Posts

Ineffective Use of Funds and Procurement Practices by the NIAA

,

During this Senate Estimate session, I inquired about the amount the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) spent on the unsuccessful Voice Referendum.  The figure was not available. I questioned whether that expenditure might have been more effectively used if directed straight to the communities and expressed concern about the efficacy of the spending.

I highlighted the substantial amounts spent on procurement, noting that Barbara Constructions received $613 million over an eight-year period, while Evolve FM was allocated nearly $497 million. Additionally, Price Waterhouse Coopers, disgraced consultants, received around $50 million.I asked for the total amount spent by the NIAA during that period, which was, of course, taken on notice. I also questioned why, despite billions being spent on NIAA programs, the gap was not being closed. It was reported that $9.5 billion had been spent on procurement. 

I asked whether there was any consideration being given to providing funds directly to communities, bypassing agencies that are not delivering effective results, and offering communities greater autonomy. I did not receive a direct answer to this query.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?  

Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.  

Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.  

Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.  

Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.  

Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?  

Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?  

Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.  

Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?  

Ms Guivarra:  We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.  

Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024. Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?  

Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that— over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.  

Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?  

Ms Guivarra:  The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?  

Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.  


/by

Australians Don’t Need & Don’t Want to be Welcomed to Their Own Country

If you still call Australia home, then you probably join the majority of Australians in being over the virtue-signalling ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremonies that are happening with tedious frequency these days.

It was Voice campaigner, Marcia Langton, who promised no more ‘welcomes’ to country if the Voice was rejected. Let’s hope this promise is kept.

This indigenous cultural ceremony is being misappropriated, misused and it’s definitely divisive, as Senator Price says.

I call on this parliament and all other parliaments, government departments and local government to stop welcoming Australians to their own country.

Transcript

As a servant to the great state of Queensland and Australia, I stand to speak to this matter and to again congratulate the Australian people on their overwhelming rejection of the divisive Voice to Parliament at the October referendum. It was more than a rejection of the Albanese Voice referendum. It was a rejection of the entire Uluru statement—all 26 pages of it. It was a rejection of a treaty and so-called truth-telling—or, more accurately, a rewrite of history with an eye on financial settlements funded by non-Indigenous taxpayers. It was a rejection of identity politics, grievance politics, virtue signalling and the activist cult of victimhood. Primarily, it was a rejection of racial division. 

One of the most racially divisive features of modern discourse in Australia is welcome to country ceremonies, along with acknowledgements of country. Australians, including many Indigenous people, are sick and tired of them. We’ve had a gutful. People are sick of being told Australia is not their country, which is what these things effectively do. Supposed welcomes and acknowledgements deny the citizenship and sovereignty held equally by all Australians. They perpetuate the falsehood that nations existed on this continent prior to 1788. They didn’t. This is a foreign notion, an activist device imported from Canada that does not reflect the reality of Australian history. The High Court confirmed that with a similar statement in 2020. 

I remind the Senate of the promise made by leading Voice campaigner Marcia Langton: no more welcomes to country if the Voice was rejected. We can only hope this promise is lived up to. Federal taxpayers forked out at least $45,000 for these rituals in the previous financial year, although I understand the figure could be much higher, as not every government department has come clean on what they spend. It’s not even a pre-settlement ritual for most Aborigines. It was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley. I acknowledge Narungga elder Kerry White, from South Australia, a great contributor to the ‘no’ campaign, who said these rituals are not even being used correctly. She said last year that they should be reserved for Indigenous people welcoming other Indigenous people to local country and that their use by non-Indigenous Australians was just virtue signalling. She wasn’t wrong about the virtual signalling, that’s for sure. Ms White said: 

… they’ve taken our ceremonial process and demeaned it by throwing it out there every day in every aspect of what Australian people do. And I think that is culturally wrong. 

That was an Aboriginal woman saying that. She even said welcomes to country were an attack on Indigenous culture and disrespectful of Aboriginals and their culture, and that it was patronising and paternalistic to adopt them without understanding them. People saying this do not even understand what it means. I also acknowledge another Indigenous leader of the ‘no’ campaign, Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said recently that welcomes to country were ‘definitely divisive’. Those are her words: ‘definitely divisive’. I’m confident there’s a complete lack of care and a contempt for Aboriginals. People are too lazy to bother to listen and understand the needs of Aboriginals. That has to set back the Aboriginal movement. I am confident I speak for the majority of Australians in saying I wish Professor Langton had included acknowledgements of country too. They’re recited at the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, every council meeting and every Zoom meeting held by public servants. We hear them at the conclusion of every domestic flight. You can hear the groans in the cabin every time. They have effectively lost all meaning for their constant repetition. At a conference in Mackay, an interstate speaker stood up and said a welcome to country for the people in Canberra because she came from Canberra and a welcome to country for the people in Mackay. 

To foster national unity and to help put an end to racial division in this country, it’s time to leave Aboriginal rituals to Aboriginal Australians. One Nation is supremely confident we speak for the majority of all Australians, regardless of race, when we call for an end to welcomes to and acknowledgements of country. We know that, for many, the promise of an end to them motivated their vote in the Voice referendum. We call on this parliament, all other Australian parliaments, all government departments and every local government in this nation to stop signalling the virtues you don’t possess and stop dividing this country by abusing these Aboriginal rituals. Start showing respect for the Aboriginal culture in Australia. Australians don’t want this virtue signalling. Australians don’t want racial division. They said that most emphatically on 14 October at the referendum. Let’s move forward together under one flag as one people in one nation. 

/12 Comments/by

Australia Votes No!

Australia voted yes to equality. Thank you for saying ‘No’.

You did it. Every State and Territory of Australia said NO to the racist Voice EXCEPT for Canberra.

PM Albanese Fails to Listen to the Australian Heartland

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars for the Yes campaign to constitutionally enshrine a Voice to Parliament, the Australian people overwhelmingly spoke with one voice and said NO, except that is for the Capital. This just goes to show how out of step Canberra’s bureaucrat class are with the rest of Australia.

The government’s Yes campaign involved pushing councils, sporting bodies, schools, universities, unions and the corporate sector including the Big 4 banks and QANTAS into backing the Voice.

Australia saw through the spin and the pressure of the Yes campaign. The Voice was not a genuine offer. It wasn’t about helping Australia’s most vulnerable people. It was yet more foreign globalist interference and follows the UN’s resolution, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” which Australia signed up to. The UN’s reaction to Australia’s resounding NO is to predictably condemn the vote as exposing “hidden racism” and a failure to recognise human rights of Indigenous Peoples. They fail to grasp that it is aboriginal people in Australian politics and on the ground in the bush who led the NO campaign. Is it ignorance or deliberate misinformation from the UN?

Aboriginal Australians voted against this divisive measure too. Only the Albanese government and woke white saviour lefties voted for it. Albanese is a puppet for the globalists and needs to go.

As Senator Pauline Hanson says, “Australia has dodged a bullet and the people who fired it must now be held accountable”. Despite this overwhelming indication at the ballot box, some state governments are ploughing ahead down the path to treaty. So hang on to your NO t-shirts for now.

The division in Australia isn’t racially driven, it’s politically driven. The Yes campaign didn’t fail on race, it failed because those pushing it, from government to big business, are the same lot that were pushing the COVID shots.

People power is exactly the medicine we needed after COVID.

/13 Comments/by

Australians are the Masters of the Government, NOT Servants to the Government!

On Saturday over 60% of Australians realised that the people are parliament’s masters, not their servants.

I spoke this morning on the Voice to Parliament, which saw 5 electorates with the largest Aboriginal population give the Voice a thrashing.

Australia voted NO to feelings-based governance and NO to elevating one group within our community over all others based only on skin colour.

Saturday’s result clearly shows Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.

It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs.

I asked the Senate a simple question – who is better to run Aboriginal affairs: the Canberra Aboriginal industry, or local Government who are in the bush ready to build the roads, utilities and community facilities rural Aboriginals need so badly.

Transcript

Last Saturday was the day Australians said no — no to feelings based governance, no to elevating one group within our community over another based only on race, no to a Prime Minister whose chief skill is to cry on cue and no to spending more tax dollars than our taxpayers can afford. Australians are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis as a result of shoddy governance from successive parliaments. People need to keep more of their own money, not less. On Saturday, Australians realised that the people are the parliament’s masters, not its servants. The irony is that the referendum did give Aboriginals a voice, and they used it. The five electorates with the largest Aboriginal population gave the Voice a thrashing. It was a result which clearly shows that Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.

For those in this place who supported racism and apartheid—and you were the majority—now is the time to ask yourself, ‘What the hell was I thinking?’ How could you think it was okay to take a system that has failed Aboriginal people for 120 years and embed, enshrine and perpetuate that system in the Constitution? We don’t need to preserve a broken system that’s failed Aboriginals in the bush; we need to tear it down. It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs. It’s time for city grifters in comfortable offices thousands of kilometres from rural communities to stop keeping money meant for the bush—money that’s used to fund their own empires and line their own pockets. Enough money goes into the funnel to make things right. A drip comes out the bottom. It’s time to turn the damn funnel around.

Today is a new day for Australia’s Aboriginals. Let’s not waste the chance to ask ourselves this question: who’s best to run Australian Aboriginal affairs? Is it Canberra bureaucrats and the Aboriginal industry, or is it best run from local communities and councils right there in the bush, ready to get cracking on housing, roads, power and community facilities?

/8 Comments/by

Event: The Truth Behind The Voice

I will be a guest speaker at Harvest Point Church on Sunday, 24 September 2023 from 2 pm where I will share my thoughts on why I’m voting “no” in the Voice Referendum.

See you there!

Sunday | 24 Sept 2023 | 2pm

Harvest Point Church

25 Walker Road

Gleneagle QLD 4285

/3 Comments/by

WAGGA WAGGA: Vote No!

Join me at the Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre on 26 September 2023, where I will be speaking in support of the “NO” campaign in the upcoming referendum.

Seats are limited so reserve yours now at: https://www.civictheatre.com.au/…/vote-no!-voice-to…, or by calling 02 6926 9688, or in person at the box office.

Tuesday, 26 September 2023

6 pm

Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre

Burns Way (off Tarcutta Street)

Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

/by

Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 2

Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the constitutional legality of the wording on the ballot paper for The Voice, I explained the legal advice I had received on the matter and warned the government that they need to sort this out quickly.

Link to My Questions to Minister Farrell | Part 1

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/constitutional-questions-raised-over-referendum-ballot-paper/

/1 Comment/by

Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 1

Media Release

230911-Voice-Constitutional-Issues-RaisedDownload

Transcript of Questions Asked of Minister Farrell

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Minister, do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023?

Senator Farrell (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question.

Honorable senators interjecting—

Senator Farrell: Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can’t help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It’s hard to believe, I know.

I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts.

Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I’m advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge.

The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator Roberts: Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum?

Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I’ve got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator Roberts: A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake?

Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don’t believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you’re relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn’t mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct.

Senator Scarr: Did you pass?

Senator Farrell: You’ll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired)

My Response to the Minister’s Answers

/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