Just as we expected, the mainstream media has equated the No campaign with Indigenous conservatives like Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and former ALP national president Warren Mundine.
Mundine in particular fronted an ad for his “Recognise a Better Way” campaign this week, which he described to Crikey as a “fake campaign” in anticipation of a formal launch later this year when the referendum bill goes before Parliament.
In The Sydney Morning Herald, Mundine outlined two main reasons for his opposition to the Voice to Parliament: one, that it would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a homogenous “race” rather than nations, and second, that it would strip control from Traditional Owners at the local level through the Voice, who have an ability to make representations to government enshrined by the constitution. He claimed that he had “written and spoken extensively about attempts to undermine Traditional Owner decisions about their own country, particularly to approve projects on their lands and waters”.
But Black Australia has a long memory and the stench of hypocrisy is overpowering. Mundine, as many would know, was a prominent member of the Howard government’s hand-picked advisory body, the National Indigenous Council (NIC), which was put in place after Howard abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission — our last truly national representative body — and made way for mainstreaming, normalisation and neoliberalisation of Indigenous affairs.
The era was focused on dismantling any form of self-determination and seizing control from Traditional Owner groups through assaults on land rights and Native Title, attacks which did not go away but continued under different forms from successive governments.
It was Howard who made the 11th-hour promise to “recognise” Indigenous peoples in the preamble of the constitution, on the eve of his electoral demolition by incoming Labor opponent Kevin Rudd. Rudd failed to deliver on constitutional reform, his successor Julia Gillard never responded to the expert panel report handed down in her term, Tony Abbott was one of the first to promote the lie of a third chamber, and Malcolm Turnbull immediately rejected the Uluru Statement when it was handed down.
Mundine’s time on the NIC was characterised by his agenda to reform land tenure in the Northern Territory, through the land tenure principles, which led to the Howard government’s — and in particular Mal Brough’s — 99-year leases on Aboriginal land. The leases were heavily opposed by the land councils in the NT at the time. When they passed, many communities said that Brough was bullying them to sign over their land on leases in exchange for much-needed housing infrastructure and other government investment.
While Brough and his cronies, supported by the media, blamed Aboriginal communities and painted them as hubs of depravity and abuse, they had been sorely let down by governments, and then in turn threatened by them: if they did not comply with government demands to sign over their land on leases, they would not receive the rights of citizenship like housing and education resources.
The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, one of the strongest land rights regimes in the country, which allows inalienable freehold title to be held in trust by Traditional Owners, also allowed for the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal townships for five years under NT Intervention legislation in 2007. These changes to land tenure were an attack on the rights of Traditional Owners to have control over their land.
The NIC was criticised because it was a hand-picked Black body that rubber-stamped punitive, draconian government policy. It helped rip away control from Traditional Owner groups — the very same people that Mundine now claims will be undermined by a hypothetical Voice, the make-up of which we currently do not know because the design has not been formulated or set in concrete. If Mundine wants to criticise the Voice he must also own up to his own impact on Indigenous policy, including his role as Black voice to the racist Howard government.
Which brings us to Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the NT Country Liberal Party senator whose electoral fortune is not due to any political prowess on her part but because of her promotion by the Murdoch press. She was a Black voice to dysfunction and violence, which made her a darling of The Australian, Sky News and the Liberals. This week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced Price was the new shadow minister for Indigenous affairs. Price has been the Black voice sanctioning Dutton’s harmful rhetoric on child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. It feels like we are going back to 2006 and 2007 again, although we really never left.
Guardian Australia‘s Josh Butler reported earlier this week: “Last week Dutton claimed that ‘young Indigenous kids are being sexually assaulted on a regular basis’ in Alice Springs, while Price claimed that children were being returned to abusive homes. The Northern Territory and federal governments have said Dutton would be required to report specific incidents of child abuse to police, but the opposition leader countered that he had raised the issue with Albanese in meetings last year.
“When asked on ABC’s 7.30 on Monday about Dutton’s claims that he had raised the issue with the prime minister, Albanese said he had ‘no idea’.
“’It’s possible that there may well have been a letter somewhere,’ he said. ‘I don’t know what the basis of it is. But certainly he has not raised any specific issue about any claim, about any individual circumstance with me.'”
This reminded me of Mal Brough’s infamous “paedophile rings” statement — which had no basis in fact, and for which he had continually failed to hand over evidence to back his claims to NT Police. The ABC’s Lateline tried to vindicate Brough’s claims by slandering the community of Mutitjulu using a “whistleblower” who turned out to be a staffer in Brough’s own department. These stories and claims led directly to the NT Intervention — and gave the government legitimacy to not only stage a military intervention into Black communities, to declare war on them, but also compulsorily acquire Black townships.
This is the same political playbook — it has not changed. It’s as if Brough left behind instructions on how to slander Black communities to pass punitive government policies on the back shelves of the parliamentary library. I’m bringing this up to show that in order to actually debate a Voice, the opposition — Dutton and Price — are simply relying on the same tired strategies of bashing Blackfellas to position themselves as moral authorities when they are authorities on very little.
The Central Land Council (CLC) today hit back at Price for again slandering Black communities as havens of child sexual abuse. CLC deputy chair Warren Williams, from Yuendemu, said: “Our kids are the apples of our eyes. We are not abusers. We love our children. We’d like to know where she got her information from. It’s mandatory to report such evidence to the authorities. We can do without self-appointed lone crusaders who are unable to bring people of goodwill together.”
The Black conservative No campaign reeks of hypocrisy and self-interest, and the most egregious part of it is that it undermines a very sophisticated No campaign from other Blackfellas who are approaching the issue from a different viewpoint. Many Blackfellas I have spoken to are still concerned that the Voice may not lead to change or a challenging of the status quo. There are concerns about the racist rhetoric inevitably drummed up in a referendum year, and concerns about what a Voice design could look like. There are legitimate concerns about when and how we can ask questions and whether a Voice will be truly representative.
These questions are drowned out by noise from the Black conservative No campaign, who should not be given any air time because they have had a “voice” for years now, both in Parliament, as hand-picked members of racist governments, or as senators for the NT CLP — one of the most racist parties in this country’s history. If they want a voice they can have it, but don’t deny others the right to one — or the right to ask questions of it.
This article was republished with permission from Amy McQuire’s “Presence” Substack.
A good informative article. The legitimate concerns McQuire writes about in the last paragraphs are indeed being drowned out. Dutton, Price and Mundine are monopolising all the No campaign oxygen. I wonder if News Corp and like-minded opponents of the Voice know what they are doing? I was open to arguments from either side until recent weeks when the Dutton, Price and Mundine circus rolled into town and persuaded me that voting No is unthinkable. Each time I hear more of their mendacity, hypocrisy and insulting stupidity my choice is reinforced.
Yeah, the nuanced discussion over pros and cons can’t happen with these poisonous clowns jumping up and down, and the vile MSM amplifying them at every turn.
We can’t have any sensible discussion with these fwits on the scene. They must be so thoroughly discredited that even the MSM’s audience will smell a rat when they continue to be propped up – it already looks totally like A Weekend at Bernie’s to me, but even the mugs must be getting a clue by now.
Anyway, absolutely everything they touch must turn to sht. Because apparently their awful record so far isn’t enough to lose them a seat at the table yet. For crying out loud.
We need Dutton’s head chopped onto Bernie’s, in some memeage tuned to shtcan the hell out of the MSM for all this ‘Peter fn Dutton says’ bullsht.
Seems more about manipulating and using these ‘players’ by the same people who ‘own’ the LNP, for negative political agitprop to delay any substantive action; the same ‘players’ will be thrown under a bus when use by date has expired.
One has to wonder at the motivation behind an Aboriginal politician joining a party dominated by the descendants of those who made their wealth by being better at shooting and poisoning Aborigines than others.
Building a political career by helping those who have never shown any interest in Aboriginal welfare is a pretty low act, especially if it is in helping them to scupper a basic initiative which will do little more than force pollies and bureaucrats to at least pretend to listen ( and to have to be accountable for not having done so ), while leaving specifics to be sorted in parliament ( and changed from time to time when something inevitably goes wrong )
The Voice is not, and was never intended to be, a panacea. It is a foundational initiative. One has to ask why Price, Mundine and Dutton are so keen to strangle it at birth.
There is not a lot of good faith going around here.
Because contemporary conservative politics is almost entirely defined by opposing “the left”.
A more generous take is that Conservatism is fundamentally opposed to democracy, and the Voice is a proposal that increases democratic representation.
The most obvious motivation when someone from a group that typically gets oppressed joins with the group that typically does the oppressing is that they get rewarded, often far more generously than they could ever hope for otherwise. The oppressing group finds them useful, can exploit them in various ways and has every reason to reward them generously. Price’s meteoric rise in status and rewards in return for performing as required for the Coalition and News Corp is a classic example. I have no idea whether she is wholly sincere about what she is doing or outrageously cynical and completely dishonest; it does not really matter. The point is the effect it has.
Price seems to be living the motto: If you can’t beat them, join them
Sad
It again highlights the power of media ownership and that the destruction of quality of life that abounds with media services that have a neoliberal ideology. Just as fossil fuels have had little reason to wind up or change,,both black and white communities have seen more hardship not less where progress should have been made.
This country needs a large and powerful media outlet that is in direct competition with the Neoliberal majority media ownership.
Any debate or opposition is simply stifled and/or given no ability to voice its concerns unless it has a Neoliberal agenda.
Ultimately media ownership is more powerful than government or capitalism itself because of this control of information.
Been waiting for Turdoch to be assassinated this whole century.
Why is Kimmo allowed to post 2 comments suggesting violence – even if they claim it’s tongue in cheek?
I know- I can’t believe I lost my beautiful old dad while that arse lives on- he truly made a deal with the devil I think-
So recently?
Alleging child abuse triggers instinct, so it’s a jolly useful tool for mobilising opposition to anything you dislike. See the number of TV series / miniseries that monetise its appeal. Dutton is so desperate right now he has nothing else to use. Australian politics right now is best observed, like early Dr Who episodes, from behind a sofa.
we need a “Godwin’s Law” for those who frivolously use references to Child Abuse as rhetorical weapon against their opponents – the first to do so, loses the argument
roberto I would like to ask you, is there anything frivolous about the references to child abuse in the recent interview on Sky News with a former NT police officer who discusses this horrific issue; or is there anything frivolous about the discussion of child abuse in the “Little Children are Sacred” report”?
That interview can be retrieved by googling:
“Sky News Former NT officer breaks down exposing ‘horrendous’ abuse”
and the “Little Children are Sacred” can also be retrieved by googling that title.
I have written a post in which I have included a link to the interview but (not surprisingly) it has been held up “Awaiting approval”.
I’ve no doubt that what the former NT officer describes is awful, thank you for absorbing it so I don’t have to. I’m prepared to assume it’s true, after all it’s not as if we didn’t have priests and so on …
The relevant point is that it’s a surefire way of triggering those euphemistically described as “people who aren’t interested in politics”. I’d love to believe that Dutton’s visit to Alice Springs to publicise the goings-on was entirely unconnected to his “no” announcement a short time earlier, but, you know…
Not frivolous I agree, but since it was on Sky news it unfortunately can’t be given weight without further investigation and corroboration. The Little Children are Sacred report is a different matter. I think there is sufficient evidence that abuse of children is yet another tragic and appalling consequence of the situation many Aboriginal people are experiencing, systemic neglect, cultural disruption, social and economic disadvantage and exploitation. To a large extent that condition is based on, and reproduced through, white cultural perceptions. However, the point being made is that Dutton and his ilk are acting in bad faith and mobilising (and exaggerating) stories of abuse and thus further entrenching the disadvantage and racist stigma that is integral to keeping Aboriginal people “in (their) place”. And doing so primarily, if not entirely, for political advantage. Nothing frivolous about that point either.
Thanks for your reply AP 7. It is the first ‘half-decent’ comment that I have received in response to a number of posts that I have made following the publication of similar recent articles in Crikey. I think you are wrong to immediately dismiss the credibility of a report simply because it appears on Sky News. I watch reports on inter alia, Sky News and the ABC and I find some reports emanating from both (and other) sources credible while I find others much less so.
I agree with your assessment that:
” ….. the situation many Aboriginal people are experiencing, systemic neglect, cultural disruption, social and economic disadvantage and exploitation.”
In my view it will take more than “The Voice” to remedy this situation. It will take the complete overthrow of the root cause of this and so many other problems which confront our society, that is capitalism. Making clever, smart-alec and puerile comments about Peter Dutton will not solve the problem. Sure, get rid of Dutton, Morrison and Abbott and all that crowd but they will simply be replaced by other, like-minded individuals. And then the same old debate will continue without any real progress being made.
Thank you for your reply Robert. I also agree with you that it will take more than the Voice. Indeed in a slightly different discursive universe you could argue the Voice is a distraction from what needs to done.
However one of the frames of the Duttons et.al. is that somehow it is a choice between the Voice and doing something else that would be better. It is not, that framing is a cheap high school debating trick (or something marketing people charge you a lot for, printing out instructions with graphics with circles and arrows and lots of colour).
The Voice is a position arrived at by Aboriginal people, after a lot of thought and explanation of that thought, that they think is important to improving the position of Aboriginal people and healing a deep division between them and settler Australia.
It may be a necessary step, it may be merely a useful step, but it is now also a choice that has great importance to how we (non Aboriginal) Australians regard ourselves and how much Aboriginal people feel regarded/respected by us. In that sense I think, like it or not, it is now a matter of great emotional and ethical import, it is about our identity. It has assumed an heightened importance in this sense, much as marriage equality did for all of us, those who were straight and those who were not.
So (a) I support the Voice, (b) I am happy to devote some energy to calling out the cynical, illogical and bad faith, borderline (or worse) racism that comes out of the mouths of conservatives for the no case.
I appreciate the tone of your reply AP 7. It stands in stark contrast to some of the stuff that I have had to deal with here over the past week or so. I certainly respect your decision to support The Voice. You have outlined some sensible arguments in your post.
I must admit that I feel a bit uneasy in voting ‘NO’, as I am currently intending to do. It was not an easy decision to make but I think that all things considered, it is the right way to go. Also, it is not an issue that I am going to ‘get hot under the collar about’ either, as I can also see where the ‘YES’ crowd are coming from. I really hope that if this thing does get up, that it really does make a positive difference to the lives of the Aboriginal community. However, I doubt that it will. If it does, then I will be only too pleased to admit that I was wrong. In fact, I actually hope that I have to do that.
Importantly too, AP 7, I think that it is fair to say that not everyone who votes ‘NO’ is a conservative.
This is a really interesting comment Robert. If you are uneasy about voting No and understand the Yes case and would love a Voice to happen and prove you wrong, why vote No?
WW I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong in this issue.
Voting Yes is a start but has a very long trek to go before arriving at the destination of equal rights and respect. Until non Indigenous Australia faces the truth of the cost of its occupation of the continent, there can be no peace or respect.
And until we learn and appreciate the long history of Indigenous occupation of Australia, we can’t move forward.
Well said! Politicians, as my Dad used to say, are like underpants: change them regularly or they start to stink! But the whole Voice issue is a smokescreen to hide the fact that billions of dollars are spent EVERY SINGLE Year on Indigenous affairs, yet the neediest miss out every bloody year! Where does the money go? Not to the people living in appalling conditions in rural and remote areas! Not to the dear ‘Aunties’ trying to run pre-schools for Indigenous kids in the cities on a shoestring, either! Somehow, it goes missing before doing any good for the most desperately needy. Whose pockets does it stick to? The ‘Indigenous Industry’ representatives eg crooked white lawyers and crooked black people of influence! Will The Voice see one actual dollar being spent on settlements in the NT, QLD and WA? I don’t think so! No doubt the gullible and the well-meaning will vote ‘Yes’ and think the problems of poor health, poor housing, poor education, incest, domestic violence and substance abuse will be magically solved. Is that a bird? A plane? Nope: it’s a flying pig!
As you say”…the gullible and the well-meaning will vote ‘Yes’…” – the sort who think that just being nice makes everything tickety-boo.
No not true, I hope as, indigenous people in in state will start to have a say a voice on what is best for them. Lords knows what has been done in the last 100 years has been ZIPPO!
Too true. All that has happened in the past has been white politicians imposing their opinions on Indigenou people. I recall a woman telling me they didn’t know how to look after their children, to which I replied if that was the case, how come they weren’t just bones at an archeological dig?
Oh nonsense. I will vote yes because my Indigenous friends want the voice to happen. We know it is not some panacea. Child abuse is present in such communities I am sure, it is present in my small town rural community I see it all the time and a lot of money is spent to little purpose both whitefella and blackfella. I work at the edge of this stuff. What does not help is bullshit spouted from podiums. The voice is meant to be a symbol and a way ahead. The no mob act as though it will stop things from happening. How?
I think that you are absolutely right Smokey. (I like your dad’s comment too. I am sure that my father would have agreed.)
What we need in order to address those appalling conditions that you describe in your post, is not all this grandstanding and pomposity but some real determination and perseverance ‘on the ground’ by dedicated, well-funded (and accountable) public servants who are sincere about doing something meaningful and positive. I would not let the ‘private sector’ anywhere near such a project as it is only concerned with making a profit as we have seen with, for example, the NDIS.
The Voice is being promoted in a way that suggests it is something that is absolutely essential for meaningful change to occur and that without it any improvements for the Indigenous community could never possibly occur under any other circumstances. This is quite disingenuous.
So, more of the same then?
As the Devil of this ill-conceived idea will be in the detail – “Better the Devil one knows…”.
Straw man argument. No one is claiming the Voice will solve all those things. Your own argument is based on the premise that the status quo is not working.
I don’t understand how the overthrow of capitalism would solve anything. Racism thrives in controlled economies too.
The first recommendation of the report is about advice from communities. It doesn’t mention a Voice but a Voice that is able to give advice to the parliament and the executive is entirely consistent with the recommendation. It also comes up in recommendations like 40 and is implicit in the success of other recommendations.
Have you been listening to Marion Scrymgour? She’s been explaining her work talking to the communities she represents in Lingiari and the children’s commission proposal. What she talks about sounds very much like what SNAICC is saying and what was said in the Little Children are Sacred Report.
When I look at everything that is being/has been said by people who want to see real and lasting change, I can’t see anything to suggest that a Voice isn’t at the very least highly desirable. There’s certainly nothing to suggest that child protection services should be centralized in Canberra as the Opposition has proposed.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that a Voice giving advice to the executive as well as the parliament is essential, and the ongoing abuse and neglect of children is the most important example of why it is essential if we are ever get the support and services right.
I’m glad you raised the Little Children are Sacred Report, Robert. To my great shame, I had forgotten it. But, in starting to revisit it, I feel that my support for a Yes vote is even better grounded than it was before you prompted me to start looking at it again.
I should have mentioned that Marion Scrymgour was interviewed by Michelle Grattan in The Conversation this week (Thursday I think). It’s an excellent interview – one of the best I recall Michelle doing in quite a while. It’s 30 minutes long.
Marion was also interviewed on RN Breakfast on Friday. That interview is 10 minutes long so nowhere near as informative as The Conversation, but still good.
If you have to choose between the two, I’d choose The Conversation’s interview.
I won’t include the hyperlinks in case they cause the post to be placed in the moderation queue. With Anzac Day coming up, it could end up there for a few days.
Hi WW,
I have just finished listening to the full interview (28.10 min) on The Conversation website. Many thanks for recommending that. It was well worth hearing. I like to approach these issues by listening to anyone who is likely to make a sensible contribution to the discussion regardless of their views. (I will also listen to extreme opinions too but they only serve the purpose of driving me away from their point of view).
While listening to Marion I was reminded of just how complex this whole question is of how do we improve the condition of our First Nation’s People. Because that is something that I am sure we all want to achieve – and that includes my fiercest critics on this site.
I would join with WW in recommending this interview to all those with an interest in the subject (which I think would include everyone who has contributed to this comment site).
Look, I should say too, WW, I am a ‘city slicker; born and bred, so I am not at all acquainted with the intricacies of outback life. I only want to see everyone have a better quality of life. I say that because I do not want anyone to imagine that I am trying to be an expert on this issue. I am not.
Just quickly, Marion Scrymgour, is a former deputy chief minister in the Northern Territory, and is the federal Labor member for the seat of Lingiari, an electorate covering almost all the NT outside Darwin.
If anyone is interested but does not have the time to listen to the entire podcast then The Conversation provides a written summary of the interview.
Just Google something like “The Conversation Michelle Grattan interview with Marion Scrymgour”.
Little Children are Sacred Report made many recommendations based on the research that was conducted. Rather than implementing them, Coalition with Labor’s support, opted for Mal Brough’s back of envelope program. Notably, over a decade of the intervention did not increase convictions of CSA, improve school attendance and it’s crowning achievement was lower birth rates.
lower birth weights
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-08/school-attendance-birthweight-fell-during-nt-intervention-study/9238544
Confirmed less than an hour later !
Interesting though to compare reporting of alleged child abuse among Aboriginals with the reporting on the, deeply investigated and documented, systemic enabling and covering up of child abuse by organised religion. Organisations who are still, unbelievably, accorded authority (and tax breaks and subsidies) to speak on moral and other matters. No interventions here…
Neither should we forget child sexual abuse perpetrated in the general community.
Child sexual abuse should be of prime importance in our priorities WW, no matter where it occurs.
Absolutely agree, Robert.
Just curious Hereward, did you use the line:
“Alleging child abuse triggers instinct, so it’s a jolly useful tool for mobilising opposition to anything you dislike.”
when allegations of child abuse first surface against George Pell?
George Pell himself said allegations of CSA didn’t interest him much.
I am grown wearisome of your school debating points. Do you agree or disagree with the observation I make?
Hereward, I only use ‘school debating points’ because I know that you would have too much trouble with anything more complicated, (I was always taught by my English teachers to make my comments appropriate to my audience. I hate to say it Here, but you seem to be having some trouble even with the ‘school debating points’).
Now Here, as you have posted a number of comments above, please be specific about the exact observation(s) that you wish me to comment on.
Indeed. As mentioned in this article, Brough never ever produced any evidence of paedophile rings and his claims were so true and ubiquitous that he had to plant a staffer to do a fake story. Likewise with the most recent fake nurse, who was literally just making up stuff. There’s a long history of White Australia fabricating abuse to facilitate White Australians acquiring Blak kids. It’s very difficult to take claims seriously when we have had recent history of complete fabrications being aired and the Right falsely running around accusing drag queens of being paedophiles.
As a broader point, anyone that works in CSA, either as lawyers, doctors, teachers, psychologists or Police, will tell you it is far more ubiquitous than we like to believe.
In a world of symbols, Dutton et al are trying to signpost themselves as protecting people’s rights and boundaries. But they’re the ones exploiting them.