Latest news with #AboriginalAustralians
Mint
4 days ago
- General
- Mint
Australian Rock Art Site Near LNG Hub Gets World Heritage Status
(Bloomberg) -- The United Nations has granted World Heritage status to an ancient Aboriginal rock art site in Australia that's close to an industrial gas hub, a development that will require the government to protect the cultural area. The Murujuga site, located on the Burrup Peninsula in northwest Australia, contains the largest collection of rock art in the world. Covering around 100,000 hectares, it has more than 1 million engravings known as petroglyphs with depictions of animals, plants — and perhaps the oldest depiction of a human face. The site is of 'immense cultural and spiritual significance' to Aboriginal Australians and was designated a Cultural World Heritage Site at the 47th session of the UN World Heritage Committee in Paris on Friday, Australian Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement. 'For more than 50,000 years, the Ngarda-Ngarli people have protected and managed this significant land and seascape,' Watt said, adding it will now receive another level of protection. The site, however, is near a multibillion dollar liquefied natural gas export hub operated by Woodside Energy Group Ltd. Opponents to fossil fuels as well as aboriginal and environmental activists have waged campaigns against the gas giant, and warned of damage to the site caused by emissions from Woodside's facility. Activists have also launched legal proceedings against a planned expansion of the LNG plant. Woodside's North West Shelf plant is currently permitted to operate until the end of this decade, but the company has received preliminary approval from the Australian government to extend its life to 2070. 'This is well-deserved global recognition of the petroglyphs and the unique living cultural values of Murujuga, to Australia and the world,' a Woodside spokesperson said in an emailed response to questions, adding the company will keep working with related parties 'on the continued protection and management of this globally significant area.' A recent study into emissions at the site indicated some increased porosity in rocks due to industrial emissions, but the data did not support theories that acid rain could affect the artwork. LNG from the North West Shelf is exported to companies in Japan, South Korea and China. The facility is also a major contributor to domestic gas supply in Western Australia. More stories like this are available on
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- General
- First Post
Australia's Aboriginal delegation urges UNESCO to protect ancient rock art
Murujuga, a remote location in Western Australia, is one of the thousands of sites under consideration. According to estimates, there are over one million petroglyphs – engravings that might date back 50,000 years read more Aboriginal site preservation signs stand near the entrance to Deep Gorge on the Burrup Peninsula in the north of Western Australia, close to the site of some one million pieces of Aboriginal rock engravings several thousands of years old and considered by some to be the greatest concentration of such ancient art in the world. File image/ AFP A team of Aboriginal Australians has come to Paris to seek UN support for the conservation of a cultural monument in their native country, which they claim is under threat from damaging mining. Since the beginning of the week, the global Heritage Committee at UNESCO, the United Nations' cultural organisation, has been discussing on which sites to include in the most recent edition of the body's global heritage list. Murujuga, a remote location in Western Australia, is one of the thousands of sites under consideration. According to estimates, there are over one million petroglyphs – engravings that might date back 50,000 years. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'It's possibly the most important rock art site in the world,' said Benjamin Smith, a rock art specialist at the University of Western Australia. 'We should be looking after it.' The site is located on the Burrup peninsula, home to the Mardudunera people, and under threat from nearby mining developments. Making the UNESCO's heritage list often sparks a lucrative tourism drive, and can unlock funding for the preservation of sites. It does not in itself trigger protection for a site, but can help pressure national governments into taking action. 'It's absolutely crucial that the Australian government takes it more seriously and regulates industrial pollution in that area more carefully,' Smith said. Giant mining corporations have been active in the resource-rich Pilbara region for decades. 'Keep our culture thriving' Australian company Woodside Energy operates the North West Shelf, an industrial complex that includes offshore platforms, undersea pipelines, and hydrocarbon processing facilities. The project consistently ranks among Australia's five largest emitters of greenhouse gas, according to figures from the country's Clean Energy Regulator. 'These carvings are what our ancestors left here for us to learn and keep their knowledge and keep our culture thriving through these sacred sites,' said Mark Clifton, a member of the three-person delegation meeting with UNESCO representatives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'This is why I am here.' Environmental and indigenous organisations argue the presence of mining groups has already caused damage with industrial emissions. They are 'creating hundreds of holes in the surface. And that is causing the surfaces with the rock art to break down,' Smith said. In an emailed statement to AFP, Woodside Energy said it recognises Murujuga as 'one of Australia's most culturally significant landscapes'. It added that, according to independent peer-reviewed studies, 'responsible operations' could help protect the heritage. Woodside had taken 'proactive steps', it said, 'to ensure we manage our impacts responsibly'. In May, the Australian government extended the operating licence for the liquefied gas plant by 40 years, with conditions. Australia insists that extending the plant – which each year emits millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas – does not tarnish a pledge to reach net zero by 2050. 'Measures of protection' But activists, saying the government is not taking their concerns seriously enough, demand that UNESCO make any decision to put the site on the world heritage list contingent on the government offering adequate protection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Delegation leader Raelene Cooper told AFP she wanted guarantees. 'There needs to be, at the highest level, safeguards and measures of protection,' she said. The Australian government has sent a separate delegation to Paris, also comprising members of the region's Aboriginal population, to push for the site's recognition. Australia's strong presence at the heritage committee meeting 'is a meaningful opportunity to support the protection and conservation of some of the world's most important cultural and natural sites,' Environment Minister Murray Watt said. Icomos, a non-governmental organisation partnering with UNESCO, said it was urgent for the Australian government to oversee 'the complete elimination of harmful acidic emissions that currently affect the petroglyphs'. UNESCO is expected to announce its update to the list by Sunday.
The Advertiser
19-06-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
We need to close the gap. But how? Some things need to happen first
There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible. There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that. The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation. We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now. The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals? Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones. In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way. Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them. As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old. The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed? There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more. The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with. The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer. Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end. A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well. There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous. MORE AMANDA VANSTONE: Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage. The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier. If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
Canberra Times
18-06-2025
- General
- Canberra Times
We need to close the gap. But how? Some things need to happen first
We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now.
Sky News AU
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
'Oh my goodness': Price stands her ground in tense interview with ABC's Sarah Ferguson after Dutton loses seat to Labor
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was forced to stand her ground in a tense ABC News clash, with Sarah Ferguson questioning whether the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians was partly to blame for Peter Dutton losing his seat in Dickson to Labor. Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton lost his seat after Labor candidate, Ali France, pulled ahead with a double digit two-party preferred swing away from the Liberals. The outcome leaves the Coalition without a leader, with shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and shadow defence minister Andrew Hastie seen as possible replacements. ABC journalist Sarah Ferguson asked Senator Price on Saturday if her now infamous MAGA down under comment at a bowling club in Perth last month was partly to blame for Mr Dutton losing his seat. "That's a big call don't you think. If you sling enough mud in an election, it sticks. We did see a Prime Minister who absolutely misled the Australian people all the way through and was rarely called out for his conduct. I think it is deceitful," Senator Price said. However, Ferguson pressed on, imploring Ms Price to "talk about this seriously". Price responded: "I am talking seriously". Ferguson said her line of questioning was "not a smear campaign", again telling Senator Price: "I want you to address it seriously". The Senator said the Labor Party and the media "made it all about Donald Trump". "We really couldn't care less about the way Donald Trump is governing for America. We were concerned with the way Australia is being governed under an Albanese government," she said. Ferguson, again, told Senator Price to "talk about this sensibly", prompting a shocked "oh my goodness" from the Coalition Senator. "There is a whole lot of mud you just slung right there, can I just say, in terms of wanting this country to be great. Donald Trump doesn't own those four words," Senator Price said. The shadow minister used her remaining airtime to draw attention to significant issues Aboriginal Australians face, choosing to ignore the journalist's jabs. "Aboriginal people will continue to be marginalised. The gap will continue to get wider because we take an ideological approach to all of these issues and Labor will continue to do that," she said. "They will invest money in organisations and not listen to the little people on the ground, but I will continue to fight for those people who actually want to be heard." Peter Dutton's loss in Dickson is one of many defeats for the Coaltion on Saturday, with Labor securing election victory and a majority government.
