Posts

What’s the Purpose of the NIAA? 

,

I asked the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) about their audits in relation to fraud and found out how their work on a report of recommendations was progressing. A broader chat followed about releasing aboriginal communities from the aboriginal industry comprising white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians.

What the main remote communities need is autonomy. Allocating funds directly to aboriginal communities will cut out the middlemen and women. Jobs, health and housing.

I listened to Miss Broun talk about the role of the NIAA. Briefly, the NIAA’s purpose is to lead Commonwealth activities, inform whole of government priorities, coordinate indigenous portfolio agencies, enable policies, programmes and services and advance a whole of government approach to improving lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What was the purpose of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ when the NIAA has such a broad role and funding?

The administration of the aboriginal industry does need to look hard at whether all these strategies, consultants, reports, and micromanagement are getting in the way of progress.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I’ve got two sets of questions. There are some short ones to get out of the way, and then I’d like to have a discussion through some questions about behaviour change. I’ll get to the mundane questions, although they’re still important. What money was spent by your agency or given to others on promoting the ‘yes’ case for the recent referendum?

Ms Guivarra: None.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like concise answers. What money has been spent by this agency in relation to any proposed treaty?

Ms Guivarra: We were allocated funding for work associated with the makarrata commission. You will see from the budget papers that that was in the order of $5.8 million, from recollection. I’ll get Dr Gordon to confirm that, and he can give you a breakdown of how much of that has been spent. But, specifically on treaty, again, none has been spent. Our role, essentially, has been to seek information on the processes that states and territories are currently involved in. But I’ll get Dr Gordon to give you a more comprehensive response.

Dr Gordon: That’s correct, yes. No funding has gone towards a makarrata commission. Where the funding has gone in the agency, from that $5.8 million, is towards work on understanding treaty and truth-telling processes underway in states and territories and internationally. As of 30 September 2023, we’ve expended $607,000.66 on that.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s involved in spending that money to gain understanding of what the states and overseas people are doing?

Dr Gordon: It involves some desktop research but also bilateral meetings with states and territories, or multilateral meetings. There have been a considerable number of bilateral meetings over the last year; I think it’s around 25 between the agency and our colleagues in the state and territory agencies, as well as a few kind of broader ones.

Senator ROBERTS: Face to face?

Dr Gordon: It’s virtual, primarily.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s real humans with real humans? Okay. So you’ve spent six hundred and something thousand dollars out of $5.8 million allocated. What are the prospects for the $5.2 million left? What are the plans, rather?

Dr Gordon: As Minister Burney has stated a number of times, including on 2 August, the government will be considering next steps following the referendum, and that’s a process that’ll happen from this point on. What happens now in relation to that is a matter for government, and that will be informed by engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and also our ongoing work with the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: That goes to my next question. Minister Burney previously said, prior to the failed referendum, that $1 million had already been spent on the treaty. What is the full figure spent so far on all aspects of that—in the past as well? You’ve just told me zero currently. What is the full figure spent so far, and how much of it is proposed to continue to be spent, given that Prime Minister Albanese has backed away from the commitment to pursuing makarrata and truth-telling?

Dr Gordon: I’m not aware of that particular statement by the minister, but the figure that I just gave you is the amount that’s been spent on work looking at the treaty and truth-telling arrangements. And that process going forward for the remainder is what I just outlined as well.

Senator ROBERTS: A recent ANAO audit found inadequate safeguards and procedures in relation to identifying and dealing with financial risks, including fraud. What plans are being made in response to these
deficiencies?

Mr Worth: The report outlined seven recommendations for improvement in relation to our broader risk and fraud compliance risk management. We have developed, in response to that, an implementation program, making a number of changes to address all the recommendations. We have accepted all of the recommendations. We have completed a number of actions through that, and we’re on track to have closed out all of those recommendations by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you list the recommendations, please—what areas? I want to get a feel for it. The reason for that is that the ANAO recently told me they can’t investigate corruption, which includes fraud. So I wanted to find out who can and does.

Mr Worth: The first recommendation was that the NIAA fully implement its risk management policy and framework, including by conducting assessments of enterprise risk, undertaking risk assessments when developing business plans and policies, and undertaking specific activities. The second recommendation was the NIAA conduct fraud risk assessments regularly and develop and implement a fraud control plan. The third recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that advisory committee actions are in line with their terms of reference and that the annual report of ARC, the audit risk committee, to the accountable authority clearly highlights any deficiencies in the risk management and control framework that have been identified. The fourth recommendation is that the NIAA fully implement program and subprogram fraud risk assessments, organisational risk profiles and activity risk assessments, and monitor and fraud risk assessments. The fifth recommendation was that the NIAA implement proactive mechanisms for the detection of provider fraud and noncompliance. The six recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that it maintains a record of referrals, the basis of referral assessment and decision-making against transparent criteria, and makes decisions on whether to proceed with fraud investigations in line with the organisational risk appetite. The final recommendation was that the NIAA monitor and report on resources, time frames and outcomes of compliance reviews and fraud investigations.

Those recommendations were made off the back of the assessments made by the NIAA regarding the effectiveness of the control systems and processes that were in place. So it’s not that things weren’t in place; we did have processes, frameworks and so on. But the conclusion, through the audit processes, was that they were partly effective and not as complete as they needed to be—hence those recommendations. I think it’s worth noting that the audit report itself was issued in May 2023, but a program of improvement had already been well underway and indeed was already underway when the audit team arrived and were doing their work. Work has been progressing, as I said, and is due for completion, to address all of those recommendations, by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Who can and does investigate corruption? ANAO told me they don’t.

Senator Gallagher: The National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it does now.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it does.

Senator ROBERTS: No, no—I’m agreeing with you, but is there any federal government agency that has a purview on that? And I notice that NIAA did a lot of this off its own bat. I’m not trying to single NIAA out.

Mr Worth: As with many granting agencies within the Commonwealth, NIAA has processes in place to proactively identify issues of noncompliance, fraud and corruption as well as a responsive mechanism whereby complaints or reports that are received by us are taken on board and investigated. As part of that process, we make an assessment of the accusation or concern and then respond accordingly. In some circumstances, from 1 July, it might be referred to the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In other circumstances, depending on the nature of it, it might be referred internally for further fraud investigation and then, depending on how that investigation goes, it could be referred to the authorities for prosecution, or it could be subject to an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation, for example, or state police forces. For matters of noncompliance it could be referred internally.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Broun, could you tell me the main purpose of the National Indigenous Australians Agency please. What’s the main role? What do you hope to achieve?

Ms Broun: It’s in the annual report. It’s in our executive order, obviously, and that’s on page 9 of the annual report, if you’ve got it there. I’ll read from the annual report:

  • To lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery …
  • To provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister …
  • To lead and coordinate … Closing the Gap … in partnership with Indigenous Australians;
  • To lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation;
  • To build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
  • To design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects;
  • To analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA;
  • To coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s); and
  • To undertake other tasks the Prime Minister and the Minister require from time to time.

That’s the executive order.

Senator ROBERTS: The next question, Minister, is directed to Ms Broun, but it’s an opinion, in some ways, so maybe you’ll have to answer it. What are the main ways of addressing community needs, and what are the main community needs that you see in remote communities? I’ve been to every Cape York community and some of the Torres Strait Islands, and I’ve been to a couple of the Northern Territory ones. It reminds me of when I was a mine manager. Before becoming a mine manager, I worked on the coalface as a miner. When I became a mine manager, I was sent to various mines to turn them around. I’d walk in—and I was told by the previous mine manager, ‘They’re lazy; they’re incompetent,’ et cetera. I gave them accountability and autonomy and they were wonderful people—the same lazy miners! What I see in Cape York communities is people hungry for autonomy, and ready for it, but they seem to be squashed by what I’ll call—and I’m not referring to you—the Aboriginal industry, which is white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians. The real people are just missing out. That’s why it’s such a—

CHAIR: That’s what everyone says about us, too!

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re right; I agree with you! Is there any thought to allocating the money directly to communities and getting rid of the Aboriginal industry that’s feeding off—

Ms Broun: Thanks for that question—which is very broad ranging.

Senator ROBERTS: It is. I just want to start the discussion.

Ms Broun: The closing the gap national agreement identifies a whole range of areas we need to do better on. The Productivity Commission draft review identifies that we need to accelerate that effort as well—so it identifies some of the gaps. The minister has also consistently looked at those priorities around jobs, housing, health and education. Jobs is a really critical element of this, and it goes to your statement as well. In terms of funding communities directly, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy has a range of ways that that happens currently—so different programs go to different providers. One of the ones I mentioned in my earlier statement was the Indigenous rangers programs, and the funding that that provides to community organisations directly. It’s about jobs and about connection to country and culture as well. It has lots of elements to it and it currently employs about 1,900 people, with a plan to double that by 2030. That goes to your point around jobs as well. If there is more to that that you’d like answers to, I can get the right people up in terms of housing and jobs.

Senator ROBERTS: I was told by a very bright young councillor at Badu Island—I asked, ‘How’s closing the gap going?’ He said: ‘Mate, it’s not going. Whatever happens to the Closing the Gap campaign, there will be a gap because people are feeding off the money. It’s not the community’s.’ That’s what he said, bluntly. In America they have charter schools—I’m just trying to make a parallel and see what you can come up with. Charter schools are where the money goes from the government directly to the community for their school. They have found that, instead of going from the government to the bureaucracy, the locals have responsibility and the charter school flourishes because the principal and the parents take responsibility. I’m wondering if there is a parallel that can happen with the Aboriginal communities. These are wonderful people, very bright and ready to go; they’re just held back by bureaucracy and the Aboriginal industry. Is there any thought to giving the people the opportunity to develop their own future? That’s a sure way to get accountability.

Mr Brahim: Throughout Australia, there are quite unique and complex circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not easy.

Mr Brahim: In relation to the schools—and I know Education was here yesterday—across Australia there are—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant community things in general—giving more autonomy to the community, not just schools.

Mr Brahim: Using the charter schools as an example: the education department funds Aboriginal independent schools—so that goes straight to the schools. We fund a lot of community as well not necessarily through a provider, so the communities themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: When you say ‘we fund’—

Mr Brahim: The NIAA funds. There are different funding streams that go through different pathways. One pathway is through to the community organisations—so it’s not always through to a provider as such. Some communities are incorporated and will receive the funding directly from us.

Senator ROBERTS: I will finish up with this: I can remember, sometime around 2012-13, I was driving into Canberra listening to the radio, and they had allocated almost $1 billion back then—when a billion was a billion—and built 15 houses in 18 months. The people from the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal communities, were saying, ‘Give the money to us and let us build them.’ I think that was a fine idea, but instead the bureaucrats controlled it and got consultants, workers and contractors in from southern parts of Australia when the Aboriginals were hungry for jobs. It just didn’t make sense, and the outcome wasn’t there.

/6 Comments/by

Native Title Inquiry Needed Now

I spoke in support of Senator Hanson’s motion for an inquiry into Native Title.

The problem many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we speak to have continuously raised with us is that under Native Title the land is locked up and can’t benefit from it. That’s about half of Australia locked up under Native Title and held with the government. Is it any wonder the United Nations is so interested in Native Title?

The white and black aboriginal industry consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats. They all claim to be ‘closing the gap’ between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ standard of living and other non aboriginal Australians. The fundamental flaw in this system is that those running the industry are parasitically living off the money that is given to the aboriginal communities. It is a self-perpetuating problem.

Every year the billions of taxpayers’ dollars poured into solving the problem is being syphoned off by the same individuals who “claim” to be helping. Very little of the money makes it through to those in need.

You may recall when the Western nations were called upon to donate to ease the famine in African nations, very little of that aid often didn’t make it past the greedy government bureaucrats. This is what’s going on in Australia now. The pressure to scale it up is significant, but it will only increase the size of the industry and make it worse. What is needed is a solution to the Native Title problem that’s locking up the land. A sunset clause in the Native Title act should also be included. We need accountability within the white and black aboriginal industry.

Autonomy and accountability is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hungry for, yet they are being blocked by those who are living off the industry in the cities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

It’s time to close the gap for good. We need this inquiry.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson’s motion, which I’ll read for clarification. It states:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

We want an inquiry.

Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek’s latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.

One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.

When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.

It’s really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It’s no wonder that we see the words ‘United Nations’ so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don’t realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can’t get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.

These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we’ve heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.

When asked about the government’s closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don’t talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They’ve stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That’s what’s going on in this country. It’s important for many people to keep the gap wide open.

I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I’ve been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, ‘What about closing the gap?’ Some people said, ‘What’s closing the gap?’ Others said, ‘It’s useless.’ When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, ‘Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.’ The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.

My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It’s caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.

Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.

Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won’t change without accountability. The people in the communities that I’ve listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.

I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I’m advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What’s wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?

As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I’m advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it’s working and to go back to fundamentals. ‘Thirty-one years,’ Senator Rennick said. ‘We need an inquiry. We’re the house of review.’ I concur with Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don’t know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.

/7 Comments/by

The Voice: A Conversation with Anthony Dillon

,

Join me with Anthony Dillon as we talk about his history and why he believes the Voice will not help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

/by

You Cannot Have a Treaty With Yourself

We’ve been hearing a lot about reconciliation and self-determination recently. On 20 June 2023, Senator Thorpe called for a treaty to end a “war declared on First Nations people 230 years ago” as a Matter of Urgency.

A treaty is a legal arrangement between parties, each authorised to represent their side. Treaties are a two-way street. In simple terms, treaties are agreements between nations. They’re used to end wars, land disputes and even establish new countries.

Senator Thorpe called for a treaty to address historic systematic injustices and remove systemic racism. How does she see this as a uniting process? It’s not reasonable nor logical to try to punish later generations for perceived historical injustices to the ancestors of Aboriginal people.

Without a doubt, injustices occurred on both sides during the opening up of inland Australia, as settlers pushed into the interior. Australia was not won as the spoils of a war, and there was never a united aboriginal nation to treaty with.

A treaty binding Australia with First Nations people is not viable. It is not based on law and is divisive. We need to unite as one country.

Transcript

Senator Thorpe is calling for a treaty as a matter of urgency. A treaty between which parties? Who would represent Aboriginal people? What would be in the treaty? Billions in compensation and reparations, perhaps? The white and black Aboriginal industry already receives billions of dollars in grants and projects. Even if a treaty had been considered in the early days of settlement, it could not have been completed as there was no representative Aboriginal leader. There was no means of establishing representation of widely distributed tribes of Aboriginal people across the vast continent of Australia. It was impossible. Some tribal groups were simply unknown to others. There was no universal legal system in place when Europeans settled Australia. A treaty is a legal arrangement between parties authorised to represent their side. Treaties are a two-way street. Each party would agree to do or refrain from doing certain things. The process is essentially contractual.

Senator Thorpe has indicated that a treaty should address historic systematic injustices. How does she see this as a uniting process? It’s not reasonable nor logical to try to punish later generations for perceived historical injustices to the ancestors of Aboriginal people. There’s no doubt that injustices occurred on both sides during the opening up of the inland as settlers pushed into the interior and developed Australia. Australia was not won as the spoils of a war.

Is this treaty to be part of the blak sovereignty agenda that Senator Thorpe has been pushing since leaving the Greens or is this part of the Greens’s globalist agenda? According to some reports, a treaty is stage 2 of a three-stage process linked to getting the Voice up and then the rewriting of Australian history from the radical socialist point of view. Most Aboriginals have never heard of blak sovereignty, and the concept of a treaty is only the language of the socialist far-left elite and academics pushing for the Voice.

Aboriginal people never formally united in exercising exclusive possession of the entirety of Australia and Aboriginal sovereignty cannot be ceded as it did not exist after 1788. The High Court held in Love v Commonwealth in 2020 that First Nations sovereignty did not persist after the British Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in 1788. This confirmed the decision made in Mabo No. 2 in the High Court.

Treaties in other countries were possible because the indigenous party was a united nation. That has never been the case for Aboriginals in Australia. A treaty binding Australia with First Nations people is not viable. It is not based on law. It is divisive. Instead, we need to unite as one country.

/by

The Voice is About Money, Power and Control

“The scope of the voice is its strength,” said one of its Indigenous architects, Megan Davis. The Voice is racist. It is flawed, divisive — inserting race into the constitution. It would destroy the People’s constitution which is for ALL Australians and replace it with a Politicians’ constitution.

The problem with the Voice is what is being hidden from the public: the power being created and how that power changes our system of government. The ‘Yes’ campaign has no basis for its argument that the powers being created won’t be used and in trying, it is deceiving Australians. There is no doubt that past governments have failed aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs despite spending billions of dollars. Since 2018, there have been 19,000 grants given to 300 indigenous corporations for aboriginal purposes, at a grand total of $11.5 billion. The grants and other funds directed at these issues are not closing the gap. Where has this jaw dropping amount of money gone? It is in fact the aboriginal industry that is entrenching this gap to our national disgrace. Billions already spent and billions more to run the Voice.

No one should be surprised that the Native Title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice would further entrench aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.

The public has turned against the Voice in spite of concerted efforts by government and their corporate sponsors to force compliance.

The PM initially said if people reject the Voice, he would not rule out legislating it into parliament instead. What is the point of a referendum, if politicians will not listen?

I will be voting no!

Transcript

Tonight my remarks go to the path ahead. I serve my home state of Queensland, which is made up of many different people. Some came here first, others were born here and others have come here since. With the Voice referendum legislation decided, the cohesion of our Queensland community is threatened by the most divisive government initiative since the Vietnam War if not ever. Never has this country seen an issue that splits Australians right down the middle, where the vote will be won or lost on just a handful of votes in a handful of states. With the vote so close, every Australian must act with caution. Sadly—tragically—I see no sign that that is to happen. I’m deeply concerned that in the months ahead emotion will be deliberately triggered to leverage the emotional response for votes, which will continue hiding deeply troubled absent details. There will be appeals to fear and there will be shaming on both sides. These are evident now, and the campaign has not yet been called.

Above all else there will be disinformation, which will occur because the Prime Minister refuses to reveal the details of the Voice. By details, I don’t mean the discussion document and the Uluru Statement that are legally irrelevant to the practical application of the Voice. Those documents do not form part of the vote and will not inform a legal challenge to a voice provision should one occur. I mean the legislation that will set out how the Voice will work in practice. If the implementing legislation is presented before the vote then without a doubt the High Court will hold the government to that legislation—no more, no less. That is why the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, will not release it. The less detail revealed, the more discretion the Prime Minister will have to introduce a woke political agenda under the cover of implementing the Voice, an agenda that will fundamentally reshape Australian society.

Don’t take my word for it! Listen to the words of voice architect professor Marcia Langton who only last week said:

People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that’s right, that is exactly what we are doing.

I find it difficult to reconcile the words of the architect of the Voice, Professor Langton, with the words of Prime Minister Albanese, who called his proposal ‘modest’. Destroying the fabric of our nation’s Constitution modest? I thank Professor Langton for her candour, and I criticise the Prime Minister for his lack of candour, his cover-up, his deceit. Not that Professor Langton spoke truthfully out of a higher regard for the fundament principles of peaceful discourse—in fact, far from it. In 2019 Professor Langton said:

It would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.

Who’s doing that? Who’s saying Aboriginal Australians do not deserve equal representation and do not deserve the same access to opportunity as anyone else in this country? Who’s saying that those on the no side desire less for Aboriginals than they do for any other Australians. No-one is saying it; that’s who—no-one. Those words in and of themselves inject a level of vitriol that the speaker has claimed is coming from the no side. Those comments invite hatred and violence against the no side. Those comments tell everyone who Marcia Langton is, not who we are. Labels and slurs are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest and the fearful. They reveal a lack of solid data, facts and logical argument.

I’m concerned that the hatred we are seeing from some in the yes case must lead to violence. I call on the Prime Minister to call out the personal attacks and restore stability to the debate coming from the yes advocates. It is a fundamental principle of One Nation that Aboriginals together with all who are now in this country must be treated fairly and offered equality of opportunity. Anyone who seeks to minimise, to harm, to malign, to deprive those who were here first has no place in One Nation. I implore all Australians to remember the golden rule of free speech, which is this: just because you can say something does not mean you should. I implore both sides to consider your words. Consider your memes and your signs at the rallies, which will no doubt occur. Consider that on the other side of this referendum we will still be the same country composed of the same people, and we will all need to get along. To use an old saying: least said, soonest mended. This advice was first seen in writing in the 1606 literary classic Don Quixote. Ironically, like the Voice, Don Quixote is a cautionary tale of a man who does not see the world as it is but rather as he needs it to be, in order to justify his doomed quest to vanquish imaginary enemies for his own ego. One Nation will continue to advocate for measures that actually raise Aboriginal Australians up, through the provision of basic services, jobs and, above all else, opportunity.

/4 Comments/by

One Nation Uses its Voice to Back Real Project From the Heart

The Iron Boomerang inquiry was initiated by One Nation because we saw the project’s undeniable benefits.

This 3,300 km transcontinental railway represents significant advantages to all Australians across the top end by connecting Central Queensland with the Pilbara in Western Australia. It will increase our GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars from the steel alone, without counting the concrete, fertiliser, and other by-products.

This project offers a boon to Australia. One that is tangible and has details backing it up. One that makes money — doesn’t just cost money. One that keeps wealth in Australia rather than sending it offshore to further enrich foreign interests. One that will truly improve the lives of indigenous Australians with a multipurpose corridor bringing utilities, transport and tourism to their communities.

I look forward to seeing this project proceed further. The Iron Boomerang a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this government to make a difference for all of Australia.

Transcript

As a servant to the many varied people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry’s report into the project known as Iron Boomerang. One Nation’s Senate motion initiated this inquiry because of this project’s undeniable benefit to all of Australia. I thank the committee and the secretariat for their work, and I thank the witnesses for attending. This is a complicated project, and the committee and the secretariat have done a great job of processing the information presented across different hearings. Project lead Shane Condon has made this his life’s work, and Australia must be forever in his debt for the vision, application and sheer determination that he has shown. One Nation is fully supportive of the report’s recommendations.

As this project moves forward to a new era, I must remark that Project Iron Boomerang is probably a misnomer. It does consist of a 3,300-kilometre transcontinental railroad with heavy-duty axle capacity connecting existing rail networks in the iron ore region of the Pilbara to the existing coal rail networks in Central Queensland. Iron ore will be transported from Western Australia to Queensland, and those carriages will then be loaded with coal to transport back to the west, hence the boomerang in the name.

Steel mills at either end combine these minerals into steel—the world’s highest-quality steel at the world’s lowest price. Steel is a huge industry that helped build the wealth of this nation, and will do so again. It is also building the wealth of many nations right now. Steel is then exported as container traffic backload through ports in northern Queensland and Western Australia, offering faster and cheaper market access for our steel as against our competitors.

The fundamental benefit of this system is to reduce freight to the smallest possible footprint, economic as well as carbon dioxide for those who think that’s important. Less coal will be exported across the world in bulk oil carriers that burn 200 tonnes of heavy diesel oil a day, carriers that then return empty while burning another 100 tonnes of oil a day on the way with huge reductions in carbon dioxide for those who believe that we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide. Less iron ore and dirt will be exported from Western Australia across the world, saving the heavy diesel consumption and again reducing carbon dioxide production and the cost. Instead, ore is transported a shorter distance in a gas electric train offering a huge competitive advantage for Australian steel and a huge benefit for the environment—the real environment, as well as that carbon dioxide sky-gas nonsense.

The committee rightly identified the railroad and the steel development are separate issues. It’s possible, as Senator Canavan has pointed out, that ships can operate the boomerang trip in first phase of the project, and we’ve had that confirmed since. The southern route is slightly longer than a direct rail link but will cost less at around $10 a tonne versus $40 a tonne for the railroad. Having said that, the railroad will become the cheaper option after the volume of ore and coal being moved exceeds 150 million tonnes a year. This point will be reached with the second stage of steel production, which is to increase the mills from 10 to 20.

The railroad carries many other benefits the committee did not hear in evidence that East West Line Parks may like to correct during their discussions with Infrastructure Australia. Grazing interests have expressed a strong desire to use the line to transport cattle from the remote cattle stations to the east and then to markets overseas. That trip is currently done using road, which puts the animals under pressure and causes a costly reduction in body weight of around 15 per cent. Rail offers a smoother, faster ride and a reduction in body weight of only five per cent. That’s a benefit all round.

Aboriginal interests own many remote cattle stations employing Aboriginal workers. This rail will represent a significant benefit to the Aboriginal community right across the Top End. Agricultural interests would use the rail line to take production from the Ord River irrigation area to market in the east, reducing their freight costs by 50 per cent or even more. The line will open stranded asset rare-earth mines that hold mineral reserves we need to make the electric cars, batteries, windmills and solar panels necessary for net zero. Hmm. The line will open the currently inaccessible East Pilbara, an area containing significant mineral wealth, while adding additional life to existing mines across the Pilbara.

Environmentalists oppose mining and oppose expanding the steel industry at the same time as calling for a transition from petrol to electric cars and the covering of our continent in steel transmission towers and steel wind turbines. Environmentalists can, of course, use their favoured building material—compressed rainbow unicorn farts. The rest of us though use steel. Project Iron Boomerang is not unique. The 2,300-kilometre Tarcoola to Darwin railway was completed 10 years ago. It was completed in five years at a cost of just $3.5 billion across similar terrain. This is not complicated engineering. Railroads like this are being built overseas, and a shorter railroad was recently completed in the Pilbara. We can do this.

A second aspect of the east-west railroad is the multifunction corridor that would normally be built alongside a railway such as this. For a small additional cost in relative terms, this could be upgraded to hold a fibre-optic cable, water and power trunk lines. These, in turn, could provide town water, power and the internet to regional and remote communities, mostly Aboriginal, right across the Top End. Sidings along the route would allow for a local passenger or freight train to improve transport and freight services to these same remote communities.

Tourism is another likely benefit. The Ghan can expand to offer what would be one of the world’s ‘must do’ trips, offering real employment to the Aboriginal community. I hope that Infrastructure Australia pursues inquiry into this aspect of the project. One Nation would love to see homes built with power, water and the internet for remote Aboriginal communities. Iron Boomerang holds that future for these communities. I hope that Infrastructure Australia reviews this most exciting aspect of the project.

The committee has recommended a separate inquiry be held into the steel component of Project Iron Boomerang. The terms of reference are well chosen, with one suggestion. During many meetings, as part of promoting this project, I met with an Australian company that has technology which captures carbon dioxide from the steel mill’s steam stack and combines that output with seawater to produce valuable commodities such as ammonia and ethanol. The process is self-funding. These building blocks can be turned into fertiliser, AdBlue, ethanol and many other products that Australia currently imports. These are not just by-products; they’re products essential to our national security. I hope the steel inquiry hears evidence on how a commercially proven coal-to-hydrogen process can power an electric arc furnace—’green steel’, if you want to use that term. There are, though, many questions around this process that’s years from commercial reality, especially in terms of quality; it’s brittle at the moment.

World steel demand is expected to remain at two per cent growth over the medium term, with the new developing crescent of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan taking up the slack from maturing Chinese, USA and European markets. Indonesia is constructing a new national capital, with construction extending to 2040. This alone will consume the output from our Project Iron Boomerang phase 1 steel mills. If we’re to wind back exports of coal for power in the name of climate change—and I hope we’re not; One Nation strongly opposes this—substituting the use of coal for power with the use of coal for steel would provide continuity of employment for the coal industry, something that should keep unions happy.

Another economic benefit of the steel mills is fly ash, a by-product of steel manufacture when the power source is coal. Fly ash can replace 20 to 30 per cent of the cement in concrete. Project Iron Boomerang will result in the construction of new concrete plants to utilise the steel parks’ by-products. As even the Greens would agree, you can’t do wind power without concrete, and Australia does not have enough concrete for the job. The world steel market is worth A$2 trillion a year. Iron Boomerang will increase Australia’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars, just from the steel, let alone the concrete, fertiliser, ammonia and other by-products.

The committee correctly identified the potential national security benefits of the railway, the steel parks and the port upgrades this project will deliver. The expectation is for a naval maintenance base in North Queensland to service the United States Pacific fleet. The railway offers access to parts of this country where access is currently problematic. I note the Maritime Union of Australia is advancing their rebuilding the Australian shipping and maritime industries proposal to expand the Australian shipping fleet. Project Iron Boomerang steel mills will produce four-metre wide slabs instead of the normal two-metre wide slabs. When used to produce railway rolling stock and ships, this results in half the number of welds and joins, producing a cheaper, stronger and faster product. I hope the union will participate in the steel inquiry and look for ways to breathe new life into Australia’s heavy manufacturing industries, currently languishing after decades of planned decay, a decay that has cost breadwinner jobs and economic security.

With the attractive markets, returns and many by-products, it’s no surprise private industry and net private investors are waiting ready to fund and construct this project. There is, though, a problem: private investors don’t trust our government, and after debacles like Adani who could blame them? At some point the federal government is going to have to put their hands into their pockets to fund the final business case, not because the proponents can’t fund it, but because their backers will not let them. For this project to proceed further, the government must demonstrate skin in the game. I look forward to the inquiries that have been recommended in this report, and I look forward to Infrastructure Australia advancing this project. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Albanese government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed of the motion.

/8 Comments/by

Voice – Treaty – Lies

Uluru-Statement-in-Full

26-page-Doc-14-Uluru-Statement-from-the-HeartDownload

112 page document obtained under FOI is available for download below.

FOI-112-page-docDownload

The Prime Minister has deliberately hidden his true agenda and contradicted his own statements regarding the Voice with lies about the Uluru Statement and a Treaty. He failed to tell Australians that without the constitutional change called the ‘Voice’ there is no national body of Australians with which to sign a Treaty.

On a radio talk show, he was asked if he would move on to a Treaty and he answered ‘no’!

Prime Minister Albanese has called for a Treaty on the record in parliament, and the Uluru statement calls for a treaty. His denials of his intention to proceed to Treaty is a lie too far.

The fact is, PM Albanese is committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full. That is, the entire 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart that every Australian should read. Not the single solitary page passed off by the PM as the entire statement. Another lie.

The Uluru Statement outlines a plan to divide Australia into two separate nations that closely resemble the apartheid regime. Denying that he intends to proceed to treaty is a lie too far from PM Albanese.

The statement calls for annual reparations calculated as a percentage of our GDP, which even at 1% could amount to $20 billion a year, which as we all know would not reach those who truly need it.

The real aboriginal community look to a shared future of mutual respect and equality of opportunity.

The PM has lost the opportunity for that shared community because of his lies.

Sentiments of respect and equality are missing from this elitist and divisive leader whose real intention has been exposed.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, polling has turned against the Voice because the Prime Minister has told a lie too far.

Prime Minister Albanese said repeatedly that the Uluru statement fits on one A4 page and that he was committed to implementing the statement in full. The Uluru statement is 26 pages; the remaining pages have been released under freedom of information.

These contain a clear path for the partition of Australia into two separate nations that closely resemble South Africa’s apartheid regime. On committing to implementing the Uluru statement in full while lying about the contents of the statement, the Prime Minister has told a lie too far. As opposition leader—

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Sterle): Sorry, Senator Roberts, there is a point of order.

Senator Carol Brown: I ask Senator Roberts to withdraw those assertions about the Prime Minister.

Senator Roberts: I withdraw that statement and say he has told what seems to me to be a lie too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese—

Senator Roberts: A mistruth too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese said the Voice must be followed by a makarrata commission to inform a national treaty, yet he failed to tell Australians that without the Voice passing there is no national body of Australians with which to sign a treaty. The Prime Minister’s decision to not admit that without a voice there can be no meaningful treaty is a mistruth too far. When asked on ABC radio if he will move on to treaty if the Voice is passed, the Prime Minister said no; his exact word was ‘no’. Yet the Uluru statement includes a high-level treaty and the Prime Minister has called in parliament for a treaty. It’s on record, and he has the T-shirt to prove it!

The Prime Minister’s denial of his intention to proceed to treaty is a mistruth too far. The Uluru statement calls for reparations in the form of an annual cash payment calculated as a percentage of GDP. Even one per cent would be $20 billion a year in cash to 800,000 Aboriginals, or $100,000 for a family of four, which, as compensation, is tax free. The Prime Minister deliberately hid his true agenda. He’s been found out and he’s now lost any chance of a settlement with the real Aboriginal community that looks to a shared future of mutual respect and equality of opportunity. Loss of shared community is a heavy penalty for one man’s mistruth too far. (Time expired)

/7 Comments/by

ABC fails basic journalism on child abuse

Yesterday the ABC berated Peter Dutton for talking about the abuse of children in the Northern Territory and claimed he had no evidence to prove his claim.

If the ABC had done their job (a bit of research) and looked at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics they would have found the data that shows the NT is 5x worse than any other state.

This is exactly what the voice will be. Belittling and silencing anyone who raises the real issues remote and aboriginal Australians are facing.

/23 Comments/by

“The Voice” is pure racism

Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I propose there should not be a new body called the Voice. The Voice, if a referendum approves, would constitutionally enshrine differential treatment based on skin colour or on identification with a race. I’m completely opposed to introducing such a divisive, discriminatory concept that is racist.

At this stage there has been no detail telling voters how this Voice would be exercised and what obligations would need to be met, nor by whom. Locking the Voice into the Constitution would perpetuate parasitic white and black activists, consultants, academics, bureaucrats and politicians in the Aboriginal industry. It’s known that activists want the Voice to have significant influence on creation of laws. It’s not known how much consultation would be needed before the laws would be made. It’s not known how much it will cost to implement a run. It is clear this detail will not be in the referendum question put to voters.

I’ve travelled widely across remote Queensland and listened to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, from Deebing Creek in the south, across Cape York and to Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. Few of the people I spoke with or listened to had even heard of the Voice.

Last week I met with a delegation of Aboriginal leaders strongly opposing the Voice because these real Aboriginal leaders say it’s racist. They fear the Voice will divide the community into two distinct groups: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. When they say, ‘In reality we are all Australians,’ doesn’t proposing the Voice admit that the current 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament and the current National Indigenous Australians Agency are failing to represent Aboriginals?

I oppose perpetuating the Aboriginal industry suppressing Australians. Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian. We are one nation.

/17 Comments/by

Sovereignty? Why has the government appointed a First Nations AMBASSADOR?

Has the government appointed a First Nations Ambassador because they are pushing for a separate sovereign nation to be established for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

That’s what many of you have asked. It’s just another example of the push by Government to divide us on race which One Nation will continue to oppose.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and thus today to Senator Farrell. An ambassador is a person sent as the chief representative of his or her own government in another country. Given that you have appointed a First Nations ambassador, does the government believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are a separate, sovereign nation?

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question and your earlier advice about the fact that you were going to ask that question of me. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and embedding Indigenous perspectives, experiences and interests in our foreign policy. Australia’s foreign policy should reflect who we are: home to more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth.

We have, as you have rightly said, appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia’s first, inaugural, Ambassador for First Nations People. He will lead an office for First Nations engagement within DFAT to listen to and work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mr Mohamed has worked for decades in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, social justice and reconciliation, in roles spanning the Aboriginal community, government and corporate sectors. Our First Nations foreign policy will help grow First Nations trade and investment. Having had the opportunity to discuss an Indigenous role in trade and investment, it is a significant issue of interest for other countries—and, I might add in that area, tourism as well. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Will you guarantee that the First Nations ambassador, Mr Mohamed, will not make any representations to foreign countries or bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? A yes or no is sufficient.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for very helpfully suggesting how I might answer your question! With due respect, I’ll answer it in the way that I would like to and that I think addresses your point quite directly. This appointment is about making sure that Australian foreign policy tells our full story: home to peoples of more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our projecting this reality
of modern Australia to the world enables us to find common ground and alignment with other countries so we can work together towards the region we want—open, peaceful, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. First Nations’ connection to the countries of our region goes back thousands of years. They were the continent’s first diplomats and the first traders. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: City based, white-skinned activists imported the term ‘First Nations’ from Canada and installed it in our universities. The term has nothing to do with our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Given these facts, do you agree that it is insulting to call our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders ‘First Nations’ and to appoint an ambassador using that term?

Senator FARRELL: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. No.

/2 Comments/by