument. Since the Voice can simply be legislated under powers that already exist in the Constitution, and if, according to their logic it would have no teeth (a proposition which I reject), then ‘enshrining’ it would ipso facto be nothing more than symbolism.
Aboriginal activists would regard a purely advisory body as no more than symbolism. They want real power in their own right, not power exercised through our existing Parliamentary system.
If you’ll excuse the cliché, this is the elephant in the room. On the night he became Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese made this issue his very first commitment. But he did not commit to implementing a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. He committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That statement includes the following:
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown…
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood …
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
The Uluru Statement unequivocally calls for ‘truth-telling’ and a treaty. You can bet a treaty will involve the transfer of large sums of money in the form of ‘reparations’.
Recently, Green’s warlord, the noxious Senator Lidia Thorpe, said she would not support the Voice unless it could be guaranteed that it would not cede Aboriginal sovereignty.
Not to worry, Albanese got his hand-picked panel of constitutional experts (you know, the ones who assured us that, contrary to advice from former High Court Justices Ian Callinan and Kenneth Hayne, matters arising from the Voice would not be justiciable) to work.
Consequently, The Australian was able to report last Thursday that:
The Albanese government has published a summary of legal advice from constitutional experts who say there is no basis to claims from the far left that an Indigenous voice will cede sovereignty.
Firstly, it beggars belief that the government would even entertain the idea that any form of sovereignty still resides with the Aboriginal community, that they would indulge such fantasies on the part of extremists like Thorpe.
Certainly, ‘sovereignty’ was never ceded via a formal treaty, such as the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. That would have been impossible as there was no overarching Aboriginal authority that could negotiate such a treaty. But, in practical terms, as Keith Windschuttle points out in his masterful The Break-Up of Australia, it was ceded on a region-by-region basis, right across the continent, as local Aboriginal tribes recognised the inevitability of white settlement and accommodated themselves to it – a process known as ‘coming in’. This phenomenon, based on self-interest (e.g., a regular supply of food obtained much more easily than foraging or hunting), was described by countless observers, such as Royal Marine Lieutenant Watkin Tench, dating right back to the First Fleet. The celebrated Bennelong was among the first to demonstrate this behaviour.
But, in my mind, the most explicit act of cession occurred in 1967, when the vast bulk of Aboriginal people enthusiastically lobbied for, and applauded, the amendment to our Constitution that allowed the Commonwealth Government to make laws in respect of Aboriginal people – laws to benefit, not restrict, them. This was an implicit acceptance of the sovereignty, over all Australians, of the Australian Commonwealth.
Activists claim that the Mabo decision, which invented a new form of land title, Native Title, implies that there must, therefore, also exist native sovereignty. They point to precedent in the US. Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, who presided over the Mabo case, disagreed with this. He said that the Mabo decision:
…was entirely at odds with the notion that sovereignty adverse to the Crown resides in the Aboriginal people of Australia.
He also said Mabo was:
…equally at odds with the notion that there resides in the Aboriginal people a limited kind of sovereignty embraced in the notion that they are “a domestic dependant nation” and entitled to self-government.
That was not a High Court judgement, merely Mason’s private opinion, so it sets no legal precedent. And it related only to Mabo. Given a differently based claim for Aboriginal sovereignty, how would the current High Court rule?
I believe that, this time, Albanese’s advisory group is correct. If a Voice is entrenched in the Constitution – put there on the basis that it forms part of the Uluru Statement which includes demands for treaty and some form of sovereignty – it would be very easy for an activist Court to conclude that, although Mason may have been right vis-a-vis Mabo, here we have a different basis for the claim.
The fact that the Voice, comprising elected and appointed members from a particular group, derives from a statement that demands recognition of some form of Aboriginal sovereignty, makes it, incontrovertibly, a political entity. Even a caveat that the Parliament is not obliged to accept its advice will not change that. The Constitution recognizes the Commonwealth and the States, of which there are currently six. It does not recognize any other political entity, such as the Territories or local councils, other than the fact that they may exist. It does not recognize the Loans Council. It does not recognize the Premiers Conference. It does not even recognize the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet. ‘Enshrinement’ of the Voice within the Constitution will establish an eighth political entity. Or, to be more precise, a third constitutional entity, alongside the Commonwealth and the States.
Once in the Constitution, ultimate control of the Voice will be out of the hands of the government and become a playground for Aboriginal activists like Drs Marcia Langton and Megan Davis. It will be constitutional malware subject to God knows what unintended consequences.
And treaty and a form of Aboriginal sovereignty or self-government will not be unintended consequences. Clearly the Albanese government is contemplating such an outcome. But they are careful not to say so at the moment.
Is Chris Kenny not aware of this? Does he really believe the Voice will content itself with just giving advice to government on proposed legislation? Has he thought about what such an outcome might look like? He need look no further than Victoria which has established its own First Peoples Assembly. Their big agenda is not advice to government but what they call ‘Treaty’. Here is what its website says:
The Assembly has negotiated for the Government to give up some of its power by agreeing to establish an independent Treaty Authority that sits outside of the usual government bureaucracy. This independent ‘umpire’ will be grounded in our culture, lore and law, and will facilitate negotiations and help resolve any disputes that arise.
The journey to Treaty mustn’t be constrained by colonial concepts, and we need an independent ‘umpire’ that our people can have confidence in. That’s why the agreement we secured is to establish a Treaty Authority that is completely independent from government – it won’t report to a Minister and its funding will be insulated from the usual political cycles.
The Authority will be led by First Peoples and grounded in our culture, lore and law.
An independent panel – to be agreed to by the Assembly and the Government – will appoint the Members of the Treaty Authority following a public call for nominations. All Members will be First Peoples.
“This is about stepping outside of the colonial system. We’ve said to government, if you’re serious about Treaty, you’ll do it our way, and to their credit, that’s what they’re doing. This is decolonisation in action.” – Marcus Stewart, Assembly Co-Chair.
‘You’ll do it our way’. Does that sound like reconciliation to you?
And further:
Treaty must bridge the economic divide caused by dispossession and the Assembly has negotiated the establishment of a First Peoples controlled and managed Self-Determination Fund.
The Self-Determination Fund will do two key things. It will enable Traditional Owners to enter Treaty negotiations with the Government on a more level playing field. It will also empower our communities to build wealth and greater capacity for future generations.
“Yes, we want to enjoy, celebrate and share our culture, but treaty needs to be more than that. It also needs to deliver to our people the economic independence required to achieve self-determination.” – Marcus Stewart, Assembly Co-Chair
The Victorian government has already provided $65 million for this purpose. They are also demanding reserved seats in the Victorian Parliament.
Given the above, do you imagine for one moment that the activists behind the national Voice will be content with simply providing advice on laws that affect Aboriginals? That they will be any less demanding than their State counterparts? They have already told us that a treaty (and, no doubt, a self-determination fund) is the ultimate objective, and the Voice is one enabling mechanism. It seems we will have treaties between the Aboriginal community and the rest of us at both State and Federal level. Where will this end and how does it possibly unite us?
Would Chris Kenny be comfortable with something like the Victorian model at the Commonwealth level? He should at least address this objection. Kenny likes to argue that this Voice proposal will not divide us by race.
Pull the other one, Chris.
This is the most radical referendum ever to be proposed to Australians. It is the first to propose there be a new Constitutionally body, the Voice. The scope of its role to make representations on matters relating to indigenous people will be a matter for the High Court.
The arrangements for the Voice are to be established by the Parliament. But Albanese has also committed to a treaty. If it gets up, the main business of the Voice will be making representations on the terms, acceptability, and on-going implementation of a treaty, in perpetuity.
Make no mistake, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is about creating a constitutionally enshrined indigenous representative body and the supporting governance structures that would be a de facto government for a quasi-independent indigenous nation that would have a treaty-governed, co-governance relationship with the Commonwealth of Australia.
This referendum is about the very foundations of Australia. Aboriginal leaders know it, and Albanese pretends otherwise. Australians, wake up. Albanese is proposing a revolution.
Spot on Michael, and it staggers me that Kenny can’t (or won’t) see it. Also Dutton for that matter. Or maybe he’s just keeping his powder dry.
This is a bit of a rambling reply.
I doubt whether Dutton and his cohorts have acquainted themselves with the volume of very credible factual information that would clearly lead them to a NO VOICE position. I refer of course to Quadrant Magazine and Quadrant books.
I didn’t even know that this wonderful organisation and its output of fact and opinion existed until 5 months ago. I suppose that makes my stupid. Where have I been all these years? But at least I have one powerful tool, I can think for myself. I make up my own mind and will go hunting for the truth and in these pages I can find it.
I am horrified to think the Libs could even comtemplate a YES vote. Are they that stupid? Perhaps they are. Haven’t they found the source of verifiable counters to all the fabrications and lies coming out of the aboriginal industry/aboriginal urban elite and mouthed by Albo and his sycophants? To me it’s a lay down misere if you look at the real facts.
For most of my life I have found the majority of the population to be just plain stupid and gullible in many things they do, and don’t do. They are incapable of thinking for themselves and let their opinions be formed by others. Oh, I heard it on Talk Back Radio; I read it somewhere; I heard it on the news. They don’t question it, the dullards, and they will in my opinion Vote YES and Australia will be ruined for ever.
This is the nitty gritty of what we are faced with. How do we get what we know about the the TRUTH to enough Australians to properly inform them on how to vote.
The outrage of the Government not funding either the YES or NO arguments has not been taken up by anybody as AFAIK. They know that the lefty/pinko/Wokey media will do the YES vote promotion for them. You would think that the Constitution would have provisions forcing the government of the day to give all Australians sufficient information to allow them to make an informed vote.
The sovereignty and treaty demands. According to ex PM Malcolm Turnbull 37% (and climbing) of the landmass of Australian is already owned/exclusively reserved for aboriginals. Very few people know this let alone aboriginals for it is an inconvenient truth the elite blacks don’t want their mob to know. Treat them like mushrooms eh? Lead them by the nose.
How much more land is enough? Let them claim the best of what is left in Australia and guess what? If they are successful some will be flogged off and the money squanded by mismanagement. We’ve seen it all before. So much for cultural significance- its very elastic in its interpretation
It’s getting late and I must to my bed go. Bye for now
Personal message to Peter O,Brien.
On the 19th December last I sent you a letter c/o Quadrant Books. The letter provides proof of natural causes for the reported so called ‘ploughed ground’, hoed ground, terracing for yam gardens etc and park like landscapes that Bruce Pascoe pounces upon in Dark Emu for evidence of advanced agriculture by native Australians pre colonisation. This will be useful to you in any future editions of Bitter Harvest.
So far the letter has not been located and if this continues I will resend the letter but will contact someone in the Qudrant Foundation to ensure it is passe onto you. My name is Peter Dwyer
thank you Peter. Roger will give you my email address.
I’m sure the activists pushing the Voice don’t want real sovereignty. They have no intention of turning their backs on the stream of taxpayer funds they need. What they want is what was called in another context, the whore’s prerogative – power without responsibility.
DougD,
yes the Victorian experience makes this clear. We owe it to them.
Good onya Peter. It’ll be the end of democracy in Australia. The long march has reached its destination. We’re already destroying our society, economy and environment with the two-party preferred Climate Con. Net Zero = Stone Age. We had no nation before 1901. Now we’ve got a ridiculous aboriginal flag. But all Australians still have an equal voice. That’s a huge problem for our democracy because most voters live in the middle of the big cities and have no idea about how the world works, or usedta work. Apart from all the dangers you’ve identified, the idea of a single aboriginal voice is simply stupid and fundamentally racist. Chris Kenny is a living example of the hypocrisy. He’s a commentator on one of the very few media outlets that give both sides of politics a hearing. For example, they let Nicholas Reece voice his opinions. We really don’t need Kenny’s woke advocacy for reverse racism on top of that.
Thanks Vic
LGA maps, state and commonwealth electoral boundaries, all these will be revised to match Indigenous land Council and language regions. Did they neglect to mention that?
What is needed is a seperate voice for other race based nationalities, in order to drown out the voices of Australians of Anglo Irish and English complexion and extraction ,thereby marginalising them out of having any nuance of white privilege and be divested of all the power they once had by continued affirmative discrimination (immigration). Which would empower only people of colour to chide us with our guilt and effectively make the Voice poll a fait accompli.
.
The 2022 census indicated 1 390 637 Chinese, 813 392 Muslims and 896 300 people of Aboriginal extraction living in Australia, for example-if you believe the Government. The Chinese obviously being the greater minority group.
.
This would break down each racial group into seperate voice identities which would cement the carve up of Australia into what Eurasian Putin whisperer Aleksandr Dugin termed ,block’s.
.
This would /will ultimately, because of the resulting racial and ethnic cultural frictional competing interests, have to be controlled by the Voice Authority instituted by the totality invested in the authoritarian .political consensus , the ground work example being that of climate ‘consensus’ ( political market research).
.
This would be akin to the woke University mandate , that people will be under no illusion that they have, the now inalienable right, to freely limit their thought’s-they will hardly believe that they are free to think- however be very careful about what you say about the race based Voice Authorities publicly, you will be answerable to the peoples vilification politburo – the Human Rights Commission.
.
Well done Anthony Albanese – With the same sentiment as Leo Tolstoy and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn you are about to embark Australia as another one of the Socialists worlds conscience gulags- whereby to voice opinion on that which is morally wrong is deemed divisive and therefore punishable.
If you are a skeptic, the public treatment of Tony Abbott and Cardinal Pell may set the alarm bells ringing.
The Voice is nothing short of, to use only the phrase of Notre Dame’s Dr Peter Holmes in relation to the perspective of the civilising effect on people ”a really bad idea”.
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”, George Orwell.
Well said Peter O’Brien.
Why the push for Constitutional recognition? A few reasons come to mind.
Despite Mabo being a bad decision it still held that mainland Aboriginal people only had a “Usufructory” interest over land and it only included them in the decision re the Merriam People of Murray Island because the Whitlam Government had enacted the Racial Discrimination Act. A usufructory interest is the right to take the Fruits of the Land but not the land itself. There is no title in the land itself and certainly no sovereignty. Aboriginal Lore has never claimed Sovereignty, they belong to the land not the land belongs to them.
No traditional Aboriginal Tribe voting for or appointing a representative would select a woman. Therefore the Albanese promise of equal representation would not be acceptable to them.
You would think they would establish the “Voice” under Sec 51(xxvi) of the Constitution but I suggest they have legal advice that this could be contested and lost on appeal to a non-woke High Court. If you take the section and subsection together you get :
“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi) The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special .laws: ”
A Black Letter High Court might well rule that the “Voice” as proposed under the Langton/Calma Report is unconstitutional in that it is not for and would not lead to “peace, order, and good government”.
The above is in my opinion why they are desperate to create the Voice with the suggested wording.into the Constitution. If the Constitution says “There shall be a voice” and the Government shall enact it, then NO Court could say that any legislation cited as the Voice, passed by both houses of Parliament, even one ceding All the land to the Aboriginal people or to Republic of China or the Republic of the Solomon Islands, was unconstitutional.
Do not cede your childrens birthright VOTE NO.
Thank you John
My understanding, and I’m happy to be corrected, is that Linda Burney is on record as saying that, once the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution “They wont be able to get rid of it, the way they did ATSIC.”
Whhether she said it or not, it is a pretty true assessment. It has to be stopped at the referendum.
geoff – she said that in her 2019 Nugget Coombe Memorial Lecture:
“Security of the Voice is paramount – that is why the Uluru Statement called for it to be
constitutionally enshrined. Because we have seen before how easily the institutional voice of First Nations people has been taken away, by the Government of the day. We all know what happened to ATSIC.”
Burney didn’t of course mention why ATSIC was “easily” abolished or that it was abolished with Labor’s support.
Yes, Burney is on the record as having said that.
Thanks to Peter and previous commenters for informing us what is being attempted here. I have a naive question. What motivates our PM to promote with such enthusiasm and deceit, a constitutional change with such destructive power? How does Labor benefit from this?
Brilliant incisive article once more Peter. Well done. We MUST get out past our own echo chamber to get the message out about what the real agenda is here!
Chris Kenny is not stupid – I wonder if he has backed himself into a corner now and cannot change his mind. Nevertheless, he has lost all credibility with the thinking public. It’s like he’s calling out to the Titanic passengers telling them there’s no hole in the ship! He must know better! He is now just a fool. 🙁
Regarding Dutton – I really hope he’s just ‘keeping his powder dry’, but if he and the Liberals come out in support of the ‘Voice’ we know for sure that Australian conservative politics as we once knew it is finished.
Perhaps the only likely two outcomes for the future will be subservience to the new regime or civil war – Interesting the new proposals for a ‘national firearms register! 🙁
Thank you David
Well said Peter, but I would make two points –
firstly with more than two centuries of high rates of intermarriage we have the only evidence we need that we are generations well into reconciliation. And with most Australians with Aboriginal ancestry in mixed marriages today, and indeed, most more Anglo-European than anything else, we are about as reconciled as anyone can get.
Secondly,
the use of the term Aborigines is erroneous for there is no such group which could want anything symbolic or otherwise.
We have around 800,000 Australians who register Aboriginal ancestry, but most are so minimally Aboriginal in ancestry they would not be allowed to register as such in any other country.
Is someone who has 1% Aboriginal ancestry, Aboriginal? Of course not. Neither is someone with 10,20,40 or even 50 percent Aboriginal ancestry. Someone who is half Aboriginal in ancestry is neither Aboriginal or Anglo-European but an Australian with mixed ancestry.
And since they represents thousands of variations on the original themes of 350-500 different tribal/clan groups, it is very clear they are not united. Indeed, Aboriginal communities are not united but instead riven by familial and tribal differences. Someone 100% Aboriginal from a community in NT is not united with someone 100% Aboriginal from a community in WA or FNQ because they come from different tribal groups. None of them have anything in common with someone in Sydney who has a part-Aboriginal great-grandparent.
This distinction needs to be consistently made. There is no Aboriginal or Indigenous or Australians with Aboriginal ancestry group, or anything which could ever have a unified opinion on anything, let alone a voice.
The only force for unity is as Australians. Always was, always will be.
Thank you Ros,
You are right, You only have to look at the photo of Marcus Stewart to see what a boondoggle this is. And the Vic Assembly has three Bambletts on it and three Clarkes. Not sure if the Clarkes are related but the Bambletts sure as hell are.
What are the odds a national Voice will be any more representative?
Communities are not representative as anyone involved in them or negotiating with them knows. Certain powerful families will run the show and the rest follow along or are beaten into submission.
The concept of equal representation has never existed in traditional Aboriginal cultures and it only manifests now, and one could argue, in degrees, with those who are more Anglo-European than Aboriginal and fully assimilated into the modern world. I do wonder though how deep all of that goes.
I have lived in four African countries over decades and was struck by the power of tribalism. There were well educated people who could spend 30 years living in the West, working professionally and then return home and immediately revert to the tribal culture in which they had grown up. I can think of one ex-President who did just that after 40 years in the US.
No doubt it is like the tendency most if not all of us have, to revert to ‘form’ when we are back amongst our family. Old habits die hard and in tribal societies, and all families are tribal to some degree, those who do not conform to old habits will be punished.
Spot on, rosross. But you cast your net too widely with: “Someone 100% Aboriginal from a community in NT is not united with someone 100% Aboriginal from a community in WA or FNQ because they come from different tribal groups.” Even within many single communities, e.g. Yuendumu, Aurukun, Doomadgee, Wadeye, to mention some well-known examples, we find various unrelated groups, or at least insufficiently related enough to be at constant war amongst themselves, going back many generations (although I accept even close relatives can fight each other). Finding a “voice” to speak on behalf of any such group is impossible; anyone believing there’ll be a Voice representing all indigenous people (however defined) is dreaming.
Absolutely. If each community is riven by familial and tribal differences and they are, then a united voice from all communities is impossible and a united voice from every Australian with Aboriginal ancestry, whether 100% or less than 1%, is a joke.
Thanks yet again for another erudite and clear articulation of this important matter, Peter. I cannot believe that Albanese, Kenny et al. fail to see the obvious, logical extrapolation of The Voice. Either they’re idiots, or liars (heaven forbid they’d be both, but it’s possible). Don’t they read any of the propaganda, starting with that “Uluru Statement”? Even the Victorian treaty mob don’t hold back: “we want to enjoy, celebrate and share our culture, but treaty needs to be more than that. It also needs to deliver to our people the economic independence required to achieve self-determination”. In other words, meal tickets in perpetuity. They want to lead the slack, “traditional culture”, i.e. existence free of demands or responsibilities, while bludging off the broader community. The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking: sharing one’s culture implies humbugging, i.e. give us your money (absent from traditional culture) and all your Western material goods (ditto), but expect nothing in return, other than endless orders.
How could any intelligent Australian countenance this attitude? Dutton really ought to spell this out to the public if he wants to be taken seriously.
Thank you pmprociv
Actually Peter, with every passing day it’s looking like a severe case of conciliation –
and was it the teacher’s federation who said that phonics don’t matter?
I extend an invitation to each and every activist of this realm to come and reside in a remote, outback aboriginal community for 365 days. Experience their hopes, desires, disparity in the face of opportunity lost, heat, flies, filth, animal cruelty, and in-house alcoholism fuelled domestic violence – everyday.
People in these communities have no idea about what a ‘Voice’ might be. Never heard of it. Nor care. We have enough trouble just getting the children to a school. School isnt just for teaching the Three R’s, its about the benefits of cleanliness and hygeine. These arent taught in the home environment.
Most activists can read and write enough to paint slogans on a bed-sheet. Even have enough money to purchase the materials, paint their hair some hideous hue of the colour spectrum, embed metal gargoyle-like adornments in their noses, and purchase clothes with manufactured holes in them. Kids in remote communities barely have t-shirts let alone shorts. Try swimming in a emptied wheelie-bin on days over 45 degrees celcius. Delicious fun for All.
Just make sure when your invitation number comes up, for your Years’ National Service in one of these communities, that you are innoculated for Hep A, B, & C., Cholera, Dysentery, Malaria, and a host of other maladies that may befall you during your stay. The impost of these innoculations is on you, of course. No need to bother labelling your clothing nor personal items as what is yours is, naturally, theirs, too.
You want to fight for a voice for these folk, then go out there. Befriend them, show them, teach them to the fullest extent. Become one, united people.
None of you would last one week!
Brilliant idea Anthony.
Get Australia involved in Australia.
Walk the talk.
Gee, what the missionaries tried to do all those years ago ,in trying to bring purpose into these peoples lives. In the pictures and photos of that bygone era these people at face value anyway, at least seemed to be happier- those smiling white teeth.
.
Occupational therapy (a job- I know it’s a dirty word for the ding bats on the left) is what is sorely needed out there in the scrub- especially for young males full of testosterone. Or maybe they could legalise more drug use!
Getting the unemployed ( politicians) out there, it might just give a solid taste of the true realities of being unemployed.
Chris Bowen could head up an expedition in FNQ exploring the opportunities available in the tomatoe industry, and maybe Chalmers could capitalise on his words ,and look into the viability and possibility in promoting a startup( reinvent capitalism) snake industry.
And finally Tony Bourke and Anthony Albanese could put their melon’s together and see whether a bull dust industry could be made to be viable in those non elitist environs.
Back to Chris Bowen , maybe he could also explore the idea of placing solar panels on the heads of indigenous peoples living in those remote areas ,this would give them the shade they require from the searing red hot midday sun and at the same time charge their mobile devices so as they can listen to the soothing piped dulcet tones of their ABC and their charges in relation to climate Armageddon. Maybe not such a good idea for the ALP and Gs as that may leave the lefty none sense flank open to ridicule, as no sooner had Albo arrived in Alice, his immediate indoor cloistered response was imma geddon the hell outa here!
And lastly perhaps explore the possibility of putting a Mosque in Alice Springs to calm the youthful alcohol and drug fuelled cultural tensions .
Make no mistake these guys are the brightest of the bright.
@Anthony,
The point surely is that no-one should live like this or even attempt to do so. The cesspits of misery which are remote communities do not exist because Australians or their Government want it, nor because of a lack of funding, attention, focus and effort, but because they were a disaster of an idea which ensure assimilation would not happen and people would remain trapped in backward tribal systems. It is because so much money, time and attention is paid to these communities of horror and misery that nothing changes – it all gets worse.
Having spent a lot of time in India and Africa I know that people living in the depths of poverty, with no support or attention, still do their utmost to keep their kids clean, healthy and to get them educated. That does not happen in Aboriginal communities because the mindset of those living there and those pushing them to live there, is so deranged and dysfunctional.
The children should all be taken into care, the communities closed down, and the focus should be assimilation into the modern world. Some are already lost but some could still be saved.
It is theatre to suggest people go and experience such misery and it proves nothing since it is not the fault of the broader community. We need to recognise that separation does not only not work, it makes everything so much worse.
We know that because the vast majority of Australians with Aboriginal ancestry, whether a little or a lot, do not suffer in such ways because they are fully assimilated into the modern world and the broader community.
This fantasy that there was anything about stone-age hunter-gatherer communities from 1788 which was worthy of retaining has destroyed too many generations already. It is good to see some noted Australians with Aboriginal ancestry speaking out, but, even there, none have the courage to say these communities cannot and will never work. Even those who are impressively rational and intelligent on the issue like Warren Mundine and Senator Jacinta Price, do not have the courage to tell the truth about these ghastly places and call for an end to their existence.
So many children have been sacrificed on this pyre of the noble savage delusion that it is criminal – more than that, it is evil.
Anthony is truth telling. How do the belligerati like it?
A great article and excellent comments too. I was a fan of Chris Kenny but his advocacy of a yes vote lost him to me I’m afraid. If for no other reason , putting an essentially open-ended “Voice” ( a nicely innocuous conceit) into the Constitution is surely suspect as embodying, in an almost exemplary degree, the law of unintended consequences, Hands off the Constitution! Vote NO.
I have less of a problem listening to The Voice of 100% aborigines in the top end. But what about the many self identifying ‘aborigines’ identified by dark emu exposed? Why should anyone listen to Bruce Pascoe? Or privileged blak people living in the inner city sucking on the taxpayer’s generous teat?