This scenario willnever change. The wealthy elites won't be penny pinching at the supermarkets or worrying about the cost of electricity.A little off topic, but just highlights how the elites make all the right noises about social agendas, but when push comes to shove if it actually affects them they have a different take on it.
As with infill higher density housing, they think it is a grest idea, as long as it isn't in their back yard.
Here is another example putting solar panels on the roof, a great idea, but not if it detracts from your multi million dollar houses street appeal.
‘Rich families don’t need to save money’: Why wealthy suburbs are less likely to have rooftop solar
The higher the household income in a postcode area, the less likely the homes are to have solar panels installed.www.smh.com.au
I wonder if the failure of the Voice to get up embolden this in NZ
The new world of conservatives unwinding past agreements that they made or agreed to.
What is it that they actually stand for?
New Zealand is unwinding 'race-based policies'. Māori say it's taking away their rights
"With stunning speed, New Zealand's right-wing coalition government has repealed, removed or reversed around a dozen of what it calls "race-based policies" that enshrine the special status of Māori people in national life.
Since coming to power last November, it's scrapped a law giving Māori a say on environmental questions and is set to repeal another designed to help Māori children in state care stay connected to their culture and family.
Māori language in the public service has been wound back and the Māori Health Authority has been abolished.
Now it's turning its attention to the next fight – reinterpreting the nation's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, in what could potentially erase decades of hard-won Māori rights."
NZ is debating a referendum that some fear 'would be the worst of all worlds'
New Zealand has entered a period of right-wing politics, but the next generation of Māori activists are ready to respond.www.abc.net.au
got any suggestions as giving those renters ownership??? ...... so as they might have a 'stake'.as tenants don't defend property they are renting.
Well it isn't as though this wasn't predictable, I remember saying early in the thread, that telling Australians that they are tenants in Australia would end badly, as tenants don't defend property they are renting.
Well the results are starting to be felt, disenfranchised youth.
Almost Half Of Young Australians Are Too Ashamed To Fight For Their Nation
“After years of relentless attack on our values by the cultural and media elite, a growing number of young Australians are now so ashamed of themselves, and their country, that they would rather flee Australia than stay and fight for it,” said Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director at the...ipa.org.au
Only going off an article, same as most others on the forumSP there are a few problems with that IPA rubbish.
1st off none in the IPA would be at the front line fighting for Australia that's always reserved for the young working class or lower class = cannon fodder.
2nd the IPA are a massive part of the problem that's locked young Australians out of property markets.
3rd the youth of today clearly don't follow or accept the propaganda of the likes of the IPA.
IPA = dogs.... apology to dogs.
Only going off an article, same as most others on the forum
As to the veracity of it time will tell, currently they are struggling to get young people to join the armed forces, so no doubt many surveys will be carried out to acertain the cause.
Public sentiment usually comes through in the end, despite all the white noise, reality generally wins the day.
Waste of money': Dutton's pledge to abolish First Nations ambassador
Australia’s new First Nations People Ambassador, Justin Mohamed in Hawaii. Picture: Supplied
Peter Dutton has pledged to axe the position of ambassador for First Nations people if the Coalition is elected.
“If it is the case that we win the next election, that position will be abolished on day one,” he told 2GB.
“That money will be spent to help Australians who are struggling at the moment to keep a roof over their head or to pay their electricity bill. We’ve got higher priorities at the moment.”
The Daily Telegraph reported that the First Nations Ambassador billed more than $350,000 in the last financial year on overseas trips.
“I think this is a waste of money,” he said. “Nobody can point to what it’s achieved. It’s the only position of its nature in the world.
“And it was all about talking to the voice and the Makarrata Commission and truth telling. Now, the Prime Minister’s got another $20m or $30m, I think it is, on a Makarrata Commission, which he some days says he’s going to do and other days he says he’s not. But again, complete waste of money. And it’ll be a very different way of governing if we win the next election.”
Office for First Nations International Engagement/Ambassador for First Nations People
Mr Justin Mohamed was announced as Australia's inaugural Ambassador for First Nations People by the Foreign Minister, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, The Hon Linda Burney MP, and Senator Patrick Dodson on 7 March 2023. Mr Mohamed commenced in the role on 3 April 2023 ensuring, for the first time, that Australia has dedicated First Nations representation in our international engagement.
The Ambassador for First Nations People's responsibilities include:
1. Embed First Nations perspectives into Australia's foreign policy
- Provide strategic guidance on the development and implementation of a First Nations approach to foreign policy.
- Design and establish a process to systematically engage and consult First Nations communities, advocates and leaders to bring Indigenous perspectives into Australian diplomacy, and advise on how Australia's international engagement can best support and maximise opportunities for First Nation Australians in a globalised world.
2. Enhance Australia's engagement in the Indo-Pacific Region
- Draw on First Nations experiences and contemporary ties – particularly with the Pacific – to strengthen connections between First Nations peoples and communities of the region.
- Help foster cooperation between First Nations Australians and regional partners based on the unique experiences and knowledge of First Nations people in order to address shared challenges such as health security, environmental management and climate change, and gender equality, including through the aid program.
3. Progress First Nations' rights and interests globally
- Establish international First Nations dialogues on truth telling and treaty with likeminded countries to share experiences and knowledge of reconciliation processes and other First Nations issues, starting with New Zealand and Canada.
- Lead Australia's engagement on Indigenous issues in international fora, including in human rights, and specialised Indigenous bodies at the UN, to promote, protect, and progress the rights and interests of indigenous peoples around the world.
- Actively communicate domestic lessons and best practices on First Nations issues (particularly throughout the Pacific Region) and deepen cooperation with New Zealand, Canada, and other likeminded partners within multilateral and regional fora.
- Work with First Nations communities to identify and repatriate human remains and sacred objects located around the world.
4. Support First Nations Trade and Investment
- Support work to incorporate First Nations' business and exporter interests into our trade negotiations, international agreements and engagements and export growth strategies and activities.
- Promote the excellence, ideas and unique offerings of First Nation Australian businesses.
- Advise DFAT and portfolio partners on pathways to help grow First Nations' trade and investment.
5. Bolster Australia's First Nations diplomatic capability and advocacy
- Assist DFAT and the portfolio to embed Australian First Nations' perspectives and experiences in all facets of its work, including by providing high-level advice on building DFAT's capability to do so, working closely with DFAT's Indigenous Champion, and Indigenous Employees Network, as well as the Diplomatic Academy.
- Work with Australia's thematic Ambassadors, especially the Ambassador for Human Rights, Gender Equality, and Climate Change, to champion First Nations approaches as part of their international advocacy.
- Support DFAT's diplomatic network to project modern Australia and First Nations voices to the region and the world, including through DFAT's strategic communications.
- Work with Department to advise and support DFAT's Indigenous human resources capability and processes, including recruitment, retention and mentoring of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff.
First Nations foreign policy: Strengthening Australia-PNG Ties
Executive summary
Incorporating First Nations perspectives into Australia–Papua New Guinea engagements has the potential to transform and elevate relations between our two countries. The active involvement of First Nations Australians in diplomatic roles, particularly with PNG, ensures that foreign policy and development programs are culturally sensitive and inclusive.
In 2023, the Australian Government established the Office for First Nations International Engagement led by the Ambassador for First Nations People, Justin Mohamed. The Ambassador’s role in international forums is to represent the diverse cultural values and perspectives of Indigenous Australian communities, taking Australia’s Indigenous identity to the world. This approach champions a new model of international relations grounded in mutual respect and understanding.
Indigenous-led initiatives in international trade and business can be a transformative force. Collaborative platforms for Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs from both Australia and PNG would not only strengthen economic ties but also empower Indigenous communities and women. This type of empowerment is key to fostering sustainable economic growth that honours and preserves cultural heritage.
In education, integrating historic and geographic ties between Australia and PNG into curricula would cultivate early cultural understanding and respect. Digital technology is a vital tool in enhancing access to education and service delivery, especially in healthcare, where it broadens the scope for professional development and improves healthcare delivery in remote areas.
Healthcare strategies that facilitate the exchange of knowledge between Australian and PNG mental health experts, tailored as culturally appropriate and rooted in community- based practices, would contribute to addressing the unique mental and physical health challenges faced by Indigenous communities.
Sports diplomacy is a powerful mechanism for fostering cultural exchange, economic development, unity, and health awareness. Annual sports events and shared training camps between Indigenous Australian and PNG teams would create new platforms for cultural dialogue and building community ties.
Addressing the shared challenge of climate, environment, and disaster response is where collaborative approaches blending traditional ecological knowledge with scientific research would have a huge impact across borders. Such an approach aims to create effective adaptation and resilience strategies for communities most vulnerable to climate impacts and extreme weather events.
Incorporating Indigenous knowledge and leadership across these and other sectors would redefine Australia–PNG relations. This focus underscores the importance of collaborative, culturally informed approaches that respect and honour the rich heritage and wisdom of Indigenous communities in both countries. It marks a significant shift towards more inclusive and sustainable practices in diplomacy, trade, education, health, sports, and environmental sustainability.
Civil society, the business community, and educational institutions will be the drivers of building closer First Nations ties between our two countries. But the convening power and support of both the Australian and PNG governments for these efforts are crucial to their success.
The recommendations identified by the emerging leaders represent a comprehensive approach to strengthening Australia–PNG relations by harnessing the power of Indigenous knowledge, cultural exchange, and mutual respect. The Dialogue acknowledges the diverse and rich heritage of both nations and proposes a path forward that is inclusive, sustainable, and beneficial for both Australian and PNG communities.
Key recommendations:
A full list is included in the Recommendations section.
- Enhance Indigenous participation in diplomacy and development, ensuring that First Nations perspectives, knowledge and leadership are core to building and maintaining closer ties.
- Foster Australia–PNG Indigenous business ties, with a special focus on empowering Indigenous women in business, through forums, mentorships, and innovation grants.
- Co-design climate adaptation strategies that integrate traditional knowledge systems from both Indigenous Australian and PNG communities with scientific expertise.
About the Emerging Leaders Dialogue
Twenty young and emerging leaders from Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Australia gathered in Cairns from 16–20 October for the 2023 Australia–Papua New Guinea Emerging Leaders Dialogue.
The Dialogue is the annual flagship event of the Australia–Papua New Guinea Network, a Lowy Institute project supported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which aims to build links and understanding between Australia and PNG.
The program opened with a discussion led by Australia’s inaugural Ambassador for First Nations People, Justin Mohamed. Over the following five days, participants explored the theme of First Nations Foreign Policy, focusing on development and human security issues relevant to PNG and Australia. Session themes spanned from defence to sports, media, arts, and culture. Activities included an Indigenous cultural tour in Mandingalbay, and site visits to Indigenous art galleries, the Performing Arts Centre, and James Cook University. The Lowy Institute also co-hosted a business reception with Tradelinked Cairns–PNG–Pacific, bringing the local and regional trade community together with the emerging leaders.
The group discussed the Australia–PNG defence relationship, including issues of sovereignty, treaties, and self-determination, with Australian government and military officials, before being given a tour of the Norship shipyard (Pacific patrol boats maintenance) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Training College (for Pacific mariners).
A panel discussion with sporting stars gave an opportunity to discuss the role of sport in building ties and supporting community development. On the final day, a media session with a Cairns-based First Nations journalist and the ABC’s International Development department focused on media’s role in regional development and women in news and sport. This media discussion was followed by a practical demonstration of “MoJo” – mobile journalism – and a video journal session for each participant to reflect on the week.
Participants considered how Australia can draw from its diverse and rich First Nations history, connections, and identity to improve the Australia–PNG relationship. The role of partners such as the Australian government, businesses, and community organisations was central to the discussions. The group explored the First Nations theme from the perspectives of sovereignty, history, culture, meaningful connectivity, cultural literacy, development, defence, and gender. Participants developed recommendations for the Australian and PNG governments and the business community, with the goal of improving links between the two countries.
This outcomes report is a summary of the discussions held. All participants contributed to the compilation of this report. Notes have been provided on a non-attributable basis.
Mihai Sora, Project Director of the Australia–PNG Network, and Dr Jessica Collins, Research Fellow in the Pacific Islands Program, convened the Dialogue.
Indigenous diplomacy and development
Cross-cultural exchanges are both beneficial and essential for effective diplomatic engagement. Despite the rich diversity within Australia’s First Nations communities, there are untapped opportunities to enhance the sharing of values and interests with PNG. Ideally, this should be led by First Nations people themselves, in partnership with the Australian government.
A prime avenue for such exchanges is through the role of Australia’s First Nations Ambassador. This ambassador should be a key participant in official visits to PNG and the wider Pacific region, alongside the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Additionally, there should be an increase in the involvement of Indigenous Australians in development programs in PNG, allowing them to share their unique insights and experiences with development initiatives from Australia. It is important to create more opportunities for First Nations individuals to partake in diplomatic missions in ways that reflect Indigenous leadership styles and practices.
“First Nations Australians and Papua New Guineans share histories, trade, values and culture that elevate the relationship to a profound level.”
All levels of Australian diplomacy, regardless of their rank, would greatly benefit from participating in First Nations cultural awareness programs before their assignments in PNG. The goal is to empower non-Indigenous Australians to engage with and competently address Indigenous issues within their diplomatic roles. Complementing this, the Australian government could offer reciprocal cross- cultural awareness programs to PNG diplomats and public servants assigned to work in Australia.
A key example of effective Indigenous diplomacy is the Torres Strait Treaty. This complex yet forward-thinking agreement defines the maritime boundaries between PNG and Australia and protects the ways of life of the traditional inhabitants in the Torres Strait. Its mechanisms for dispute resolution, resource management, and trade regulation serve as a global exemplar of successful Indigenous foreign policy. This treaty balances the preservation of ancient cultural, migration, trade, and social connections with the safeguarding of crucial resources.
Trade and business
The traditional trading practices between the Torres Strait Islands of Papua New Guinea and Australia have been dynamic for centuries. Currently, this relationship is bolstered by formal agreements such as the Papua New Guinea–Australia Comprehensive Strategic and Economic Partnership (CSEP), which articulates a joint economic vision. In 2020, bilateral trade exceeded AU$6 billion, with Australia’s investment in PNG reaching approximately AU$26 billion in 2022.
Government agencies such as the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and PNG’s Ministry of International Trade and Investment are pivotal in facilitating and expanding this trade. Yet challenges persist in accessing international markets. The appointment of Australia’s First Nations Ambassador could be a strategic move to enhance First Nations trade, offering a guided pathway for more seamless business interactions between Australia and PNG.
“The potential for First Nations–PNG business partnerships is immense, offering opportunities to build local supply chains and enhance skills.”
While numerous conferences and forums exist for Australian and PNG businesses, including First Nations business trade fairs in Australia, a significant gap remains. There is no major platform dedicated to connecting Australian First Nations businesses with their PNG Indigenous counterparts. Establishing such a platform could be transformative, fostering new business partnerships and referrals, connecting entrepreneurs with advisory services and government procurement officers, and facilitating networking opportunities. These interactions can help share ideas and experiences, and inspire future entrepreneurs. Importantly, such a forum should include a specific focus on Indigenous women’s economic empowerment.
Organisations such as the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), in collaboration with the PNG government, are working to promote economic growth in PNG through sustainable practices in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. These efforts enhance market access and services, although biosecurity challenges persistently impede trade with Australia. Investing in stronger biosecurity measures and supply chain enhancements could significantly improve and deepen trade relations between the two nations.
Economic development
Historically, Australia’s First Nations peoples established robust trade networks with their PNG neighbours, facilitated by their geographical proximity. Today, this connection endures, particularly between the Torres Strait communities and PNG. The Torres Strait Treaty, a pivotal agreement, delineates seabed jurisdiction and allows for freedom of movement of traditional inhabitants for traditional activities as defined under the Treaty.
“Economic development must pave the way for genuine economic empowerment, especially for Indigenous communities.”
The economic development challenges faced by Indigenous groups on both sides of the Torres Strait are distinct, yet there exist shared opportunities and valuable lessons. These can be leveraged to economically empower Indigenous communities in both nations, particularly in sectors such as extractive industries, entrepreneurship, and agriculture
The extractive industry — a significant economic driver in both Australia and PNG — presents complex challenges. In PNG, issues such as government incapacity, revenue distribution, corruption, inequality, and conflict hinder communities from reaping mutual benefits. The government’s increased stake in mining projects further complicates this dynamic. Similarly, in Australia, ongoing complexities around land and cultural heritage rights, including entitlement to economic benefits, remain unresolved. The Australian mining industry has had to become more responsive to Indigenous communities, particularly following incidents such as the destruction at Juukan Gorge, which sparked significant public outcry.
This evolving relationship between mining companies, governments, and Indigenous communities globally can offer insights for smaller communities in PNG. These communities often face a power imbalance in land use negotiations. Providing specialised technical and legal support could enhance their ability to negotiate effectively with corporations and the government. Additionally, bolstering civil society organisations in Australia and PNG through funding and partnerships can ensure that obligations are met, and community interests are advocated for when necessary.
With the PNG government’s growing involvement in mining, the prompt operationalisation of PNG’s Sovereign Wealth Fund will mitigate losses and secure the economic future of rural communities. In Australia, mining companies could explore establishing similar wealth funds for Indigenous groups, channelling resources into education, business development, training, healthcare, and other critical areas of community development.
Torres Strait Treaty
Signed in 1978 and entered into force in 1985, under international law the Torres Strait Treaty is regarded one of the most progressive and creative solutions to a complex boundary problem. Defining the maritime border between Australia and PNG, the Treaty protects traditional ways of life on the Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ) and provides subsidiary management arrangements for commercial fisheries. The TSPZ allows Torres Strait Islanders and coastal Papua New Guineans to move freely (without passports or visas) around the Zone, supporting traditional practices including trade.
There is a Torres Strait Treaty Liaison Office on Thursday Island and a PNG Border Liaison Office on Daru Island. Collective mechanisms also exist to maintain positive implementation of the Treaty, including a Traditional Inhabitants Meeting and Joint Advisory Council (an advisory body formed by Australia and PNG officials and traditional inhabitants), which ensures traditional inhabitants are consulted on matters concerning them. JAC reports are submitted to the foreign ministers of Australia and PNG.
“As a business owner I try to be a role model to other Indigenous people in Port Moresby.”
With up to four-fifths of PNG’s population engaged in an informal market dominated by subsistence living, the challenge to fostering Indigenous entrepreneurship is evident. The scarcity of private sector jobs limits career opportunities for the youth.
In contrast, Australian First Nations entrepreneurship is on the rise, buoyed by investments from philanthropic groups and government support. These initiatives are empowering First Nations businesses and entrepreneurs to expand nationally and internationally. Programs such as First Australians Capital illustrate this success, offering a variety of financial products to support high-potential Indigenous businesses.
PNG could benefit from adopting a similar model. A possible investment source is the Financing Funds of the Sovereign Wealth Fund, designed to support the government’s development and investment objectives with more adaptable operational guidelines. Investing in successful businesses that facilitate international trade not only boosts market confidence but also opens the door for further business investment. Such initiatives provide tangible examples and inspiration, which the PNG government could promote among its citizens to stimulate similar entrepreneurial growth.
First Australians Capital
First Australians Capital provides resources to potentially high-value Indigenous businesses, including professional business support and services, networking, and financial capital. The model aims to create an economy led by First Australians, by supporting Indigenous entrepreneurs to succeed and economically empowering them in the process. First Australians Capital is an ecosystem of partners eager to support the growth of the Indigenous economy, providing links between investors and investees.
“Gaining access to competitive international markets relies on knowledge exchange of traditional and modern farming techniques.”
The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme allows Pacific Islanders, including those from PNG, to work temporarily in Australia. Participants often find employment in agricultural sectors such as farming or in meatworks. This not only provides essential income through remittances and savings for their communities but also fosters a vital exchange of skills and knowledge.
The PALM scheme plays a dual role. It is a source of capital, which can be pivotal for starting businesses back in PNG. More importantly, it becomes a conduit for knowledge transfer and skill enhancement, especially for rural farmers looking to upgrade their farming practices and market competitiveness.
However, the recruitment process in PNG faces challenges. To optimise the benefits of this scheme, the PNG government needs to enhance support for its workers. This includes ensuring they are passport- ready by improving access to biometrics and medical panel facilities and providing alternative identity verification methods where traditional forms are insufficient. Investment in agencies and service providers across PNG’s four regions (Southern, Highlands, Momase, and New Guinea islands) is necessary. There is a pressing need to invest in national identification, passport, and police check agencies to expedite processing times.
On the Australian side, there is scope to increase the number of medical panel physicians and biometric collection centres to streamline the application process for PNG workers.
Aside from the PALM scheme, expanding the scope of recruitment agencies to focus on placing high school and university graduates in professional roles could yield significant benefits. The success of programs such as the 3 Emus Indigenous Recruitment Program and CareerTrackers in Australia and PNG underscores this potential. Facilitating connections between alumni of these placement programs from both countries can enhance professional opportunities and strengthen bilateral relations, fostering a robust, mutually beneficial partnership.....................
What a load of b/sNo does not mean no, apparently.
As a student, in both Primary and High School, I was taught to use multiple sources. In High School one of our classes was Multimedia Studies, it gave us a good foundation on listening to both sides of a story. From that I continue to this day to read, listen and watch multiple sources of information.
Including ABC radio every day, a little ABC/SBS TV but not as much as I once did for a couple of reason 1) I don't watch much TV anymore, 2) ABC TV mostly annoys me, but so does most TV. I read the Australian and AFR papers, but also ABC articles online. And I read other sources that people like yourself kindly add.
Which brings me to today's headline for the Voice.
Don’t blame 1788: the Whitlam years undermined Aboriginal Australia
Since the defeat of the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum, Indigenous truth and justice commissions have continued to extend their reach throughout different Australian states. They are all based on the assumption the Uluru Dialogues articulated: the problems that plague Indigenous communities can be traced back to the original trauma of dispossession.
Yet reality tells a very different story. Were 1788, and the train of colonial occupation that followed on from that, the primary cause, then you wouldn’t find such wide variation among Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians in urban areas and regional centres are hard to distinguish from the rest of the population in those places for levels of wealth, health, education and life outcomes.
The human crisis that produces and reproduces the Gap is much more clearly locatable. It is in the remote outstations of homeland settlements, and around some towns in isolated parts of the Australian interior. It is where there is no economic life outside the government provision of welfare and social services, and no jobs other than those government creates. These places, where basic social order and safety have largely vanished, have been described by Noel Pearson as worse than Third World countries.
Let’s face it: 1973 and 1974, not 1788, better explain this long-scale traumatic hurt and human damage. Those are the years when the new policy of self-determination, and the remote homelands ideal, properly took hold.
The idea that Indigenous peoples should themselves collectively decide the terms on which they would engage with Western life and settler society first emerged in the 1950s, thanks in no small part to the Australian Communist Party. As of 1931, communists argued that indigenous minorities in the advanced capitalist countries were oppressed colonial peoples. The glorious Soviet Socialist republics were “self-determining”, they declared – so should be indigenous minorities.
In an age of decolonisation, the idea had obvious appeal. Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who believed separating indigenous from other Canadians was a retrogressive step, and an inherently undemocratic one at that, issued a white paper, An End to Separatism, against it.
In Australia, Paul Hasluck, the commonwealth minister for states and territories, and thus the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, shared Trudeau’s views. Under his stewardship in the 1950s and 1960s, government repudiated the policy of protection that dominated the first half of the 20th century.
There is a solid argument advanced by Tim Rowse, an emeritus professor at Western Sydney University, that protection helped stabilise and rebuild the Indigenous population. But it undeniably treated Aborigines as inherently different, second-class citizens, to be kept apart from the ordinary population.
Hasluck instead sought a system “under which Aborigines were recognised as Australian citizens and were regarded as having the same status and rights as other Australian citizens”. Aborigines should be equals, treated equally. It was through Hasluck that Aborigines regained much of what they’d lost or been denied under protection: civil rights, and the right to vote federally, in 1962.
But after Harold Holt’s drowning, Hasluck narrowly lost the partyroom vote to John Gorton and shortly after effectively left public life. With Hasluck gone no one else seriously pushed back against the new policy concept of self-determination.
Whitlam with Gurindji women.
Conflated with the shame of the recently junked White Australia policy, assimilation and even integration became bogey words, freighted with the stigma of racism. Hasluck’s policy was condemned for violating the Indigenous right to decide for themselves.
Like multiculturalism – another buzzy, yet originally nebulous word that became policy without public debate about what it meant – self-determination germinated under the Coalition, was supercharged under Gough Whitlam, and then became orthodoxy. Even to question it was to be tarred with hankering for the bad old days of assimilation. Yet self-determination produced failure on a vast, indeed cataclysmic scale.
Activist bureaucrats such as Herbert “Nugget” Coombs enthusiastically endorsed the idea that Indigenous communities in remote regions should be established largely outside modern capitalist Australia. After Whitlam’s 1972 election victory unemployment benefits were made available to all Indigenous people, even if they lived in communities where there were no jobs. It proved to be one of the most poisonous policy decisions of the 20th century.
In the 1950s and 1960s Aborigines had been employed at remote settlements and missions in government-run enterprises, which enabled them to work and live there. Piggeries, orchards, chicken runs, vegetable gardens, sawmills, bakeries and butcheries flourished. After 1972 young people knew they could get paid more money by not working – “sit-down money”, or the dole. The enterprises collapsed.
Whitlam at the Aboriginal tent embassy set up on lawns of Parliament House in 1976.
In many areas self-determination’s wave of social destruction was made worse by the equal wages decision of 1967. On pastoral stations Indigenous cattlemen worked in a largely cashless economy. They were paid for work largely in rations, clothes and basic accoutrements, while continuing to work and live with their families on traditional country. The rations were often paid to the women, giving them considerable influence.
Once equal pay came in, pastoralists switched even more quickly to new technology, and to more skilled workers to run their stock. Combined with the total loss of incentive to work from sit-down money, and the new ubiquity of the modern cash economy – including guns, grog, pornography and drugs – the traditional societies of remote Australia began to rapidly disintegrate, precipitating a dramatic rise in rates of offending and incarceration.
The fate of Vincent Lingiari’s Gurindji people illustrate this tragedy all too vividly. Writer and historian Charlie Ward describes how welfare payments, infrastructure development wages and “unprecedented amounts of funding” from the government fundamentally compromised Gurindji autonomy in the years after Whitlam had poured a handful of sand into Lingiari’s open palm in 1975. Younger generation Gurindji refused to work in the Gurindji-operated cattle operation, rejecting their elders’ traditional authority.
A society that “had masterfully sustained itself by hard work and self-motivation” fell apart, chiefly “as a result of government assistance given under policies of Aboriginal self-management”.
Indigenous policy has been our greatest failure. Ultimately, it is not just a failure of policies but of ideas. In a society where all Australians depend on each other – economically, socially, politically – the notion that any group can be “self-determining” is a fantasy. Fifty years after the Whitlam government raised that fantasy into a religion, it’s time reality was given a stronger say.
Alex McDermott is an independent historian.
Yes voters still cannot see that their country voted for equality
“The story of the referendum matters and history matters.” So said Indigenous professor of law Megan Davis. It’s a terrible shame, then, that Davis and others interviewed by this newspaper last week have, a year on, still ignored why Australians voted against the voice.
History matters when it is accurately told. That is what John Roskam has done in his report Why Australians Voted to Be Equal, to be published on Friday.
The report sets out the results of the most comprehensive polls of Australians after last year’s constitutional ballot.
The Australians Speak survey, commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs and Advance Australia, the two groups that spearheaded the No side, asked 3526 Australians a week after the referendum why they voted against the proposal to alter the federal Constitution to create a permanent Indigenous-only body.
The real story of the 2023 referendum is brimming not with emotion but data.
When asked to nominate any of eight reasons that best explained their decision to vote No, 70 per cent of Australians surveyed said the voice would divide Australia. Sixty-six per cent said there was not enough detail. Sixty per cent of Australians surveyed said the voice would make Australians unequal.
Last October’s referendum was a defining moment for the country. The vote against the voice was a rejection by a large swath of the country of identity politics, and an embrace of that fundamental civic value of equality over separatism.
Roskam notes that while there were more than 50 published polls before the referendum asking Australians how they might vote, only three comprehensive polls since the vote have asked Australians why they voted the way they did.
Analysis deliberately bereft of data is just waft. That’s what most Yes campaigners have offered since the referendum. Evidence would get in the way of them blaming the result on racism and ignorance, or on other equally spurious grounds – for example, claiming that Labor MPs and unions didn’t do enough to help, that infighting killed the voice and, even less credulously, that the voice failed because of insufficient money and time.
Are they serious? More than $50m was spent by the Yes campaign – a lot of it swiped from shareholders – to try to convince Australians. Hard data wouldn’t allow them to blame the loss on Peter Dutton either.
Their responses tell their own story, not one about the referendum result.
The publication of Roskam’s report and the Australians Speak survey by polling company Insightfully lays bare the real reason the voice failed.
While the poll shows that 60 per cent of Australians still support Indigenous recognition in the Constitution, entrenching inequality in the Constitution was a bridge too far.
Roskam is correct to conclude “the outcome of the voice referendum was the most decisive result of any significant political contest in Australian history”.
His analysis reveals that the thumping defeat of the 2023 referendum proposal surpassed defeats of earlier important referendum proposals – from conscription in 1916 (52 per cent against) to banning the Communist Party in 1951 (51 per cent against) to the republic referendum in 1999 (55 per cent against). Nor has any federal election contest since Federation attracted a 60 per cent voting bloc of Australians akin to the No vote last year.
While some previous referendum proposals attracted a higher No vote, as Roskam details, none of them had to counter a tidal wave of support from high-profile political, media, business, religious, education and arts elites as the Yes case did for the voice.
That made the No vote in favour of equality even more telling – even if it wasn’t surprising to Roskam. “The ‘seductive idea’ – that everyone is equal – is the foundation of the modern world and of liberal democracy,” he writes. “It is also an idea at the heart of Christianity. In his Epistle to the Galatians, Paul writes, ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ ”
Under Roskam’s leadership, the IPA prosecuted the case for equality when the voice concept was first raised in 2015. The IPA’s message in its Race Has No Place research program was clear: “Changing the Constitution by dividing Australians according to race or ethnic background makes us all unequal.”
As Roskam writes in his soon-to-be-published report, “Nearly 10 years later (equality) was the reason a majority of Australians voted No.”
Those foolish enough to quip that “Roskam would say that, wouldn’t he” must deal with overwhelming evidence. As Roskam says, the Australians Speak data is confirmed in two other surveys done in the weeks after the October 14 referendum last year.
In a poll of 4200 people by the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods immediately after the referendum vote, 66.1 per cent of respondents said dividing the country was a “very important” factor in deciding how they voted. ANU’s Australian Constitutional Referendum Study concluded: “The data suggests that Australians voted no because they didn’t want division and remain sceptical of rights for some Australians that are not held by others.”
The poll commissioned by The Australian Population Research Institute in December last year of 3001 respondents found 53 per cent of people who voted No chose this reason: “We are one country, and no legal or political body should be defined on the basis of race or ethnicity.”
Roskam is right that before the October 14 ballot, “supporters of the voice never came to terms with the key argument against the voice which was its creation would overturn the principle of equality of citizenship and so would divide Australians”.
The senior fellow at the IPA told me this week that voice advocates refused to engage with real constitutional conservatives like him because they had no satisfactory response to concerns that “the voice created ‘separate Aboriginal rights’ and so divided Australians and overturned equality of citizenship”.
Some simply ignored it. Roskam points to law professors Davis and George Williams, who made no mention of equality in their 200-page book Everything You Need to Know About The Uluru Statement From the Heart.
Others advanced woefully unconvincing arguments. The constitutional expert group – chaired by Labor Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and comprising six professors of law, a former High Court judge and Noel Pearson – claimed “the voice does not confer ‘rights’ much less ‘special rights’ on Indigenous people”.
You didn’t need a law degree to understand that a proposal to cement into the Constitution a body for Indigenous people only was a fundamental breach of the civic value that everyone have equal rights.
To their credit, says Roskam, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson and Father Frank Brennan had a serious crack at answering the voice’s fundamental flaw of infringing equality.
Turnbull said he would vote Yes despite his misgivings that the voice was inconsistent with his “republican and egalitarian principles” that all offices in a constitutional democracy should be open to every Australian.
Brennan was the most intellectually honest. Roskam says the Jesuit priest and law professor acknowledged the “concept of the voice does positively discriminate in favour of Indigenous Australians, that it does provide Indigenous Australians with special rights, and it does provide those special rights to Indigenous Australians by virtue of their group identity. For Brennan the voice is a measure necessary to address the disadvantage experienced by Indigenous Australians.”
Crowds hold up a placard during a "Walk for Yes" rally for the voice referendum in Melbourne on September 17, 2023. Picture: AFP
Still, the resounding belief among grassroots Australians in unity and equality was a wake-up call to the vast number of religious leaders who supported the Yes side. With the Australians Speak poll revealing that 74 per cent of religious voters rejected the voice, “it’s clear,” writes Roskam, “that those religious organisations did not speak for their members”.
The Australians Speak data also buries the fallacy that bipartisan support would have ensured the voice won.
More than one-third of Labor voters – 37 per cent – rejected the voice. Eighty-two per cent of all respondents said Coalition opposition to the voice “made no difference” to how they voted on October 14. Similarly, 70 per cent said Labor’s support for the voice “made no difference”. As Roskam points out, some referendums (in 1937, 1967 and 1977) have failed with bipartisan support and one passed (in 1946) without bipartisanship. In any case, plenty of premiers openly supported the voice, along with other state and federal Liberal MPs.
As Roskam writes: “Yes advocates should not have been ‘shell-shocked’ by the power of words such as ‘equal’ and ‘equality’.”
Many of them, after all, had worked on the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017 where the theme of “marriage equality” convinced 62 per cent of Australians to vote Yes. A similar number of Australians voted in favour of equal rights under the Constitution for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
“To some it might have appeared that those who argued for ‘equality’ in 2017 were arguing against ‘equality’ in 2023.”
The Australians Speak poll contains other nuggets about the nation. Go read it.
The final word goes to Roskam: “At a time when social cohesion is under unprecedented strain and our way of life under assault, we chose unity over division. The referendum result should give Australians the confidence to speak freely about issues that for too long have been deemed off-limits.”
"Equality"
Is that why we have a "gap report".
Or
Gap report = Inequality?
Equality <> Equity"Equality"
Is that why we have a "gap report".
Or
Gap report = Inequality?
‘Time is over’ for ‘in denial’ voice advocates: Price
On the one-year anniversary of the failed referendum, Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Price has called for Yes proponents who ‘still want to deny the outcome’ to move forward.
On the one-year anniversary of the failed referendum, Senator Price again pledged a royal commission into sexual abuse of Indigneous children under a Coalition government.
“The Yes proponents who still want to deny the outcome of the referendum, most of them have six-figure salaries, they’re academics, they’re sitting in organisations, their children are going to school,” she said.
“All we want is for marginalised Indigenous Australians to have the same opportunities that they have had.
“Their time is over. If they want to continue to look toward the past, then stay there. But we want to move forward and progress forward for the benefit of marginalised Indigenous Australians whose first language is not English, who are forgotten in remote communities, and who the Albanese Government continues to ignore.”
Senator Price also pledged that a Coalition government would be more open to different language groups forming separate land councils.
“I will be ensuring that I am supporting their progress toward establishing an Arrernte Land Council and I would consider the request of other language groups to do the same thing,” she said.
“They talk about self-determination a hell of a lot on the left side of politics, this is what self-determination looks like in practice.” Noah Yim
Indigenous voice Yes campaign ‘obsessed’ with misinformation, failed to engage debate: lawyers
Prominent lawyers and staunch Indigenous voice advocates have condemned Megan Davis’s claims that a misinformation bill could have helped secure a Yes victory, with one leading supporter asserting that the Yes campaign became “obsessed” with critics’ misleading narratives while also spreading untruths themselves.
Constitutional lawyer Greg Craven, a vocal supporter of the voice and member of the referendum working group, told The Australian the Yes campaign were also complicit in spreading disinformation in the lead up to the referendum, including claims surrounding the inclusion of executive government in the proposal.
Meanwhile prominent silk Arthur Moses SC said that the referendum failed due to the government’s lack of detail, not misinformation, and said Labor’s bill in its current form would shut down “legitimate expressions of opinions” and be “counter-productive” for voters.
Their comments come after Professor Davis, one of the Voice to parliament architects, in a lecture at the University of NSW called for misinformation legislation to protect a future referendum from an onslaught of lies and distortions, following the defeat of the Yes campaign in October last year.
Mr Craven said during the campaign he engaged in private conversations trying to have leading Yes advocates to engage in meaningful discussions rather than characterising opposing arguments as misinformation.
“Large swathes of the Yes campaign were obsessed with the idea of misinformation and disinformation and would characterise any contrary argument as misinformation or disinformation,” he said.
“So arguments on the no case were not simply wrong or to be argued against, they fell into this category of misinformation or disinformation which meant they should be effectively banned from the referendum.”
“That was a huge worry and it was a worry that I consistently raised in private meetings – that you can't run a referendum campaign if all you can do is say that the other side is lying.”
Mr Craven said it was incredibly important to draw a distinction between disinformation – something that is fundamentally and knowingly untrue – and misinformation, which is something that happens to be wrong, but the person saying it believes it to be true.
“The example of something that is disinformation on the No side would be that the voice would be a third House of Parliament,” he said. “There’s simply no way that’s true. However, if you ran the line that having a voice would divide Australia on the grounds of race, I fundamentally disagree with that, I think it’s utter nonsense and it’s wrong. But I think there were thousands and thousands of people saying that who were not for a single moment trying to deceive anyone. That was just their view.”
He said while there were some “big examples” of disinformation on the No side, the Yes side also pushed some untruths.
“For example, the idea that the having the words executive in were no problem, and that the executive would never be shanghaied into major decisions by the voice, because the drafting was perfect,” he said.
“I think that verged on disinformation. You can tell that because at different times, different people on the Yes case, notably including Megan (Davis) were saying totally contradictory things.
“When they wanted the voice to be powerful, they could say it would do lots of things. But when they wanted to reassure people that it wouldn’t be too powerful, they would say it was going to be very, very weak.”
The Albanese government’s revamped misinformation bill, which will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to fine tech giants millions of dollars for false content it deems harmful, has been widely panned by human rights groups, religious groups, the Coalition and other advocates of free speech.
Mr Craven criticised the bill more broadly, saying “the idea that you could have any sort of public authority, simply declaring that something is misinformation or disinformation is a real concern”.
“The idea that every time someone disagrees with you, if you happen to have the power in the area, you can shut them down,” he said. “I think that’s a huge concern.”
Mr Moses, a former president of the Law Council and the NSW Bar Association, said that seeking to restrain the freedom of speech of Australians “will not win their vote but will be counter-productive”.
“I disagree with Professor Davis and I am profoundly disappointed that such proposals are being advanced,” he said.
“I was an advocate for the Voice referendum but I believe that we have to respect the judgment of the Australian public and not advance excuses as to why the referendum failed which seek to blame the No campaign.
“The reason the referendum failed was not because of misinformation but because there was not sufficient detail about the proposal. That is a simple and undeniable fact.”
But Mr Moses said rather than advocating on having laws passed that “seek to restrain the freedom of speech on this issue” the focus should be on “details with advocacy that wins the contest of ideas”.
“That is the very stuff of a democracy. Australians are smart and compassionate. If you present Australians with the facts and advance your case with respect for their wisdom they will listen and come with you on the journey,” he said.
“Australians do not like to be lectured to by anyone. They appreciate dialogue and debates. Seeking to restrain freedom of speech will not win their vote but will be counter-productive.”
Mr Moses said the misinformation bill “misses the target” and there was “legitimate concern” it “could be weaponised to shut down debate on matters of public importance”.
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?