We have failed the First Nations people
These words by Scott Bennett in his book White Politics and Black Australians have always resonated with me:
“The aspirations of Aboriginal Australians are expressed through a political system designed, first and foremost, for the white majority.”
In my many years employed in Indigenous affairs – and as a student of Indigenous history – it was a theme that dominated my public and academic life.
It is a theme that haunts us all:
“Australian history has left a legacy of Aboriginal inequality and disadvantage. In our self-congratulatory celebration of egalitarianism and the fair go, we conveniently overlooked that fact that our treatment of Aborigines amounted to a contradiction of the very values we claimed to espouse.”
The inability to regard Aborigines as equals has never really left the ‘white’ consciousness.
“There are a number of measures,” argues Bennett, “that can be used to establish the degree of inegalitarian treatment accorded” to Aborigines: legal equality; political equality; economic equality; equality of opportunity; and equal satisfaction of basic needs. I could broach social injustice, government ineptness and bureaucratic mis-management in emphasising these inequalities. Bennett recognises that:
“There are many disadvantages suffered by Aborigines that need remedying, but what needs to be dealt with, and in what order? Is it inadequate housing? Is it the parlous state of Aboriginal health which still results in unacceptably high infant mortality rates as well as a diminished life expectancy? Is it the rapid loss of Aboriginal culture? Or the high rate of Aboriginal unemployment? Undoubtedly the problem is complex, but where do governments start to seek remedies? What are the political solutions?”
History illustrates government inability above all else to deliver any remedies, due mainly to the makings of the Australian polity. Federalism stands out, and in particular the complex space that Aboriginal affairs occupies within our political system. In a federation like Australia it can be very difficult to achieve uniformity of power. Why cannot governments that perceive the existence of a regional or national problem, for example Aboriginal health, work constructively to eradicate the problem? Who is to be blamed, Commonwealth or State?
Aboriginal affairs involves many areas of governmental responsibility, including education, health, sanitation, land use and relations with police forces, which are all State government responsibilities. “When Commonwealth and State governments disagree in such matters, whose view should prevail?” A great deal of essential service delivery falls within the responsibility of State governments, but these governments often fall short of delivering full and satisfactory programs.
However, the argument goes much further than being based on pure politics. In Australia’s polity:
“… where the development of the land by both farmer and miner has for so long been described as basic to Australia’s prosperity, it is difficult for governments to ignore claims from such powerful interests.
The mining interest has fought particularly strongly against land rights and native title. The propaganda battle is rarely won by the central government. It is easier for a State Premier to claim that the Native Title Act threatens peoples’ backyards than it is for the Commonwealth to explain the complexities of the legislation.”
This is but one of the many shortcomings if we focus on program failure or distortion, for it is in these results that many hopes and expectations are deflected, destroyed or frustrated. An analysis of service delivery reveals that the problem is multi-faceted, not only having to do with the nature of modern bureaucracies, but also with the activities of politicians, the attitudes of white Australians, and the perceptions of Aborigines themselves.
In this arena of political and public perceptions, the now defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) used to come under some heavy fire; from politicians, the media, and the wider community. Perhaps there was resentment because ATSIC had given Aboriginal people a voice in the political system.
The argument on this was compelling. Many Australians watched distrustfully as, under Whitlam’s grandiosity in 1972, large amounts of money were directed to Aboriginal affairs. As a result, there was a great deal of importance placed on the need for ATSIC, in particular, to be accountable for its operations, reflecting no doubt the uncertainties of mainstream Australians concerning the standards of operations of Indigenous institutions. Following accusations of the misuse of money, audits were made of various bodies, again nominally ATSIC, and government funds for many Aboriginal services were reduced, and eventually, ATSIC was wiped from the political and social landscape. Yet claims about ATSIC’s waste of public money usually ignored the difficulties that that body had in delivering any worthwhile services to the Indigenous community. ATSIC had an unbelievable array of demands on its finite budget and was simply not in a position to meet every demand.
Also, political parties are demonstrably divided on Aboriginal issues. The Howard Government, for example, was less sympathetic to Aboriginal issues – or “too cautious in the invocation of Commonwealth power for the benefit of Aborigines” – than were the previous Labor Governments of Hawke and Keating and Labor Governments since. (It was forcefully argued that Howard was indeed influenced by the claims of the more powerful interest groups). Political parties’ views:
“… are extremely important in helping explain the place of Aboriginal people in the Australian political system.”
Some of the differences between Labor and the Coalition have been imposing. Consider them as a backdrop to discussions on issues such as Mabo, Wik, Native Title, the Stolen Generation, the Northern Territory Intervention, Closing the Gap, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and now the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
I could attack the media with as much veracity as I do the political interests. Press coverage should help ensure that the area of public policy is kept well and truly on the political agenda, for without it would be very difficult for Aboriginal interests to achieve anything of importance. Perhaps the best example has been the manner in which the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody disappeared from sight once the report became public. Such a lack of sustained coverage makes it easier for governments to ignore many matters of short-term notoriety. The desire for a story often overrides considerations of accuracy or fairness. Who could argue with this? Drunkenness, rioting and poor living conditions are given more attention than the stories that could show Aborigines playing a positive role in the general community.
For well over 200 years we have failed the First Nations people. Let’s not fail them again.
May I suggest the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be a good start.
Reference
White Politics and Black Australians, Scott Bennett, 1999.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
42 comments
Login here Register here-
Mark Shields -
Mark Shields -
New England Cocky -
A Commentator -
B Sullivan -
Brad -
leefe -
Brad -
Clakka -
Teiresia -
Harry Lime -
Teiresias -
wam -
Brad -
Harry Lime -
frances
-
Brad -
Harry Lime -
Teiresias -
Brad -
Teiresias -
Teiresias -
Caz -
Clakka -
Michael Taylor -
Douglas Pritchard -
Teiresias -
Clakka -
Clakka -
Michael Taylor -
Harry Lime -
Clakka -
teiresias -
Teiresias -
Terence Mills -
Teiresias -
Terence Mills -
Teiresias -
Canguro -
Terence Mills -
Brad -
frances
Return to home pageWe have failed First Nations People because we never gave them the method to become part of the Anglo/Saxon Capitalist System! Did they want it… is another question. Do they want it now? Is yet another question!
I have worked in Aboriginal communities and truly felt the need for a Voice to Parliament!
However, as painful as this might sound; I have truly felt that most Aboriginal Communities, do not want to be associated with WHITE POLITICS!
From my limited experience, I believe that most Aboriginal communities would rather be left alone!
It might be time to recognise that Aboriginal communities need space to live their own lives and culture!
We all know that Colonial Culture has destroyed Indigenous wellbeing: But from hereon, we will expose the Colonial poissessions for what they are: OCCUPATION.
Recently foraging through some historical material I discovered that the mainstream history of European Australia was very keen to ignore the dealings with Aborigines, going back as far as about 1790. The history of ”terra nullius” was an English legal construct to allow Europeans to simply take the land & any other required resources without any consideration. But try and find any reference to who & when takes some digging.
.
When Aborigines or Aboriginal communities objected they were simply slaughtered, especially after the Europeans were crossing the Blue Mountains during the sheep & wool expansion into western NSW.
.
There was no armistice, there was no treaty, the land was simply ”stolen” and the original inhabitants displaced or killed. No wonder some ”radical” Aborigines seek compensation even retribution for the historical actions against them that deprived them of their lands, their people and their culture.
Yes, dispossession and marginalisation continue.
There is still little respect for indigenous culture and no structured education program to promote it.
All this is a consequence of colonisation.
‘The inability to regard Aborigines as equals has never really left the ‘white’ consciousness.’
Wow, I never knew that colour had consciousness. What can we do about it? If consciousness is controlled by the genetically hard wired colour of our skin, then it’s hopeless, isn’t it? If white skinned people are in in the majority, then we can’t expect this wrong to be righted by democracy, because in democracies the majority rules. White people’s skins just won’t allow them to treat aborigines as equals. What about Aborigines with white skins? There are lots of them about now that the gene pool has become so much more diverse since colonisation brought an end to Australia’s isolation from the rest of the world. Do white skinned Aborigines have the ability to treat other Aborigines or even themselves as equals? All this misery and injustice all for the lack of a little skin pigment? And we can’t really condemn white skinned people for a genetic trait that effects their thinking and behaviour as it is clearly something that is beyond their control to change. People don’t choose to be white any more than they choose to homosexual.
It is odd though. Prior to the West African Slave Trade, there is a scarcety of any historical evidence of discrimination on the basis of skin colour. On religion, nationality, class, caste or culture there are examples galore, but not on skin colour. It appears as though colour prejudice is founded more on the need to justify commercial interests than any natural aversion to another person’s complexion. The colour of your money is more determinant on your behaviour than the colour of your skin. The inability to regard the underprivileged as equals has never really left the ‘privileged’ consciousness. I think that makes more sense.
Michael, “History illustrates government inability above all else to deliver any remedies . . Who is to be blamed, Commonwealth or State? Who is responsible for the mess? Politicians in the first instance.
Mark, I watched David Marr being interviewed on 7:30 Report re his book ‘Killing for Country’. He estimated some 40,000 indigenous people were killed and he described the process as a conquest. Occupation sounds benign, which is what we’d all rather believe, but I think Marr is correct.
NEC, consider yourself lucky finding info ‘foraging through some historical material’. I just spent some time searching for material at the PM Media Centre page looking at who was who on the ‘National COVID-19 Coordination Commission’ back in 2020. No results so I broadened the search to covid-19 and surprise surprise, still no result at all in 2020. Covid-19 blah blah 24/7, scariant blah blah BS 24/7 for the whole year and nothing to be found @ Media Centre. History has been erased. My question was why did the LNP hire an ex-mining executive from Fortescue to help manage a pandemic? I gave up looking and will go with the obvious answer, the gov wanted resources and the pandemic made it easy to commit more theft away from public scrutiny.
Many people still believe politicians intend to help First Nation people. It’s a staggering level of naïve, well-intentioned for sure, but how can anyone trust either Labor or Liberals is beyond me.
Brad:
“Many people still believe politicians intend to help First Nation people. It’s a staggering level of naïve, well-intentioned for sure, but how can anyone trust either Labor or Liberals is beyond me”
If you have another viable solution to the problem, we’d all love to hear it.
leefe, solution? My first thought is get rid of all sitting politicians who have done sweet FA to improve the lives of First Nation peoples. That would be about 95% of Parliament sacked. Think of the savings. In the interim, how about more people become aware that it’s arrogant politicians who have caused this problem and that First Nations people are quite capable of already telling us what they want to improve. Changing the Constitution without getting rid of the problems, ie. tone-deaf politicians and the msm propagandists will get us nowhere. Aussies are going to get a treaty whether they like it or not. My preference is for tribal people to call the shots. With a bit of luck they might even sneak in a Bill of Rights for us all, right under the noses of the howler monkey media who will be too busy squealing like stuck pigs to notice what just happened. Yes, I’m a dreamer.
Thanks Michael. Here, hear!
Brad,
I have real problems with your dreaming. You say, get rid of 95% the politicians who have done nothing to help First Nation people and see the savings. What? Where is Government after that?
You say that First Nation people are quite capable of telling Government what they want us to improve. Yes, and we know – but first we need to have the Voice to do the speaking as First Nation people. If you vote NO you will get nothing. Vote YES and you will get a better chance.
B.Sullivan
You have real problems with colour and race and you think it is all a matter of the colour of your money. So we have in the past the colour of money in trade but often not the colour of the money, such as green, or red, or orange.
But we had skin colour, such as white or black or yellow brown. Rather confusing, is it not? You say, “All this misery and injustice all for the lack of a little skin pigment.”
No B.S, its about what is between your ears.
And Brad, you saw David Marr talking about his book “Killing for Country” coming out early in October. Historical numbers of killing of Aboriginal people after 1788 were published by Jared Diamond in his book “Guns, Germs and Steel”. There were between 750,000 and one million Indigenous people and within 140 years (6 generations) the population had collapsed to a mere 60,000. Horrific.
Here in Tasmania, Keith Windschuttle published a book “The Fabrication of History”. He had set out to argue against historians who had shown that there had been considerable violence against Aboriginal people in Tasmania between 1803 and 1847. He said there was “a definitive tally of only 118 plausible deaths.
In 1996 John Howard said he hoped to make Australians “relaxed ans comfortable” about their past. It was Howard’s Black Armband view of history. Remember his weapons of mass destruction and his children overboard?
Tony Abbott took $534.4m from Indigenous programs with limited notice to Indigenous communities whose programs and activities were overnight disestablished,((Megan Davis and George Williams, “Everything You Need to Know About The Voice.” (p.104)
Australia was the only country in the world which stopped refugee boats coming here. And Peter Dutton was instrumental in running island prisons.
(see Behrouz Boochani, “No Friend But the Mountains}
The NO campaign is opposing the Voice. They will give nothing. They have mean history.
First Nations need the Voice for the future. YES YES YES.
I reckon you are right, Brad..this has been another poorly thought through brain fart,by another career politician.More harm than good for the sake of not much.
You have nothing to say, Harry Lime. No career politician with a brain fart, nor any harm.here.The really up front people are the Uluru Statement from the Heart people who have offered to speak about what is needed for them to reduce the gap. It is what we all need, the First Nation people to reduce the gap.Voting NO will not achieve it, but voting YES will.
Your words,Michae and experience, back up your suggestion for a start to producing an Aboriginal VOICE.
I have a sad picture of an old man from Turkey Creek. He was brought down as an exhibit at the 200 years celebration and sitting on the floor with his artifacts he personified why we need a yes vote. The pm et al were prancing around with Bishop Tutu and the ABC put the mike in front of the old man whose profound words are still echoing the special rerentless racism of Australians:
“How come he can talk to that blackfella but he can’t talk to me”
The voice will produce public views and opinions of many Aboriginal people, like that old man which will be ignored at a political peril. Vote YES
poor old gws shouldf have won for us
Teiresia, “Where is Government after that?” Govt will continue to consist of those politicians chosen by the electorate, the same situation as now. The politicians who never fixed any problems, having been voted out at the next election can take a holiday or avoid public service for the rest of their life or whatever, as long as they are not an impediment to progress.
Whichever area of social life I look at, it’s a sham. Thousands of doctors, nurses, teachers, pilots were displaced and sacked these last 3 years, coerced via mandates out of their jobs. The gov response? Open-ended immigration, 1000 extra arrivals per day, with the obvious flow-on effects of further stressing the rental market. Only an idiot could not have foreseen the damage being done to the economy from those 2 decisions alone.
I want Labor gone and Liberals gone.
One term out of office for even the most stupid dullard would wake them up to the fact they’re elected to serve the public and the public good – not mining corporations, the medical mafia or whichever other group one cares to mention.
You sound like you are in politics, if so, surely you can see what is happening.
If you are a politician, do you have the ability to express a conscience vote, or are you a slave to a herd mentality?
Re the number of First Nations people killed, that’s shocking. And some people still doubt inter-generational trauma is a factor in their way of life today. I want the best for First Nations people, I don’t expect that help to come from Labor/Libs.
Amen to that Brad.
Harry Lime: ‘..this has been another poorly thought through brain fart, by another career politician. More harm than good for the sake of not much’.
Your comment does not seem to be supported by the facts, nor the many years of negotiations among Aboriginal communities across the country to arrive at this crucial historical moment.
***
Brad:
‘Changing the Constitution without getting rid of the problems, ie. tone-deaf politicians and the msm propagandists will get us nowhere. Aussies are going to get a treaty whether they like it or not. My preference is for tribal people to call the shots. Yes, I’m a dreamer.’
Your preference without constitutional embrace of an indigenous Voice to Parliament will remain precisely that, a dream.
Whilst it is true that there has always been and will continue to be wilful derelictions by governments of all stripes in all kinds of matters you may be under a specific misapprehension regarding the Voice, whose essential purpose is to transcend party politics and the caprices of successive governments specifically with regard to matters pertaining to the interests and wellbeing of First Nations peoples and how they can best be represented in perpetuity.
As community debate unfolds over the next few weeks, it will become clearer that the Voice Referendum is a simple moral question about ‘whether Australians can recognise Indigenous people as First Australians in a meaningful and constructive way that overcomes the disadvantage and injustice of dispossession…(and that) it should not be used by one political party to gain political advantage over another.’
*****
Among other furphies, ‘…The ‘No’ Campaign leaders repeatedly claim that Australians simply ‘don’t understand’ the Voice; that we don’t have sufficient information about what it will look like. Yet the proposed law that Australians are being asked to vote upon is set out in the Constitution Alteration Bill.’
‘If approved at the referendum, the following words would be added to the Constitution: “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” ‘
‘The reason that there is no detail about the Voice is because that is a matter for future community and political debate. The detail is to be formally decided by all sides of Parliament after the principle of the Voice is established in the Constitution.’
‘The Uluru Statement from the Heart proposes that Indigenous sovereignty can co-exist with the sovereignty of the Crown, as generous a solution as could ever be offered.’ (Dr Tein McDonald, AM).
frances, the site you linked for the Uluru Statement only had one page (of 26). The full doc is here – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/26-page-Doc-14-Uluru-Statement-from-the-Heart.pdf
Re “other furphies” and the “claim that Australians simply ‘don’t understand’ the Voice”, I’d say a lot of people do understand the background and driving force behind the Voice is the UN. You can vote for their version of a treaty if you like, I won’t.
As far as declarations goes, this one is good – https://grandmotherwisdom.com/proclamation-of-sovereignty/
frances,my comment was a top of the head ‘brain fart’,not thought through.What I was thinking was the Yes campaign has been poorly run,assuming the majority of people would be generous of spirit,but left a gap a mile wide for Dutton and his fellow travellers to exploit.Bigotry,racism,white supremacy,disinformation, has been allowed to spill out,swamping the argument for a Voice.It could have been legislated, for starters,and I think Treaty is where it has to go,win or lose.It was a naive political decision by an experienced politician who might have known better.The harm caused is self evident in the discourse that has ,and is already taking place.Racism is ever lurking in our country.
Will I be voting Yes? Of course..how could you not?
The Voice,should it surprise everyone and get up,is only an advisory body,and will depend on the good will of the government of the day,We can be certain there’s no good will on the thug Dutton’s side.
Brad, you speak here with great sense – quite interesting when we add your concerns about the problems of raising interest rates and inflation and job losses expressed in your recent posts. I like what you say.
I am not sure who you address when you say: “Your preference without constitutional embrace of an Indigenous Voice…” It is not me.
I wrote you a reply to your earlier post to tell you about my reading, but it was censored by whoever watches over this website out of hours. I will try to rewrite it because the writers I quote are not “tone deaf politicians.”
Best wishes, Teiresias.
Teiresias, yes, lots to juggle, each interacting with many other things in ways not obvious. I still prefer to hear from those living on the land, the tribal people. From what I see it is the Land Councils who are wreckers. Labor avoid fixing the system and are using a referendum to throw responsibility onto voters. If there is a future problem, blame the voters. The quote you attribute to me looks like yours actually. That’s ok, it’s Sunday.
Brad @10,17am
Suddenly you have confused yourself by quoting Malcolm Roberts, who is strongly of the ignorant NO campaign. Such people also claim the UN is trying to take over the World with Climate Change. Murdoch ignorance. The 26 pages they speak of is the one page Uluru letter plus 25 extra pages, but none of the extra pages mean the Voice will make big, big demands. You are in the right direction.
Harry Lime @10.28
Brain farts happen but there are people who say Albanese is not performing well because he and Linda Burney do not answer questions asked by the leftover Coalition. The problem for the NO campaign is that cannot compose questions and the Speaker has to try to help them compose a legitimate question because they do t really know what to ask. They keep making up irrelevant, nonsensical questions and then get upset because Burney quotes from the Voice Handbook. Yes, the Voice could have been legislated, but it would not be permanent. Treaty comes after the Referendum – some treaties are already happening. And by the way, the Coalition also has a 275 page document on the Voice but say nothing about. They pretend they do not know anything about it. Watch out for fibbers.
Brad, i wrote to you earlier but was censored and lost what I said about the raising of interest rates in a time of inflation, and the resulting costs and and losses of jobs,etc, and the profits for banks. We are indeed at the mercy of our economics. I quoted from some authors who are not Neoliberal and not Murdoch and will quote them again.
Naomi Klein, “This Changes Everything” (2014)
” Forget everything you know about climate change. It’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism.The good news is we can seize this crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better…You have been told the market will save us, when in fact the addiction to profit and growth is digging us in deeper every day. You have been told it’s impossible to get off fossil fuels when in fact we know exactly how to do it – it just requires breaking every rule in the ‘free-market’ playbook.You have also been told that humanity is too selfish and greedy to rise to this challenge. In fact, all around the world, the fight is already succeeding in ways both surprising and inspiring. It’s about changing the world, before the world changes so drastically that no one is safe. Either we leap – or we sink.”
Richard Denniss, “Dead Right. How Neoliberalism Ate itself And What Came Next.” (2018)
“How did the big banks get away with so much for so long? Richard Denniss explores what Neoliberalism has done to Australian society. For decades, we have been led to believe that the private sector does everything better, that the governments cannot can’t afford to provide the high-quality services they once did, but that security and prosperity for all are just around the corner. In fact, Australians are now less equal, millions of workers have no sick pay or paid holidays, and housing is unaffordable for many. Deregulation. privatisation and trickle-down economics have, we are told. delivered us twenty-seven years of growth…but to what end?”
Bernie Sanders, “It’s OK To Be Angry About CAPITALISM.” (2023)
“It’s OK to be angry about capitalism; It’s OK to want something better. Bernie Sanders takes on the 1% and calls out a system that is rigged against the rest of us. Where a handful of oligarchs have never had it so good, with more money than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes, yet the majority struggle to survive. How can we accept that three billionaires control more more wealth than the bottom half of our society? That our political system allows the super-rich to buy elections?.Or that our energy system rewards the people causing the climate crisis? How much longer can it go on? We must demand change. And here is where change begins. If we would finally recognize that economic rights are human rights and work to create a society that provides them. This isn’t some utopian fantasy; this is democracy as we know it. Is it too much to ask?”
Vote YES in order to help raise up First Nations in the gap.
Brad
Housing , cost of living, shortage of nurses etc are all problems left over from ten years of neglect and to expect a massive turn around in just one year is naive.
As for the racism and vitriol you say the Voice has produced, it was always there simmering away. Whenever black deaths in custody or rates of crime in Alice Springs hit the headlines, once again the uninformed blamed FNP , never looking for the root cause.
Like it or not the present government made promises and intends to keep them. This was one that was top of the list. Obviously enough people were persuaded to vote Labor and enough Liberals deserted the party. This government has a mandate to have this referendum and it is so disappointing that Dutton will not back it. Not surprising though; he couldn’t say Sorry to the Stolen Generations.
Unless the Yes vote gets a resounding majority our country will be divided because of the amount of disinformation that has been circulated. Dutton, Mundine and Price has guaranteed that. Lydia Thorpe has just come to realise her mistake giving waverers a feel good Progressive No alteralternative. She is now saying she could vote Yes if action is taken on Black deaths in custody. I hope Albanese will come to an agreement. They say a week is a long time in politics. Let’s hope three weeks is enough to persuade the undecided.
Excellent article by Michael. Quite a few of the comments reflect understandable bitterness, but fall well short of appreciating the complexities and challenges of democratic politics, and to differentiate the intent and rationale of the various contenders, their modus operandi, and the very important history and evolution that leads to today.
A ‘today’ that has been brought to the ‘west’ (and Oz) via the last 40+ years of increasingly rapid change, and been blighted by European neo-fascism (Thatcher et al) and American exceptionalism off the back of enfranchisement of corporatised neo-religious evangelist absolutism (Reagan et al). And accompanied by the very worst aristocratic greed-based reassignment of common-wealth to the top, say 3%. It has divisively moved on to further corruptions such as neo-conservatisim, neo-liberalism and populism; all divisive perversions causing and taking advantage of antagonism and activism spread and muddled with via the anonymity of the internet and social media.
To lump things together and per se, blame ‘capitalism’, ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’ is simplistic and does not stand up to scrutiny. There are innumerable variants, and much depends on the culture and circumstances prevailing. Capitalism, has long been known to be the most efficient and effective form of facilitation of trade, and transfer of wealth. It has been utilised successfully across the world to bring millions out of ‘poverty’. However, it also carries high risk that it can be corrupted via the subversions of ‘class’ (not that such subversions do not happen in ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’, they do, but at a much slower pace and usually more absolutely).
Conversely, most problems across the world arise from cultural difference and notions of survival and dominion, added to by the inventions of technology and their use or misuse. At the foundation is linguistic and cultural misinterpretation and misunderstanding (both of lore and law) – a failure to communicate, either inadvertent or deliberate. And above, is the ignorance of the cause and affect of technology, eg. man-made ‘climate change’ due to the over-use of the world changing fossil-fuel technologies. Thank goodness now we have the benefit of ever advancing science to call out the dangers and provide for safer alternatives.
Many also like to blame ‘corporations’, however such blame is also simplistic, and fails to recognise that a corporation is much like a person, or collections of persons that function for the better in producing and distributing goods and services by networking with other independent persons, corporations or organisations. As for any person, corporations can be invested in, employ many and pay them and pay taxes for application to the benefit of all.
Certainly, it is one thing to be aware that improvements are needed, or changes need to be made. But the question endures, “At what cost?” Other than those that seek improvement and change, there are those that just don’t care, those that don’t understand and those that have a vested interest in no change. Throughout history it is thus, and there will be those that exploit the desires to improve and change, and if it suits, equally exploit those that have a vested interest in no change. This is at the core of politics and democracy, although rightly it should be by ‘compromise’ not ‘exploitation’.
I have addressed on this blog before, the political history of the western European (British) colonial project, and there can be no doubt it was self-servingly corrupt and exploitative to the utter disadvantage of the indigenous of targeted ‘new lands’. Compromise, where writ, was just a beguiling lip-service full of loopholes concealing the intent of theft and subjugation or elimination. It was rooted in competition, with absolute winners and losers. As is well known now by the cognoscenti, all of this continues, with very many wanting change, and very many with vested interests wanting no change. The LNP and Howard in particular, by stealth disassembled many programmes developed to attend to First Nations issues, and also dramatically underfunded them to ensure they became ineffectual, and clear the path for the LNP’s exploitative mates.
I have much admiration for the basis of Oz indigenous culture, and its operation of lore and law. Its connection to country, spiritual connections, and its sensible boundaries, and process of makarrata to settle disputes. And that is not to say that I am unaware of the long and normal human history of internal First Nations’ conflicts, from personal disputes, judicial penalty, pitched battles and open warfare, the underlying law, and the politics arising therefrom. To that extent, I believe that it would have been in short time that the First Nations folk understood the intent of the colonisers and their politics and law, but were unable to do much about their incursions due to the overwhelming advantage of the colonisers due to their possession of devastating technologies.
It is not only First Nations folk, but also folk of European (and British) ancestry that seek improvement and change from the horrendously skewed, pernicious and elite structures and laws of the Crown imported to Oz and remaining in the Oz Constitution and laws. And to a large extent, many will not be satisfied until Oz matures to becoming a republic in its own right saying goodbye to the brutal and elite regimes from the bigoted, exploitative, murderous European (incl. British) era of colonialism from about the 1400s onward. That said, it is unquestionable that First Nations folk in Oz (and other colonised countries) that have been deliberately differentiated, most set-upon, oppressed, stolen from and marginalised through the colonial process and right through to today have paid the biggest price. And Oz remains a stand-out laggard internationally in remedying this for its First Nations folk.
To lump the LNP and ALP together is a load of ‘activist’ BS convenience covering a lack of proper investigation and analysis and slithering off the back of Oz mainstream media’s despicable vested-interest bias and pursuit of sensation. After a decade of LNP civil inaction and concentration on building feeding troughs for themselves and their commercial cronies, in these globally difficult and tenuous times, Labor has a prodigious task of attending to rapidly changing international relations and perils, whilst the same time rebuilding and improving social, economic, industrial and strategic frameworks utterly neglected by the LNP. And Labor has been doing so at rapid pace.
It is notable that at the last Federal election, the LNP was devastated, with many leaving the disgraced party, and many more reasonable conservatives forming what has become known as the ‘Teals’. Almost weekly since the LNP’s fall from government we have been met with an almost endless stream of corruptions from the LNP’s last era of tenure.
Labor has done what it undertook to do, and that’s introduce in full the requests of Oz First Nations folk contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart – Constitutional recognition and Voice, followed later by makarrata, Treaty and Truth telling. And the process for implementing the whole process including later legislation is available for all to read in the Calma Langston Report and the Co-Design papers (the LNP and ‘NO’ campaigners elect to ignore that). Forget the notorious 26 pages (allegedly behind the Uluru Statement), they do not form part of the Uluru Statement, they are only a summation of the Oz-wide regional indigenous dialogues as backgrounding for consideration by the 250 elected First Nations leaders who formulated the final Uluru Statement of one page in 2017. It is ironic in the history leading to this, it was a bipartisan agreement to commission the process whilst the LNP had tenure in government.
It is a disgrace of pressurised political expedience that the LNP while in government rejected the reports out of hand, without even considering them within their cabinet. And no real surprise that the feckless Dutton, Littleproud et al have politicised what was bipartisan, and ought be an apolitical, they have done so purely to try and take skin off Labor and Albanese. The LNP and ‘No’ campaigners importing of American style post-truth fear mongering culture war tactics, lies, revisionism, deception and misdirection are an utter disgrace and dangerous to the political process and democracy in Oz. But they don’t care, because for the sake of their own pecuniary interest and those of their vested interest cronies, they would rather have the old brutal exploitative laws of the Crown and the colonies remain in place, and keep First Nations folk disenfranchised.
Vote YES, its a simple and good start to reform for all of us.
Thanks, Clakka
I’ve often wondered if you and I had similar academic journeys.
The distribution of wealth has been trending for sometime to emphasize the division of those that have, and those who do not.
So at election time the poor is now in the majority.
I just watched Mundine tell me that those in the $200k pay zone, and above, will support yes.
The rest will vote in the negative.
I hadnt considered that dividing line in the past, but the chaps not silly.
If this auguement hold true the outcome is already clear?.
Clakka’
I have presented just three authors which speak up about Capitalism. There are more of course. So I would also question your claim here about Capitalism and I could begin by saying something about the last Coalition government and its policy of low wages, low taxes and the illegal Robodebt money-grab. And rich people with wealth saved in Taxhavens.
And you will also say something about bringing millions out of “poverty”.
So that in the USA they have a small percentage of the population being multi millionaires and most of the population strongly repressed and now not so convinced they can work hard and be rewarded with wealth.
You say:” Thank goodness we have the benefit of ever advancing science to call out the dangers and provide safer alternatives.”
Not if one is a Murdoch journalist.Or if one of the Oil companies who discovered the effects of climate change and realised they would be badly affected and changed their discovery to “not settled
Now we are behind in our attempts to tackle climate change.
“As for any person, corporations can be invested in, employ many and pay them and pay taxes for application to the benefit of all.”
I have dealt with that above. So what is the cost? “There was supposed to be a bipartisan project to commission the process while the LNP had tenure in government.”
But now, the LNP will put aside their 275 page Voice pages (the ones described by Chris Kenny,5/8/2023) and set about ruining Albanese so that when the Coalition wins Government in 2025 they can be the big heroes.
Some NO sayers say they will make sure all First Nation aid institutes wii be checked for efficiency. How much will that cost? And what will the Voice cost?
Are we too mean to try to lift First Nations people above the gap?
vote YES YES YES
Teiresias, thanks for your address to me.
I remind you that I said of capitalism, ” … it also carries high risk that it can be corrupted via the subversions of ‘class’ (not that such subversions do not happen in ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’, they do, but at a much slower pace and usually more absolutely).” This qualifying statement by me is deliberate and important, and should not be overlooked.
I have also stated “There are innumerable variants, and much depends on the culture and circumstances prevailing.” To that extent, when I observe the depletive corruption of pure capitalism, I elect to call it “Suicide capitalism”. Sadly an all too common occurrence.
And:
” … the ignorance of the cause and affect of technology, eg. man-made ‘climate change’ due to the over-use of the world-changing fossil-fuel technologies.” This statement by me is also important and should not be overlooked. It is not about capitalism, it’s about inadvertent (or deliberate) use or misuse of technology. Once fossil fuels were seen as great discoveries and brought wonderful technologies, but later were realised as having deadly affects and are now being phased out (with difficulties). But the deniers are corrupt usually with vested interests. This is not a signature of corporations or capitalism per se, deniers also exist in governments of all types, and in communism and socialism, it is just corruption.
And:
I have written at length of the LNP and the horrendous acts and omissions of its various tenures, and it’s diabolical behaviour and those of the naysayers pertaining to ‘Recognition’ and the ‘Voice’, the referendum and beyond, and its damage (cost) politically and democratically. My “At what cost.” statement was a rhetoric irony and ought be read in context. The ongoing costs of their stupidity could be vast and too many and varied to enunciate. I am at a loss to understand what point or counterpoint you are trying to make to me in this regard, especially given my closing paragraph and last line.
Regards.
MT, thanks for your acknowledgement.
As for academia, I’m a chippy by trade, and have academic quals as a QS and in construction and management. Most of my blah blah and argy-bargy on this blog are founded in a lifetime of reading and interest in everything and from a long ancestry of humanists.
When I was a young’n, my mother said to me, “You have an over-inflated sense of injustice.” I retorted, “Compared to what?”
Some say I talk too much. I laugh, and later return to my cave of prolonged silence.
🙂 Best regards
Ah, a working-man background like me, Clakka. I built caravans and other labour work before finding a job in the office in my late 20s.
I didn’t go to uni until I was 42. Completed a BA in Aboriginal Affairs and then a BA(Honours) in Aboriginal Studies before joining the public service.
I’ve recently submitted submissions to a couple of unis to do a PhD. The older I got, the greater was my thirst for knowledge.
Clakka,here I was imagining your ‘cave’ was on the side of a mountain, with ‘oracle’ on it’s shingle.
and Michael,..the older I get the better I was…and the more I forget
Ha ha ha haaaar. HL; making me laugh out loud. Excellent!
Clakka,
I have read your work several times and I come up with the same problem. It is matter of wordiness. And yes, I can see that you are on the side of the Yes campaign, but it is covered in clouds of words. I am saying that because that is my problem and I am trying to explain why I feel the need to question.
Look at your post @ Sept. 26, 3.23 pm. the paragraph beginning “To lump the LNP and ALP together…has been doing so at rapid pace.”
One paragraph, 3 “sentences, large words, sometimes strung together….”…a load of ‘activist’ BS convenience covering a lack of proper investigation and analysis and slithering off the back of Oz mainstream media’s despicable vested interest bias and pursuit of sensation.”
Sorry to be picky, but I have found it very difficult to read. And I am not sure how well you read me.
But I wish you well.
Clakka,
I have some difficulty following your posts.
See for example your post Sept. 26, @3,26 pm. Paragraph beginning “To lump the LNP and ALP together … has been doing so at a rapid pace,”
One paragraph, 3 sentences, large words strung together.
First sentence: “…… load of ‘activist’ BS convenience covering a lack of proper investigation and analysis and slithering off the back of Oz mainstream media’s despicable vested interest bias and pursuit of sensation.”
I apologise. Too wordy and too many large words strung together for me, I am afraid. I see you mean well. I need patience.
I wish you well.
My postal voting papers for the Referendum arrived by mail, yesterday (Friday) and I will complete them over the weekend and put them back in the mail on Monday – they probably won’t get picked up by Australia Post on Monday as I’m told it’s the King’s Birthday public holiday in Queensland and there are no mail services – some irony in there somewhere.
Just for the record Charles’ III correct birthday is 14 November so the Qld day off is actually a furphy or a Clayton’s celebration.
Monday is also a public holiday in NSW, SA and the ACT but there it’s Labour Day. WA, NT and TAS don’t get the day off at all and VIC had Friday off for the AFL Grand Final (which will be played on Saturday) so they don’t get another day off…………..go figure !
PS : I shall be voting YES with a certain amount of trepidation – I’m not sure if I am voting with traditional owners interests or against them – I’m not sure that by voting YES I am being inclusive or creating a racial divide as some would have it – I’m not sure if this is the most important issue of a generation or as Albo says ‘ it’s just an advisory voice’ and won’t really change anything : fingers crossed.
Terence Mills,
You seem to have some problems with catching the mail and i hope you make it in time.
Your PS has even more problems and you will be voting Yes without knowing why, whether with traditional owner’s interests or against, or whether being inclusive or creating racial divide.
And i wonder where you found the quotation from
Albanese about the advisory voice which ‘won’t really change anything’. With ‘fingers crossed’ so he is not lying?
The NO campaign would say if you do not know, vote NO.
The YES campaign would say find out. But of course you can have a joke.
Sometimes people provide both sides of the argument. I have been looking at the Independent website where Michelle Pini tells us Senator Ralph Babet of UAP and Rachel Baxendale of The Australian were asked to comment at the ABC on Dan Andrew’s retirement.
Just as Rupert Murdoch’s ‘retirement’ as such a great and
creative Australian was celebrated on the ABC.
Also on Independent Australian Gerry Georgatos
(27/9/2023) “Lies and myths continue of ‘over-funded’ Indigenous services “which tells us Indigenous services
have for decades been reduced’
Yet there are No campaign people who say they do not need the Voice because there are Indigenous services, which if they were checked, would make the Voice unnecessary.
Why do we not know the truth?
Teiresias
You have introduced single quote marks where I had none. What I said was that he said :
‘it’s just an advisory voice’
which he has said many times.
Terence Mills,
You have put in opposites/contradictions frequently, including in the PS.
Albanese has frequently said “It’s just an advisory voice’.
Who said ‘and won’t really change anything’?
And who had “fingers crossed’?
Was that last bit a combination of what Albanese said and what Dutton said and did?
David Marr, bless his courageous soul; one of this country’s clearest-eyed commentators & critics on matters of social importance, nails the tragic background of the early intersection between the indigenous people and the white settlers. Printed in the Guardian, articles like this are destined to be read by only a miniscule fraction of this country’s people… it’s too bad, and sadly symptomatic of the struggle for a hearing of the stories that need to be heard that ought to be part of the essential platforming for framing the argument for the only choice in the upcoming referendum to be a YES vote.
Teiresias
In a press conference Albanese was asked about the Voice and its impact on ordinary Australians. He said that ‘for the vast majority of Australians there would be no change.. in their lives (or it may have been little change in their day to day lives)’.
‘Fingers crossed’ comes from me. Whilst I want to see the referendum get up, I am conscious of the history of referenda in this country and where there is no bipartisan support you can anticipate that one party (in this case the coalition) will work to undermine and demolish the prospects of the referendum and its objectives as they have well and truly demonstrated to be the case.
I try to remain objective on these matters and I said many months ago that I would have preferred to see the Voice initially legislated and then when all the wrinkles had been sorted out – perhaps after five years – put it to a referendum IF it is still considered essential to entrench it in our constitution.
Go well !
Terence and Teiresias, re Albanese and ‘for the vast majority of Australians there would be no change’. I doubt that is true. A treaty is bound to affect us all in some way. Hopefully the First Nations reps are good negotiators and fair.
I read a doc on the Aus Parliamentary House website that gave a concise history of the parleying for a treaty and the actions taken by Howard, Keating, Hawke, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull, etc. parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/8498103/upload_binary/8498103.pdf
Three things stood out in the doc – 1. Aus didn’t incorporate the ‘1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’ into Aus domestic law until 2002. Think about that for a minute, genocide, good to go until recently; 2. Reparations were estimated to be 5% of Gross Domestic Product for 195 years; 3. Each PM seemed to walk the walk up to the point of taking the next step and sitting down for a treaty negotiation. At the last minute there was either a walk-back or a change of govt.
It seems each PM foresaw that dividing the country into 2 groups, each with the right to self-govern/self-determination in ‘their portion’ of the country, was going to be a recipe for disaster. They didn’t want to go down in history as the PM that oversaw an apartheid-style conflict kick off. Each PM did a flick pass just prior to being in the position where s/he/other-pronoun had to rubber stamp a treaty. Albanese can’t see that far ahead or is onboard with any chaos that ensues.
A quick calc, 5% of GDP today is about $70B/yr. That’s affordable considering both Labor & Libs signed off on that $250B tax break for the wealthiest when Libs were in power last. That is 5%/yr reparations sorted for about 4 years – just cancel the tax cuts for the wealthy. In the years following, tax the rich. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. Perhaps a death tax or annual tax based on total property value (inc all investment properties but with a $1M threshold on own home) might be fair.
With respect@Canguro:
‘So appalling was the behaviour of the Native Police in early Queensland that the government was compelled to hold an inquiry into the force in 1861. It was expertly hobbled. The terms of reference were vague. Sitting on the committee were seven squatters who between them held more than 1.4m hectares (3.5m acres) in the bush. The Native Police officers lied. Everyone was exonerated.’
This paragraph might just as easily apply to the 2013 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (RCIRCSA) which, in 2015, suddenly and inexplicably removed ‘arts and entertainment’ from its terms of reference. Nothing to see here.
Anyhow, it seems ‘Killing for Country’ is a redemptive offering from a personal colonial history angle singularly deserving of a big tick of approval by Marcia Langton.* Despite the armchair coverage, however, your humble copper’s great-great-grandson has made made a nice career out of confected outrage whilst ensuring his own interests and ambitions are prioritised (the apple never falls far from the tree).
It happened that during a pending Police investigation in 2008, this “courageous soul” set aside his journalistic ethics to accept a commission from the publisher dad of one of the kiddie fetishist’s legal-age models (who happened also to be the KF’s goddaughter) to pen an official whitewash.
It’s difficult to imagine how the commissioned author could have been unaware of the wealth and power of an art world marshalling its best resources to protect itself, or even that he himself was groomed for the task, but there you go.
As it turned out, the book – its timing something of a publishing record between commission and publication – was such a bumblingly naive, credulous and offensive piece of hogwash that it scored an own goal by inadvertently revealing additional incriminating and corroborating facts to reignite the fading controversy.
It also happened that the author’s current publisher’s stepdaughter was a child model (clothed) back in the absolute-artistic-freedom glory days, his wife a wealthy art dealer, everyone great pals with the photo guy from way back. But the credo was all about quietude
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/june/1347432003/bill-henson/credo#mtr in the progressive left media back in the day, the intelligentsia fully captive at a buck a line, and doing a fabulous job.
Philanthropy is both sop to the soul and standard operating procedure.
And hey, we just might get a few YESes out of it on the rocky road to Makarrata, so all good.
*****
*Discounted signed copies are available at Booktopia for a short time only.