Interesting that both New Zealand & Australia face radical indigenous policy prescriptions being pushed by minorities.
For Australia we have the “Voice to Parliament” concept that the indigenous industry has been pushing for a few years and I see signs the PM could be ready to pass some version on a vote in Parliament. I can add more later on “Voice to Parliament”.
In NZ the recent emergence of the He Puapua (the break) concept looks exactly like a plan for the GreenLeft Ardern Govt to grant Maori a major and separate share of Govt way in excess of their ~17% of the NZ population.
The Aus indigenous “Voice to Parliament” issue raises several mostly hidden thorns.
I think the real tactic from the proponents of this notion is to run a vague, emotional constitutional referendum with the key provision being along the lines of “Allow the Parliament to pass laws to add an Indigenous Voice to the Constitution”. That is, push the emotion but let the Parliament later quietly force the issue into immoveable constitutional law – which the HC will then have endless enjoyment with.
A not secondary issue is the improper use of the term “Royalties” in relation to mining enterprises paying indigenous groups for the use of land. The MSM is particularly grievous in the deliberate misuse of this term.
The unrelieved truth is that the State Govts own the minerals (according to ex-Premier Carr “to the centre of the earth”). Exceptions are the two Territories and below-seabed deposits between the low tide mark and international marine boundaries. Consequently, “Royalties” are the exclusive propert of the States. No State has shown the slightest interest in donating these funds to a 3rd party.
Companies such as Rio and Fortescue (amongst others) have seen fit to make ex-gratia payments under the umbrella of Native Title, but these are not Royalties. Further, the Native Title Act expressly excludes such payments from being quantum based on the calculated market value of the actual geological deposit. That provision really inflames the activists, but is designed specifically as protection for the Royalty flow to the States. There are many sections of the political left who wish to impose two “Royalties” streams.
I have no trust in Morrison. He is persistently crab-walking through the undeclared process of double-crossing his voter base in slow motion. Voice to the Parliament is just another step.
Yes, don’t we already have Land Councils and other special arrangements to give Aboriginals still living in something resembling a traditional fashion to have a voice in how land important to them is exploited, and under what conditions and with what compensation?
A separate “voice to Parliament” would be a gift to inner-urban activist groups and grievance-mongers, many of whom just represent themselves and have no understanding of the real problems of Aboriginals in the bush.
Muriel Newman’s New Zealand Centre for Political Research blog has some great contributions on various aspects of He Puapua. I like the claim that Maori canooed their way to Antarctica. But Hey!! we do not want our Polynesian brothers to overdo the modesty – you know – the old “hiding your light under a bushell”.
How about Maori stepping up and telling the Yanks the truth about how Maori were first to the Moon. Teach those NASA amateurs to put on that act in 1969.
Albanese is now “promising” a referendum on The Voice if he becomes PM.
I’ll stick my head up here and predict he will then produce a referendum question along the heavy emotional lines of reconciliation, redress our racist history, open up indigenous rights, do the moral historical thing … etc etc , but allow the Parliament to make laws inserting The Voice into the Constitution.
Putting the so-called “Voice” for indigenous persons in the constitution open the door for apartheid (or apart hood ) or separate development which the world showed in the 1980’s they did not like. The “voice” would empower anyone claiming or believing they have a connection with indigenous people to get a privilege which was never envisioned in the 1967 referendum. I believe the people of Australia will not agree even though propositions will lie about the intent and omit what will be the next steps. The high court should clarify the present constitution and require the truth to be put in any question (eg Do you want a racial group of persons who called themselves indigenous have separate development and privileges ?)