My reading of that interview was that Mundine wanted aboriginals to be "accountable" for their own actions and not keep blaming colonisation.Warren Mundine says voting against a voice to Parliament will make it easier for Indigenous people to secure treaties while backing a change to the date of Australia Day, two positions strikingly at odds with those of other prominent No campaigners.
High-profile opponents of constitutional change such as opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have argued that voters should reject a voice to parliament because the body would open the door to treaties and lobby to shift Australia Day away from January 26.
He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .As per usual you get the media presenting what they want to take from the Mundine interview. As Mundine said, there needs to be discussion to arrive at what best suits the aboriginal situation, but as usual the media cherry pick points to cause division, magic.
Maybe the reporter could focus on the point they both agree that the voice to parliament isn't their chosen way forward, rather than whether they agree on Australia day and or treaties, those issues as Albo says aren't on the agenda, but when has that worried the media.
‘All over the shop’: Yes campaign takes aim at No side division
As an estimated 200,000 people rallied in favour of the Voice, Noel Pearson leapt upon Warren Mundine’s comments backing treaties and changing Australia Day.www.smh.com.au
Warren Mundine says voting against a voice to Parliament will make it easier for Indigenous people to secure treaties while backing a change to the date of Australia Day, two positions strikingly at odds with those of other prominent No campaigners.
High-profile opponents of constitutional change such as opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have argued that voters should reject a voice to parliament because the body would open the door to treaties and lobby to shift Australia Day away from January 26.
He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .
The separate state bills of treaties have long been pathed out except for NSW, some think they need the Voice first because it will give them better bargaining powers. It looks like a disorganised jumbled mess to me that they want to make up as they go along.He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this.
People like Warren Mundine want to develop the aboriginal communities in the bush by getting funding and land rights as well as control over their own destinies rather than being controlled by Canberra.Even a treaty is a distraction.
How will it close the gap ?
Mzybe they should ask the NIAA what they are doing with the $1.5 billion in their bank accounts.They want control over their destiny
Controlled through Canberra by politicians worried about making decisions.Mzybe they should ask the NIAA what they are doing with the $1.5 billion in their bank accounts.
The problem with the reporter of the attached article, he is focusing on what Mundine and Price disagree on, when in reality that isn't the issue.He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .
Rejection of the Voice will unite the aboriginal communities like never before as the moderates will have lost out.
The Libs will want a solution which will help resolve this which will help people in Warren Mundine's camp get what they want.
I've never really understood how a treaty is relevant here. My sense of a treaty is both parties at the table have SOME bargaining power. Basically the loser can still bloody the nose of the victor, especially if the loser is cornered. That's just not how it went down: any serious military threat was neutralised very early on. The ATSIs were not united at all, had no weapons to speak of, and tended to join up (and intermarry) with colonists.The separate state bills of treaties have long been pathed out except for NSW, some think they need the Voice first because it will give them better bargaining powers. It looks like a disorganised jumbled mess to me that they want to make up as they go along.
Exactly, you can't bring about change until those who are affected ask for it, as can be seen with the increase in alchohol related crimes since the removal of the welfare card, which has necessitated the re introduction of alchohol bans.My reading of that interview was that Mundine wanted aboriginals to be "accountable" for their own actions and not keep blaming colonisation.
I think he is in alignment with Price here, even if he has differences over treaties etc.
Warren Mundine backs treaty process, claiming it will be successful if No vote wins referendum
The Bundjalung man also called for the date of Australia Day to be changed.www.abc.net.au
Controlled through Canberra by politicians worried about making decisions.
*(some people here don't have permission from Newscorp to watch it).
I totally get what you're saying but no one can deny that their land was taken from them. I don't agree with reparations paid for atrocities committed centuries ago from passed on generational trauma to current day people, this is taught and farmed to be milked.I've never really understood how a treaty is relevant here. My sense of a treaty is both parties at the table have SOME bargaining power. Basically the loser can still bloody the nose of the victor, especially if the loser is cornered. That's just not how it went down: any serious military threat was neutralised very early on. The ATSIs were not united at all, had no weapons to speak of, and tended to join up (and intermarry) with colonists.
That is the real issue, the rest is narrative, poor choices, poor leadership, poor just about everything.I totally get what you're saying but no one can deny that their land was taken from them. I don't agree with reparations paid for atrocities committed centuries ago from passed on generational trauma to current day people, this is taught and farmed to be milked.
If a grandparent of your children was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk, would you inflect mental trauma on them every day by reminding them of what the drunk had done or would you remind them of what a loving and caring person they were?
That is the real issue, the rest is narrative, poor choices, poor leadership, poor just about everything.
Sort out the loss of land issue and the rest is just behavioural, leadership and funding issues that require addressing IMO.
Whether it is right or wrong isn't really the issue IMO, the issue is the majority of aboriginals feel their forefathers were dispossessed of their land and were never compensated for it when land titles were issued and there are plenty of high profile white folk who agree.Plenty has and continues to be given, on the basis of net productivity versus the cost of the citizen on a per capita basis. You can't unspill the milk, nor unscramble the egg. Would you have us leave all the land to them? Do we take back all or roads and buildings also? Do we take all our DNA? Most of the vocal ones are more genetically "us" than "them".
As does our Left."Australia’s local right reliably mimics whatever the ratbag end of American politics does next
As does our Left.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?