The Voice

[wayneL]

“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.”​

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.​

​

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.”​

Yes, on X the screeching leftists are still out calling the No vote racists and RWNJs. All The usual suspects of course Philip Adams, Mike Carlton et al., all of whom should have been sectioned a long time ago.

They just cannot come to terms with the fact that they were wrong and were out argued based on facts and common sense. All rather tiresome.

Of particular note to me is that there could be a Voice informally, which the government might want to consider if they were sincere. Yet what has happened is that indigenous people have been absolutely ignored and scorned by this Labor government.

Your action speak so loudly that I can't hear what you say, Mr Albanese.

 

[IFocus]

The sheer hypocrisy of Price is stunning.

 

[IFocus]

"I am not bringing up these issues again to relitigate the issues of the referendum. Instead, I want to ask a very important question: the Voice to Parliament was designed to address our systemic disadvantage, so what solutions to these serious structural issues have any of the No campaigners offered in the past 12 months?"

We have seen some policies from the Coalition. Plans to reduce “fly in, fly out” workers in remote communities. Reforming land rights and native title. A royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Less need for programs with “a specific Indigenous focus” in urban areas, where most First Nations people live.

Some of these are just a rehash of failed Coalition policies of the past, as many others have mentioned. Some appear to have come personally from Senator Jacinta Price and are seemingly not backed by experts (or many people in Indigenous communities). Others appear to be tied directly into conservative political talking points, rather than really addressing Indigenous need.

The Coalition also abandoned its plan for an alternative second referendum almost immediately after the failed vote.

The Coalition and other leading No campaigners clearly have no plans to address the structural issues facing our peoples. They’re only offering more of the regular policy tinkering and seesawing we have seen far too often before.

"Charting a way forward​

Research following the referendum shows that 87% of Australians think First Nations peoples should be able to decide for ourselves about our way of life. Moreover, 64% think the disadvantages faced by our communities warrant extra government attention, and 68% believe this disadvantage comes from “past race-based policies”.

Only 35% believe Indigenous peoples are now treated equally to other Australians, and only 37% believe injustices faced by our community are “all in the past”.



The Albanese government’s policy focus has been on economic empowerment, not structural reform. Mick Tsikas/AAP

This clearly shows a level of recognition by the Australian people that something needs to be done about Indigenous policy and the structural issues in this country.

According to the same data, 87% of Australians agree it is “important for First Nations peoples to have a voice/say in matters that affect them”. This jumps to 98.5% among Yes voters, but also is true of 76% of No voters.

This suggests that Australian people see the problem and can identify the structural issues."

The Voice defeat set us all back. And since then, our leaders have given up

No campaigners said the Voice wasn’t the right solution, that they had better alternatives. In the 12 months since the referendum failed, no one’s offered any real solutions.

theconversation.com

 

[JohnDe]

The sheer hypocrisy of Price is stunning.

It's ok to have an opinion and to dislike another person's opinion, but it is not fair or wise to attack an opinion without first conducting some research.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

Price's activism and views focus primarily on issues faced by Aboriginal communities, and she is a vocal advocate for conservative Aboriginal politics in Australia. She has highlighted the high rates of domestic and other violence in Aboriginal communities, and advocates for a law and order approach. She is critical of welfare dependency and "opportunistic collectivism". She opposed the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and thinks that calls to change Australia Day and the Australian flag are counterproductive to Aboriginal advancement.​

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.​

 

[sptrawler]

There appears to be a reluctance to actually carry out a thorough audit of why the current money isn't getting down to the grass roots people.
If we take the official figures, that there are only about 1million Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, there is a lot of money going somewhere.

When we consider the amount of Government money directed to the plight of aboriginals and then add to that the amount of money that is given to the aboriginals through land access deals with the mining companies, the obvious first step would be to acertain why the money isn't getting through.

When there is a suggestion that an audit be carried out, an uproar ensues, IMO credibility is the issue that is causing the distrust.

Maybe no one believes the fundamental driver is to improve the situation for the grass roots people, there is always a veil of secrecy about how the money appears to go missing, somewhere between the recievers of the money and the obvious lack of services that the money is meant to deliver.

Maybe there should be more transparency, as to why the current model isn't working, before moving on to more autonomy and secrecy?
Constantly saying the gap is widening when more money is being thrown at it, is like our education system, where no one is being honest why the standards are falling even though more money is thrown at it.

The general public is becoming more questioning these days, that's what the Govt isn't getting.
Due to the internet, most only believe half of what is said, because they can cross check everything..

 

[macca]

There appears to be a reluctance to actually carry out a thorough audit of why the current money isn't getting down to the grass roots people.
If we take the official figures, that there are only about 1million Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, there is a lot of money going somewhere.

When we consider the amount of Government money directed to the plight of aboriginals and then add to that the amount of money that is given to the aboriginals through land access deals with the mining companies, the obvious first step would be to acertain why the money isn't getting through.

When there is a suggestion that an audit be carried out, an uproar ensues, IMO credibility is the issue that is causing the distrust.

Maybe no one believes the fundamental driver is to improve the situation for the grass roots people, there is always a veil of secrecy about how the money appears to go missing, somewhere between the recievers of the money and the obvious lack of services that the money is meant to deliver.

Maybe there should be more transparency, as to why the current model isn't working, before moving on to more autonomy and secrecy?
Constantly saying the gap is widening when more money is being thrown at it, is like our education system, where no one is being honest why the standards are falling even though more money is thrown at it.

The general public is becoming more questioning these days, that's what the Govt isn't getting.
Due to the internet, most only believe half of what is said, because they can cross check everything..

Your 1 million people are mainly in cities and rural towns, around here they are about 6% of the population, so about double the national average.

Of those 5000 probably 80% are in mixed relationships, they live normal lives like all the rest of us.

They do receive some benefits because of their race, (medical bulk billing is the sore point) but apart from a very few, they lead normal, productive lives with jobs, study and sport just the same as the rest of the population.

So, in reality, the billions of $$$ being thrown at the Media Muckraking is really meant for those who live in poor circumstances and they would probably number no more than 250k people.

Most of those would be in remote areas or on the fringe of country towns.

How we can destroy billions on 250k and make no headway over 20 years definitely needs a very hard look under a very bright light.

 

[IFocus]

There appears to be a reluctance to actually carry out a thorough audit of why the current money isn't getting down to the grass roots people.
If we take the official figures, that there are only about 1million Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, there is a lot of money going somewhere.

When we consider the amount of Government money directed to the plight of aboriginals and then add to that the amount of money that is given to the aboriginals through land access deals with the mining companies, the obvious first step would be to acertain why the money isn't getting through.

When there is a suggestion that an audit be carried out, an uproar ensues, IMO credibility is the issue that is causing the distrust.

Maybe no one believes the fundamental driver is to improve the situation for the grass roots people, there is always a veil of secrecy about how the money appears to go missing, somewhere between the recievers of the money and the obvious lack of services that the money is meant to deliver.

Maybe there should be more transparency, as to why the current model isn't working, before moving on to more autonomy and secrecy?
Constantly saying the gap is widening when more money is being thrown at it, is like our education system, where no one is being honest why the standards are falling even though more money is thrown at it.

The general public is becoming more questioning these days, that's what the Govt isn't getting.
Due to the internet, most only believe half of what is said, because they can cross check everything..

Sigh... 10 years of Coalition Party government and only now they want an audit how is that?

Why isn't there a ongoing audit procedure that is the norm around public monies? (suspect that there is something likely along the lines of the productivity commission but lets not get bogged down in that)

Price is in a full on war with various land councils due to her continuous tirade of unsubstantiated insults to the organisations its that bad her own mob are now indispute along with family members that refuse to talk to her same as Price refuses to talk to the land councils in her own electoral seat.

In revenge Price wants to break common areas down to lesser language areas in an effort to damage the existing structures.

Price doesn't care as its whites who vote her in not Aboriginals.

Tom Carma on the 7.30 report gave avery sincere view of the issues around the Voice failure and the failure of stable policy and working structures between states and various changes of government state and federal.

A purpose of the Voice was to give continuation of policy and structure that worked regardless of changing governments.

Meanwhile the Gap Report is going in the wrong direction and the No Vote is still to put up if not the Voice then what?

Crickets

 

[JohnDe]

Sigh... 10 years of Coalition Party government and only now they want an audit how is that?

Why isn't there a ongoing audit procedure that is the norm around public monies? (suspect that there is something likely along the lines of the productivity commission but lets not get bogged down in that)

Price is in a full on war with various land councils due to her continuous tirade of unsubstantiated insults to the organisations its that bad her own mob are now indispute along with family members that refuse to talk to her same as Price refuses to talk to the land councils in her own electoral seat.

In revenge Price wants to break common areas down to lesser language areas in an effort to damage the existing structures.

Price doesn't care as its whites who vote her in not Aboriginals.

Tom Carma on the 7.30 report gave avery sincere view of the issues around the Voice failure and the failure of stable policy and working structures between states and various changes of government state and federal.

A purpose of the Voice was to give continuation of policy and structure that worked regardless of changing governments.

Meanwhile the Gap Report is going in the wrong direction and the No Vote is still to put up if not the Voice then what?

Crickets

It shouldn't matter how long it has been called for, or which government was in charge in the past. What matters is what happens in the present.

Jacinta Price repeats calls for audit into Indigenous spending

Shadow minister for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has repeated calls for an audit of government spending on First Nations programs on the back of the Federal Budget being handed down.

During the referendum campaign Senator Price first flagged an audit of spending on First Nations Australians, however the proposal failed to gain broader support with Labor, the Greens and the senator David Pocock opposed.

Following Tuesday's budget Senator Price repeated calls for a spending audit, claiming the Albanese government is doomed to make the same mistakes if it didn't probe the funding of Indigenous programs.

"It is a relief the government has listened to the coalition's call to leave the divisive direction of the Voice behind, and instead focus on practical measures and economic opportunity for Indigenous Australians," she said.

"We have been calling for this directional change for some time and look forward to investigating to see if there is any substance to this rhetoric."

Senator Price said without a serious examination of Indigenous spending, "expectations to improve Closing the Gap targets should be tempered".

She said if the Albanese government didn't examine what was working and what was failing, with Indigenous funding nothing would improve.

"So much has been spent in this portfolio over the years, there are game-changing lessons just sitting and waiting to be unearthed with a proper forensic examination," she said.

Senator Price also said there needed to be an audit to ensure funding was getting to those who genuinely need it most.

"I hear people calling for it everywhere I go," she said.

"The mayor of Alice Springs Matt Paterson has also called for an investigation, and as independent member Robyn Lambley said, "we'll still be talking about the same problems if there's not greater accountability for every dollar that's spent in this space".

Senator Price also raised concerns about the NT Remote Housing Agreement, and the Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program.

The Federal Government's new $774 million economic empowerment program was the backbone of funding for First Nations people in Tuesday night's Federal Budget.

Labor's previously announced Remote Jobs program is expected to create 3,000 employment opportunities for regional workers.

"When the Prime Minister used Binjari as a backdrop for his remote housing announcement and then drove off without meeting with the Binjari Aboriginal Corporation, alarm bells started ringing," Senator Price said.

"There are no minimum targets, and the Commonwealth is partnering with a Territory government that was still $500 million behind its previous remote housing agreement when the new one was announced."

Senator Price is also again calling for a Royal Commission into sexual abuse in remote Indigenous communities.

"We need a Royal Commission to bring this unfolding tragedy in our most marginalised communities to light. Like so much of what life is actually like in our remote communities, it is out of sight and out of mind to this government," she said.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton and Senator Price have repeatedly pushed for a royal commission into alleged child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.

In October last year, 38 groups rejected the Liberal's call for a royal commission.

They included the WA commissioner for children and young people, Jacqueline McGowan-Jones; the National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research; Australia's first Indigenous senior counsel, Tony McAvoy SC; SNAICC; and Onemda Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Wellbeing.

"The safety of children should not be politicised or used as a platform to advance a political position," a statement said.

"It is frustrating and disappointing to hear the opposition leader and Senator Price repeating the same claims and calls they made earlier this year, again with no evidence and no credible solutions.

Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney hit back at Senator Price, saying she was "all over the shop".

"She says houses aren't being built quickly enough in remote communities in the NT, but they are now being built at twice the rate than under the Morrison coalition government," she told National Indigenous Times.

She also said the $500 million housing agreement had already been completed.

THE Abbott government is proposing the most radical and far-reaching changes to Aboriginal housing, with a plan to move indigenous people who send their children to school forward in waiting lists.

The changes would also enable Aboriginal people who get jobs away from remote communities to transfer their social housing and home ownership entitlements.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion signalled that preference for new public housing would be given to areas where land tenure provided for home ownership, such as 99-year leases or freehold title.

This will enrage some indigenous leaders and traditional owners, but the minister told The Weekend Australian that without land tenure economic development and the chance for home ownership down the track would be impossible.

Senator Scullion warned that if a state or territory was not up to the task the federal government reserved the right to take over delivery of social housing.

He said the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which was initiated by Labor in 2008 and expires in June, had not delivered on the promise of being a “long-term fix to the emergency”.

While more than $2.5 billion had been spent through the national agreement, overcrowding remained chronic in remote Australia and a “radical rethink” was overdue.

He said state and Northern Territory governments must manage remote indigenous housing as they did other public housing and vowed to begin bilateral agreements with each state and the Territory after June - rather than a national agreement.

“Why are we building houses in places where land tenure arrangements prevent people from ever buying the house?” he said.

“One aspect that I will be focusing on is how we can offer housing in a way that encourages mobility for those who want to move to areas with better employment opportunities.”

Mining magnate Andrew Forrest has called on the Abbott government to overhaul the rules that mean Aborigines lose their subsidised housing in remote communities if they take jobs.

Mr Forrest, who was recruited by Tony Abbott to chair the review and find better linkages to jobs for indigenous people, has said the national welfare and housing system is skewed towards ensuring Aborigines stayed unemployed.

Senator Scullion would be working with the states and the Northern Territory to reform a regime that was “clearly failing” and move towards building public housing only where there were land tenure arrangements in place for home ownership.

The minister said the government wanted new mobility packages for remote residents, with “portability of special housing and home ownership eligibility for those who want to move to areas with stronger labour markets”.

He wanted to impose a priority for the allocation of public housing to families in jobs or where children are regularly attending school.

“We also need to ensure that people in social housing are not adversely affected when taking up employment opportunities,” he said.

Public housing tenants should be able to purchase the homes they lived in, he said.

“A 99-year lease is the only bankable lease. Let me tell you there has been no money lent from a 40-year lease,” he said.

“I want social housing to be genuinely available to people to purchase.

“They will never purchase it if the underlining lease arrangements are so short-term.”

LABOR has declared it will oppose the Abbott government's radical and far-reaching changes to Aboriginal housing, arguing they will punish communities that do not want the leases the government is trying to impose.

Opposition indigenous affairs spokesman Shayne Neumann said Labor believed the plan was appalling and would hurt indigenous Australians. The bipartisan approach on indigenous affairs has been breaking down, with these comments the strongest indication yet that the two parties have radically different approaches to indigenous economic development.

The government plans to move indigenous people who send their children to school forward in waiting lists. The changes would also enable Aboriginal people who get jobs away from remote communities to transfer their social housing and home ownership entitlements.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion signalled that preference for new public housing would be given to areas where land tenure provided for home ownership, such as 99-year leases or freehold title. Mr Neumann said Labor would fight the plan.

"I think it would have a major implication for townships and communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander life in remote and regional areas," he said.

"We will not be supporting the idea of depriving people of the construction of new housing simply on the basis that they haven't got on board with Nigel Scullion's personal ambition to push the township lease issue."

Mr Neumann said linking housing with school attendance was equally troubling.

"The best thing you can say is that Nigel Scullion's truancy army's success is mixed, it's patchy and erratic," he said.

"An argument can be put that it's failing. Certainly on the evidence it's not being successful and I think he is confusing the right to public housing with the right of kids to go to school and get a decent education, and I don't think you should be trading this off in this way."

Mr Neumann said there were various barriers to getting a child to school.

"Nigel Scullion should spend more time getting his CLP colleagues in the NT to do the right thing by the education of the kid instead of cutting funding for education," he said.

"This isn't treating people with decency and respect and it's a paternalistic approach.

"Where is the evidence that this policy is going to work or has worked anywhere else?"

 

[JohnDe]

The Voice was an attempt to hoodwink the Australian people, it failed. Now it is time to move forward for all Australians, all people born here, all citizens.

Yes campaign ‘obsessed’ with misinformation, failed to engage​

Prominent lawyers condemn claims a misinformation bill could have helped secure a voice victory, with one supporter alleging the Yes side pushed untruths.

The legacy of the Indigenous voice: hope, division and paralysis​

The voice represents a tragic saga for Aboriginal Australians. The wounds are still fresh – and there’s little sign of leadership to identify a way forward.

The deadly backlash of ‘sit-down money’​

Let’s face it: 1973 and 1974, not 1788, better explains this long-scale traumatic hurt and human damage to Aboriginal Australia.

Time to get rid of Indigenous reconciliation police​

Senator Lidia Thorpe (centre) takes part in an Invasion Day rally last year. Picture: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images
After last year’s referendum there is a new willingness to look closely at Indigenous agendas that favour division over unity.
When Indigenous elder Marcia Langton said no Indigenous person, including her, would deliver a welcome to country if Australians voted No to the voice, the floodgates opened to lingering concerns about whether a welcome to country divided us or united us. We discovered that many Australians believed it was the former, and had grown tired of receiving mini-lectures before meetings, sporting events, school assemblies and other gatherings.
Another issue crying out for sunlight is embedded inside most Australian companies, especially the biggest ones, along with government departments, not-for-profits and other groups. There you will find a Reconciliation Action Plan. And behind this “RAP”, as they are colloquially called, is one single organisation – Reconciliation Australia.

Indigenous elder Marcia Langton said no Indigenous person, including her, would deliver a welcome to country if Australians voted No to the voice. Picture: William West / AFP
Reconciliation Australia tells these groups how to run their Indigenous outreach programs. Within RA and the bodies that unthinkingly do RA’s bidding with their RAPs, there is a shocking misreading of mainstream Australian values. Though the referendum proposal failed, the voice’s radical separatist spirit lives on in the RAPs of thousands of groups across the country. Given that ignores the memo sent by voters on October 14 last year, it’s time we asked whether RA, and RAPs, should be abolished.
The referendum result shows that Australians overwhelmingly believe in a single sovereign Australia in which we all have equal civic rights.
At the same time, Australians have enormous goodwill for Indigenous Australians, especially those suffering disadvantage. The country has devoted vast amounts of time, money and effort to practical measures to improve the lives of Indigenous people, and we are overwhelmingly happy to devote more to such practical endeavours.
However, the latest Closing the Gap report shows that RA and the 2700 RAPs inside Australian organisations have failed to shift the needle. There are poorer outcomes in early childhood development, increased numbers of Indigenous people in prison and more children in out-of-home care, as well as more Indigenous suicides.
Life expectancy gaps are not on track, nor are school completion rates, or employment or training or tertiary education.

Indigenous Australians Minister Malarndirri McCarthy has described the statistics from the Closing the Gap report as “deeply troubling”.

That Closing the Gap targets are not being met is not from lack of care among mainstream Australians. It’s down to something else.
Reconciliation is one of those words that sounds nice. But what if this word, reconciliation, has become camouflage for holding tight to a set of policies that continually fail Indigenous people? What if RA is nothing more than a shakedown racket, playing on institutional anxiety and laziness to instil in those same institutions across the country a radical rights-based agenda that has patently already failed generations of disadvantaged Indigenous people?
RA enjoys monopoly power. Just about every major company or other group wanting to signal to the rest of the country that its leaders and workers believe in reconciliation drafts a Reconciliation Action Plan agreed with RA.
Once that’s done, they will be applauded by RA for formalising their commitment to reconciliation and can parade as moral corporate citizens. Many will be at Reconciliation Australia’s gala dinner next month in Brisbane.
In 2006, prime minister John Howard launched the Reconciliation Action Plan program with professor Mick Dodson to encourage companies and other groups to effect practical solutions for Indigenous Australians. Since then, it seems that RA and its soldiers inside the environment, social and governance departments of big corporations have turned reconciliation into a covert pursuit of a ’70s-style separatist rights agenda.

John Howard and Mick Dodson in 2006.
What follows is hard to say and may be harder for some to hear. The focus of Indigenous activists on reconciliation and self-determination have set back the lives of the most disadvantaged Indigenous people. These are big amorphous words used by elites in the Indigenous industry – by groups such as Reconciliation Australia – to capture demands made by Indigenous groups.
And the model of modern identity politics means that when a victim group makes demands, the oppressor group must say yes because, as Damien Freeman said in this newspaper recently when explaining the voice agenda, who are the oppressors to question what victims demand?
This dismal model has certainly delivered good outcomes for elites in the Indigenous rights industry – they work in our law schools, sit on advisory committees, host radio programs, deliver speeches and fill the board of RA. The other consequence of identity politics has been to entrench even further into our body politic a rights agenda, giving short shrift to responsibilities.
Reconciliation Australia is a prime example. This not-for-profit entity is primarily funded by the federal government (through the National Indigenous Australians Agency) and various BHP entities. Its funding pie of about $10m is neither here nor there.
RA’s influence comes in controlling and giving its imprimatur to RAPs, and emphasising self-determination for Indigenous peoples. About 2700 groups have a RAP. That includes every significant Australian company – BHP, of course, but also the big banks, Coles and Woolworths, and the rest of the ASX 100, as well as the pre-eminent professional legal and accounting firms, government departments, not-for-profit entities, governmental agencies and other groups. RA offers four levels of RAP, each more activist than the former.
Many companies have the two highest levels – called Stretch and Elevate – which, according to the website, “can only be done in careful consultation with RA” due to the “specific requirements, expectations and processes”.

Karen Mundine, CEO of Reconciliation Australia. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
RA tells would-be RAP applicants that after they have paid their RAP registration fee, they will draft their RAP using one of RA’s templates, submit it to RA and “expect a minimum of 2 to 3 rounds of feedback” before RA will conditionally endorse it.
Given they are sourced from an RA template, it’s no surprise most RAPs look the same and embody principles peddled by RA from the separatist era more than 50 years ago when Gough Whitlam endorsed the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1972.
That UN instrument, applicable to every person equally, was overtaken in 2007 by the radical UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.
As RA chief executive Karen Mundine said to a 2023 parliamentary committee looking at incorporating UNDRIP into Australian law, RA’s Reconciliation Action Plan program “has been informed by a strong commitment to self-determination, drawing on the principles of UNDRIP”. According to Mundine, the organisations with RAPs “are committed to actions to progress reconciliation and embed the principles of UNDRIP in the policies, governance and practices of those organisations”. How many board members of big Australian companies realise that their RAP embeds the UNDRIP principles in their organisation?
UNDRIP is part of that UN phenomenon where the world’s activists for a particular cause design a “one size fits all” revolutionary charter that is often grossly inappropriate for many countries.
There may be countries and indigenous peoples for whom UNDRIP, or parts of it, makes sense. Australia is not one of them.
Our federal parliament has not incorporated UNDRIP into domestic law and could never do so because it is comprehensively inconsistent with Australian law and our political framework. Even a recent Labor-Greens dominated parliamentary committee stopped short of recommending it be made binding.

Former Wesfarmers managing director Richard Goyder, centre, with executives and Indigenous First Steps graduates. Picture: Colin Murty
For example, article three of UNDRIP provides that by virtue of the right to self-determination, Indigenous people must “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
Article four says self-determination includes “the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions”.
Under our Constitution every Australian has equal rights, but this UN document clearly gives special rights to indigenous people. How does that work in practice when a company or other group endorses UNDRIP?
Take Coles, for example. Its RAP prominently features UNDRIP and says the supermarket recognises the declaration’s principles and will explore how to apply them within its operations.
Did executive and board members at Coles take some time out from thinking up clever pricing strategies to read the details of UNDRIP before signing off on the company RAP? Is Coles supporting self-governing states for Indigenous groups?
Article 14 of UNDRIP demands that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems”. Is Coles demanding a separate Indigenous school system? What about the fundamental responsibility of parents to ensure their children go to school?
How many chief executives and board members of other companies and groups understand that their RAP is a Trojan horse for a rights-based agenda that has failed generations of the most disadvantaged Indigenous Australians, especially women and children?
Or do companies sign up to RAPs without proper board scrutiny? It’s entirely possible the ESG department tells the chief executive that their company needs a RAP to be a good corporate citizen and, hey presto, a RAP – largely dictated and overseen by RA – is born.
That’s not to say all things companies and other groups commit to in a RAP are divisive or inappropriate. Coles deserves credit for supporting Aboriginal health service The Purple House, for donations of food and groceries to remote Aboriginal communities and for its training and recruitment of Indigenous young people.

Shelley Reys, elected to the board of KPMG in 2021, said we needed to move from 'safe to brave' in order to change the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Picture: John Feder
But corporations could, and should, deliver all these steps to practical reconciliation without linking them inextricably to what appears to be the inflammatory separatist agenda of Reconciliation Australia.
The separatist attacks on Australian sovereignty are undoubtedly the worst features of the corporate RAPs sponsored by RA because they go to the heart of our cohesion as a society and a polity.
But plenty of other features in RAPs surely irk mainstream Australians to varying degrees. Endless claims that the land we live and work on is Indigenous land – even if it’s located in Pitt Street or Collins Street, are ubiquitous in RAPs and a constant feature of the welcomes to country we are forced to endure.
Indeed, it’s the compulsion behind RAPs, similar to how groups foisted the voice on workers, customers and other stakeholders, that will cause division.
The more aggressive corporations make no apology for their coercion. KPMG (some will say, who else) actually brags that in 2021 its national executive committee decided that Indigenous cultural awareness training would become mandatory for all staff and partners because attendance at voluntary training fell short of targets. This is terribly counter-productive. Compulsion is not even close to what reconciliation should be about.
The unforgivable shame is that by swallowing the four RAP flavours of RA’s Kool-Aid, big Australian companies, government bodies and other groups are taking the lazy and irresponsible path.
By outsourcing reconciliation to RA, Australia’s biggest companies have turned RA into the nation’s reconciliation policeman. That allows RA to guarantee that reconciliation and self-determination are far more wedded to rights agendas than practical outcomes, let alone responsibilities.

 

[JohnDe]

Warren Mundine reflects on the anniversary of the failure of the Voice to Parliament referendum. He shares his thoughts on the outcome, the impact it had on Indigenous Australians, and what he believes the future holds for reconciliation and closing the gap.​

 

[JohnDe]

Megan Davis, Australians have spoken. Respect their verdict​

The first-year anniversary of the voice referendum is upon us, and it would not hurt to begin this week’s column on a positive note. Accordingly, I would like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the framers of our constitution.​

​

I pay tribute to their wisdom and foresight and thank them for their wonderful gift. I also acknowledge our constitution is the supreme instrument of sovereignty in this country. In addition, I extend my respects to the founding fathers’ descendants, past, present and emerging.​

​

Our country is not only a longstanding democracy. It is also one of the most stable nations in the world. And it is no mere coincidence the constitution which ensured this is one that cannot be amended at whim.​

​

If you propose to change it, you must bring the country with you. If you fail to do so, you have two choices. You can state for the record that Australians have spoken and that you respect their verdict. That is the sensible and dignified option, particularly if your case for change was so unconvincing you failed even to carry a single state.​

​

Alternatively, you can screech incessantly and insist that sinister forces conspired to nobble your campaign. To do so, even spontaneously, is both unedifying and embarrassing. Imagine how much more ridiculous you would appear if you still persisted with this behaviour a year down the track.​

That brings me to Professor Megan Davis, Referendum Working Group member, Cobble Cobble woman, and University of NSW pro-vice chancellor. As reported last week, she has called for misinformation legislation to protect future referendums from the “Trumpian” lies she claims thwarted the voice campaign.

“We want freedom of speech, but we need to balance that with upholding principles of democracy and democratic rights,” she told a UNSW audience.

I understand perfectly well, Megan Davis. There is no better way of upholding principles of democracy and democratic rights than by deplatforming and muzzling those you personally deem to have spread misinformation. I would go even further and say it would be misinformation to claim your proposal is undemocratic. In no way does it curtail or infringe the rights of those who agree with everything you say.

Davis’s argument is not an academic rationale, but that of an activist. What passes for logic is a flawed syllogism. First premise: The only thing that can prevent a noble and justified referendum proposal from succeeding is Trumpian misinformation.

Second premise: The voice was a noble and justified proposal that did not succeed. Conclusion: The voice campaign failed due to Trumpian misinformation.

If you think I am exaggerating, consider a few examples of what Davis posted on her X account during the referendum campaign. She rubbished the claim the voice was “divisive”, saying it was a “Trumpian tactic” employed by the No campaign.

So too was political commentator Michelle Grattan’s “gloves off” metaphor that characterised the robust exchanges between Shadow Indigenous Australians minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Referendum Working Group member Marcia Langton. “This ‘both sides’ reductionism is Trumpian,” protested Davis.

Liberal senator Matt O’Sullivan had also disseminated “Noalition misinformation”, said Davis. His sin? He observed the Albanese government had not endorsed a model of the voice.

Likewise national security think-tank Australia Defence Association incurred Davis’s reprimand. It had pointed out even left-wing academics had said the wording of the referendum question raised concerns about justiciability. “Don’t spread misinformation,” responded Davis curtly.

You get the picture. “The entire ‘No’ case is based on misinformation,” Davis proclaimed. Her robotic responses vindicate constitutional scholar and Referendum Working Group member Greg Craven.

“Large swathes of the Yes campaign were obsessed with the idea of misinformation and disinformation,” he wrote last week. They “would characterise any contrary argument as misinformation or disinformation,” thus building the case that those responsible “should be effectively banned from the referendum.”

It say a lot about Davis’s skills as an advocate, or lack thereof. To see her let loose in a courtroom would be a cringeworthy spectacle. Judge: “Ms Davis, what are your grounds for appeal?” Davis: “Your Honour, everything the other side said is Trumpian disinformation.” Judge: “What is your basis for that claim?” Davis: “Your Honour, that is exactly what Trump would say!”

Writing in Guardian Australia last week regarding the referendum, Davis was oblivious to spreading a little misinformation of her own. This concerned the argument the electorate’s rejection of the proposal extended to treaties and welcome to country ceremonies.

“The republic movement lost at referendum to an even greater degree than the voice but there is no public discourse as to its evisceration from Australian aspirations for future structural change,” she said.

This is nonsense, and I am not just referring to the turgid prose. Like the voice, the republic referendum was resoundingly defeated, but it fared better. Around 45.13 per cent of Australians voted for a republic as opposed to the 39.94 per cent who voted for the voice.

This is not Davis’s only own goal. She claimed she had come across the beginnings of a misinformation campaign against the voice in November 2022 and that she had lobbied the Albanese government to legislate against it.

“I’ve had a lot of contact from Queenslander mob … who are saying the Queensland Electoral Commission put out all of these ads about misinformation so that Queenslanders can distinguish between what is fact and what is not,” she said. “We’d asked for that”.

In other words, Queenslanders, thanks to Davis’s lobbying, were far better equipped to distinguish between fact and fiction in deciding how to vote. But this puts a big hole in Davis’s conspiracy theory. Queensland, of all the states and territories, recorded the biggest percentage of No voters in the referendum.

Notably, Davis relies entirely on isolated and anecdotal accounts of misinformation to justify her calls to introduce sweeping legislation. Given the absence of any credible empirical studies to corroborate her demands, her agenda is one of punitive revisionism.

That said, I do not think Davis should be silenced, as she would her critics. We should welcome the opportunity to expose the shallowness of her arguments. Trumpian disinformation, you say? The word you are looking for is ‘projection’, professor.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/megan-davis-australians-have-spoken-respect-their-verdict/news-story/a2a9819aafdd5b0f2ab109a1f92bcd9a

 

[IFocus]

"Charting a way forward​

Research following the referendum shows that 87% of Australians think First Nations peoples should be able to decide for ourselves about our way of life. Moreover, 64% think the disadvantages faced by our communities warrant extra government attention, and 68% believe this disadvantage comes from “past race-based policies”.

Only 35% believe Indigenous peoples are now treated equally to other Australians, and only 37% believe injustices faced by our community are “all in the past”.



The Albanese government’s policy focus has been on economic empowerment, not structural reform. Mick Tsikas/AAP

This clearly shows a level of recognition by the Australian people that something needs to be done about Indigenous policy and the structural issues in this country.

According to the same data, 87% of Australians agree it is “important for First Nations peoples to have a voice/say in matters that affect them”. This jumps to 98.5% among Yes voters, but also is true of 76% of No voters.

This suggests that Australian people see the problem and can identify the structural issues."

The Voice defeat set us all back. And since then, our leaders have given up

No campaigners said the Voice wasn’t the right solution, that they had better alternatives. In the 12 months since the referendum failed, no one’s offered any real solutions.

theconversation.com

The above blows away the No campaign high lighted the % for those that missed it.

 

[JohnDe]

The above blows away the No campaign high lighted the % for those that missed it.

60.1% of Australian's voted NO to changing the constitution.

Trust in the judiciary declined by the most out of six institutions from just after the May 2022 federal election (78.2 per cent) to just after the referendum (70.9 per cent).​

​

The vast majority (79.1 per cent) of Australians feel proud of First Nations cultures, more than the 69.0 per cent that feel proud of British/European cultures.​

​

Even after the referendum, 87.0 per cent of Australians think that ‘It is important for First Nations peoples to have a voice/say in matters that affect them.’ Around three- quarters of no voters (76.0 per cent) agree with the statement.​

​

Compared to 2014, Australians are now more likely to think that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are treated equally to other Australians (34.9 per cent) and that recognising land rights and Native Title of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is unfair to other Australians (45.0 per cent).​

​

Amongst those who voted no, the factor that was most likely to be given as very important in influencing their decision was concern about dividing the country. This was given by 66.1 per cent of no voters.​

​

https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2023/11/Detailed_analysis_of_the_2023_Voice_to_Parliament_Referendum_and_related_social_and_political_attitudes.pdf

​

 

[Smurf1976]

The above blows away the No campaign high lighted the % for those that missed it.

At a personal level, I fully agree that Aboriginal people should have a say in matters affecting them.

What I take issue with is the double standards.

There's an awful lot of people, those who are in the regions where the "No" vote prevailed, who express similar sentiments on a whole range of issues. They want to control their own destiny or at least have a say. If there's to be centralised control then they want it coming from their state's capital city, definitely not from Canberra.

Frustration with overbearing control by the feds is a big part of what those on the "No" side are unhappy with in general, not limited to this issue. As they see it, if NSW wants to mine gold for example well that's nothing to do with the feds so keep out of it. The decision should be made locally by the relevant council or at most in Sydney by the state government. Same with any other issue, the gold mine's just a recent example of the overreach of the federal government into what ought not concern them.

The federal government overriding the states or otherwise getting involved in such issues isn't about protecting heritage or the environment. It's just about Labor governments buying Green votes in Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of the regions and smaller population states.

That ultimately is where the whole thing originates. It's why the working class have shifted toward the Coalition whilst the inner suburbs of the big cities prefer Labor, a trend readily apparent in recent federal election results and in the referendum itself. To the extent there's a divide in Australia, it's the inner city versus the rest and it's that repeated pandering to the inner city at the expense of the rest that's created it. Now the rest have had enough, and are rejecting any further push in that direction, aka the No vote.

There's nothing those in the regions want more than to have less control from the big cities and especially Canberra. They'd be more than happy to see Aboriginal people given the choice as to their own destiny so long as others get the same.

 

[macca]

It seems to me that the Aboriginal people have been running or at least advising all the relative Canberra agencies for quite some time.

They have been very vocal and visible in the media for a decade, all those who consider themselves leaders have had a huge opportunity to bridge the gap.

As the No campaigners pointed out at the time, the faces of the Yes campaign have had ample opportunity to make a difference and have not done very well.

The money simply, does not get down to the local communities, people I spoke to about it think the Voice would have been just another layer of free loaders in Canberra

 

[IFocus]

It seems to me that the Aboriginal people have been running or at least advising all the relative Canberra agencies for quite some time.



The money simply, does not get down to the local communities, people I spoke to about it think the Voice would have been just another layer of free loaders in Canberra

Yes there are many lobbyists in Canberra chasing money or pushing various wheelbarrows for Aboriginal causes and many are connected (Warren Mundine etc) and drive their own views and beliefs.

What there isn't is a consistent stream of advice across the board in a measured way that can give a voice from Aboriginals from the ground up that impacts policy and structures that benefits those in need and provides consistency across state / federal governments particularly when governments are changed.

An example of policy change that caused harm is Abbotts cuts to funding of health services for Aboriginals Mundine made a big point before the cuts how smoking was a big killer of Aboriginals, Abbott removed the funding to deal with this issue with Mundine trying to gloss over the fact later in support of Abbott.


"Without Aboriginal involvement, you will fail. It’s their story; it can’t just be imposed on them... If you don’t have a respectful relationship, any talk of consultation is a fiction. If you don’t have adequate time, any talk of consultation is a fiction. You are simply the latest missionary telling them what to do.[56]
- Fred Chaney, Chair of Desert Knowledge Australia, 20 May 2014."

 

[IFocus]

At a personal level, I fully agree that Aboriginal people should have a say in matters affecting them.

What I take issue with is the double standards.

If there were populations that had similar outcomes such as the gap report, had been dispossessed of their lands, forcibly removed / massacred or even caught between cultures and heavily discriminated such as Aboriginals I would agree.

The Aboriginal problem or problems are unique in many ways most (not all but most) are of our (or our ancestors certainly mine as the were early) making and after 200 plus years its fair to say mostly we are still failing.

 

[JohnDe]

If there were populations that had similar outcomes such as the gap report, had been dispossessed of their lands, forcibly removed / massacred or even caught between cultures and heavily discriminated such as Aboriginals I would agree.

The Aboriginal problem or problems are unique in many ways most (not all but most) are of our (or our ancestors certainly mine as the were early) making and after 200 plus years its fair to say mostly we are still failing.

What do you mean "if", of course there has been similar outcomes. It has happened across the globe and from the beginning of time.

The migration of peoples and the domination and displacement of others is a universal phenomenon. Maybe peoples do sometime move and expand just because they fancy lording it over others – just because they are propelled by the libido dominandi, as St Augustine thought of the Romans.​

​

But usually they move in search of the means of subsistence, to escape famine or poverty or persecution, to repopulate after decimation by disease, to pre-empt neighbours from attacking them.​

This is how the human race evolved from substance living, to hunter gather, to farmer, to technological developer. Humans explored, they traded, they invaded they assimilated. And along the way we created a system that improved living conditions, created medical technology and life longevity, food harvest that is so abundant we throw too much away.

The problem that central Australian Aborignal peoples continue to have today is a cause of socialist ministers and elites.

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.​

The Socialist idea of land ownership and control has been forced onto the indigenous peoples of central Australia. The aboriginal elites that live in the cities preach about creating their own voice to parliament, which is code for their own government. This is divisive, this is not one Australia. And it offers no assurance that the current issues of violence, poverty and substance abuse will be overcome.

The aboriginal living of pre-immigration will never return. Not if money and the western ways continue in aboriginal society.

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.​

What is the answer?

There is no simple answer, but there are examples that prove that education and purpose is universal. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has an idea, one that the rest of Australia, inclding the elites, are able to use.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's activism and views focus primarily on issues faced by Aboriginal communities, and she is a vocal advocate for conservative Aboriginal politics in Australia. She has highlighted the high rates of domestic and other violence in Aboriginal communities. She is critical of welfare dependency and "opportunistic collectivism".​

 

[JohnDe]

New Zealand government is starting to pull together their divided race-based system, making equality the answer.

Mr Seymour’s comments come amid ongoing debate in Australia about a potential Indigenous treaty, with former Greens senator Lidia Thorpe last week calling for a treaty during her protest in front of King Charles. The Uluru Statement from the Heart called for the Indigenous voice to be followed by a treaty, and many Indigenous leaders still want the government to pursue the next stage despite last year’s defeat of the voice referendum.​

​

Mr Seymour said Australia’s rejection of the voice showed Australians intuitively understood the risks of ascribing rights based on race.​

​

“As soon as you say people could have different political rights based on their ancestry, then you go to a very bad place. New Zealand’s been on that path for 50 years,” Mr Seymour said.​

New Zealand’s indigenous treaty has failed Maori, future deputy PM says

The New Zealand minister leading the dismantling of many of the nation’s dedicated Maori initiatives and the restructure of its public service says New Zealand’s 50-year indigenous treaty experiment has failed to deliver better outcomes for the Maori people.

New Zealand Minister for Regulation David Seymour – who in May will become deputy prime minister under the agreement struck last year to form government between Christopher Luxon’s National Party, Winston Peters’ New Zealand First and Mr Seymour’s ACT – told The Australian the greater significance attached to the Treaty of Waitangi since the 1970s had proved “inherently divisive” and had not succeeded in improving the way of life for Maori.

The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 by British Captain William Hobson and Maori chiefs when the British Crown was establishing colonies in New Zealand, has in recent decades seen Maori perspectives offered greater consideration in a wide array of public policy matters.

But the Luxon government has looked to reverse that trend since coming to power in late 2023. Most notably, it moved to disband the Maori Health Authority, triggering protests across the country as the government was accused of dismantling Maori rights.

Mr Seymour said his government’s efforts were focused on correcting the “inherently divisive” interpretation of principles under the treaty.

“One thing that is clear is that we haven’t made major progress in improving outcomes for Maori by going down that divisive path,” he said.

“Even if you were someone who said, ‘Okay, I don’t like dividing people by race, but I think it might be worth it if it works out’, well, the answer is it hasn’t.”

Mr Seymour’s comments come amid ongoing debate in Australia about a potential Indigenous treaty, with former Greens senator Lidia Thorpe last week calling for a treaty during her protest in front of King Charles. The Uluru Statement from the Heart called for the Indigenous voice to be followed by a treaty, and many Indigenous leaders still want the government to pursue the next stage despite last year’s defeat of the voice referendum.

Mr Seymour said Australia’s rejection of the voice showed Australians intuitively understood the risks of ascribing rights based on race.

“As soon as you say people could have different political rights based on their ancestry, then you go to a very bad place. New Zealand’s been on that path for 50 years,” Mr Seymour said.

“I am, dare I say, the main person who is either brave or stupid enough to try and reverse that.”

Mr Seymour was in Perth for a series of events after being brought to the WA capital by Liberal Party candidate Jonathan Huston, who is trying to reclaim the formerly blue-ribbon seat of Nedlands at the next state election.

A self-described classical libertarian, Mr Seymour is also New Zealand’s first-ever Minister for Regulation and has set his sights on overhauling the country’s public service.

He has already slashed 6000 public service roles and told The Australian he has plans to cut many more.

New Zealand’s public service grew from 47,000 people to 62,000 under Jacinda Ardern’s government, and Mr Seymour says he is aiming to get those numbers back to the former.

Deregulating New Zealand, he says, is an “endless” role. The government is unwinding stringent legislation aimed at improving the earthquake resiliency of buildings and which required tens of billions of dollars in upgrades. Early childhood education, he says, is “insanely over-regulated” and rules governing the importation of agricultural and horticultural products are also set to be simplified.

He is also trying to drive a culture shift within the public service.

“Part of it is training the regulatory workforce that their job is actually to help New Zealanders comply with the law and get on with their lives, not to wield power over their fellow citizens just because they can. Obviously this is quite a learning curve, starting with the ones at the airport,” he said.

Asked about the Albanese government’s decision to tighten the loopholes that had led to an increase in the number of foreign criminals – predominantly New Zealanders – who were able to avoid deportation, Mr Seymour said he understood why Australian politicians saw the attraction in making it harder for those foreigners to remain here.

But he said there was an ethical case for Australia to keep those foreign criminals who had spent much of their lives here.

“There’s an argument you can make that these people who have grown up in Australia, they’re a product of Australia’s efforts in relation to education, welfare and justice,” he said.

“Maybe there’s a sense of ‘you broke it, you bought it’.”

While Australia and New Zealand have drifted apart in recent decades on defence issues, Mr Seymour said his government was absolutely resolute in deciding not to abandon its alliance with Australia.

He also said his government was well aware of the vast difference between Australian and New Zealand defence spending as a percentage of GDP.

“Anyone can say that they want to invest more in defence. The hard part is, what do you give up in order to achieve that?” he said.

“I think that will be the discussion in New Zealand over the coming year or two: Are we prepared to raise taxes, borrow or reduce spending elsewhere?”

 

[Smurf1976]

If there were populations that had similar outcomes such as the gap report, had been dispossessed of their lands, forcibly removed / massacred or even caught between cultures and heavily discriminated such as Aboriginals I would agree.

There's a fundamental difference between Aboriginal culture and the rest of society here.

Aboriginal culture = what happened in 1788 is still very relevant. They stole our land!

Western culture = 1988 is ancient history. Too long ago to worry about anything other than the most notable music and the odd random movie. Almost everything that happened just one generation ago is irrelevant today and most of it's long forgotten.

In Western society, wealth rarely survives more than two generations beyond its creator, so the idea that you'd inherit land that was in the family 236 years ago just isn't credible. Someone would've blown the family fortune by now almost always.

Therein lies part of the divide. From my Western cultural perspective, it's just not possible that a ~20 year old Aboriginal person had their land stolen. Simply because 20 year olds generally don't own land anyway, and if they want some then they'll have to buy it the same as anyone else (admittedly rather difficult for everyone these days, but that's a broader issue).

In saying that I'm not saying the Western approach is necessarily the right one, only that it's the source of an irreconcilable difference.

The house I lived in as a young child no longer exists, it was knocked down to make way for a commercial development.

The high school I went to also no longer exists, that too was demolished.

First proper job I had, guess what? Yep, they've since knocked down both the office building I was interviewed in and the workshop I worked in. All gone.

But in Western culture that's not particularly relevant. Because my parents were paid for the land that was sold to make way for the commercial development. Because I received an education at the school and wouldn't have ever gone back there anyway. Because the employer paid me to work there and gave me skills as well. And so on.

So there's a fundamental difference it seems between Aboriginal and Western culture with connection to land and physical places, the significance of time, and the notion of ownership.

Aboriginal = strong connection to land, very long history, etc.

Western = move frequently, just about everything's for sale at a price, only exceptional events or works retain relevance more than 20 years after they occurred, a general expectation that nothing lasts forever and most things don't last long at all.

There's a lot of fundamentally hard to reconcile differences there.