Latest news with #ThomasMayo
ABC News
4 days ago
- General
- ABC News
First Nations leaders hope Labor will use big majority to pursue national truth telling
Prominent Indigenous Australians are hopeful the federal government will use its significant majority in parliament to progress a national truth telling process. After declaring he would implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full — which includes establishing a Makarrata Commission to oversee truth telling — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese backed down from the commitment, after the decisive rejection of a Voice to Parliament. But this week, Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy indicated she was still open to the concept, following a call from the so-called father of reconciliation, Pat Dodson. "We have an opportunity now to have a look, with our new parliament, with our second term of government, to see what we can do moving forward," Minister McCarthy said. "One of the things the prime minister and I have said with regards to the Uluru Statement from the Heart was that we supported the three principles: voice, treaty, truth, and we've never shied away from that." While she acknowledged truth telling can happen in various ways — such as at schools — she was "ready to listen to what possibilities there could be in going forward." First Nations leader and prominent Voice campaigner Thomas Mayo said that was a positive sign. Mr Mayo partly blamed the prime minister's decision to retreat on Makarrata on the opposition. "It was under some duress from an opposition party that were invigorated somewhat from their successful nastiness during the referendum campaign and…were feral anytime anything positive in Indigenous affairs was mentioned," he said. He also urged Labor to be "courageous" after its resounding win. "That majority was somewhat a repudiation on the Coalition's punching down on Indigenous Australians throughout their election campaign," he said. Liberal senator Kerrynne Liddle, who is now the Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister, has dismissed the idea the vote was a rejection by a large part of the electorate of so-called culture war issues. "I think most of the Australian public would think that it was pretty silly to suggest that it is a single issue that has resulted in the outcome that we've seen, " she told the ABC earlier this month. Mr Mayo also argued that the federal government should be encouraged by the Liberal government in Tasmania promising to set up truth telling commissioners. Former Labor senator Pat Dodson said he too felt hopeful that Labor seemed open to a national truth telling process. "I'm encouraged by the fact that the commitment that the Labor Party gave some time back, before this election, is still on the agenda," he said. "Obviously it's got to be committed to and then they've got to set up a process to enact it. "But it's a great thing because we've got to start listening to the different stories," he said. Mr Dodson said there were leaders across the country willing to be involved. "I'd encourage the minister to reach out to all these people and bring them together and start to map out a course in this term so that we can get on with it."
The Advertiser
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Staring into the political abyss, a small opportunity arises
Just three weeks ago, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was boasting that it alone was fit for the rigours of national leadership. Australians were assured that the unique city-country partnership was rock-solid, bursting with purpose and singularly focused on you, the voter. Now, it has turned on itself and an arrangement considered so institutional that its title warranted capitalisation, has collapsed, its sworn life-partners unwilling to reconcile, unable to cohabitate. Feelings are hurt and angry words are flying. Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie told reporters that "a reasonable request was put to a trusted partner, and it was refused". This pointed lament referred to the Nats' commitment to forced divestiture powers over the major players in the supermarket duopoly. The Nats wanted a renegotiated Coalition agreement to lock in the policies the political duopoly had just pledged to voters - divesture, nuclear energy, a $20 billion regional future fund, and regional telecommunications. No dice. Amid the anger, there is also schadenfreude. "The parties of divide-and-conquer have thoroughly conquered themselves," noted Thomas Mayo drily, a prominent advocate for the defeated Voice referendum. The Nats had effectively forced the Liberals' hand in 2022 by campaigning against the Voice five months before Peter Dutton officially followed suit. Now in damage control mode, opposition "pollies" insist their life-long bond is merely in abeyance, asleep rather than dead. But this is one deceased-looking parrot. For a start, only one of these parties will be the official opposition. Post-divorce, the smaller Nats will lose that status and thus forego frontbench salary loadings and additional shadow ministerial staff allocations. The House Representatives will be transformed, and not just because of Labor's eye-watering 50-seat lead. Geological and geographical metaphors are common in politics - think landslide wins, tectonic shifts and steep mountains to climb. So where does the end of the Coalition as-we-know-it, stand metaphorically? While to most voters, its passing will fall well short of an earthquake, because that already happened on May 3, it qualifies more as an aftershock. But this is an aftershock of the decisive kind, the rumble that finally brings a weakened house in on itself. And further ructions are imaginable including resignations and even byelections. Back in 1987, when the two conservative parties last split, ensuring their electoral failure in the federal election that year, Bob Hawke had famously quipped "if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country". There is much in this. For, whatever differences and tensions the coalition arrangement had papered over, its joint branding has been a sellable package, with the LNP (as it is often shorthanded) winning and governing more often than its common enemy, the ALP. For all that though, this bust-up might be an opportunity in disguise - especially for Sussan Ley who faces the daunting but existential task of rebuilding the Liberals' decimated city base. A frank assessment of Peter Dutton's disastrous leadership will inflame divisions between sane Liberals in the urban centre-ground and the party's "Foxified" right wing, but corralling the conservative Nats into any realigned public presentation would have only added to the difficulty. Ley's mission involves reforming a structurally decrepit Liberal Party and renewing its base in order to attract disaffected urbanites in what she calls "modern Australia" - especially younger voters and women. Rebuilding might just be easier without Barnaby Joyce and the nuclear Nats in her backpack. Just three weeks ago, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was boasting that it alone was fit for the rigours of national leadership. Australians were assured that the unique city-country partnership was rock-solid, bursting with purpose and singularly focused on you, the voter. Now, it has turned on itself and an arrangement considered so institutional that its title warranted capitalisation, has collapsed, its sworn life-partners unwilling to reconcile, unable to cohabitate. Feelings are hurt and angry words are flying. Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie told reporters that "a reasonable request was put to a trusted partner, and it was refused". This pointed lament referred to the Nats' commitment to forced divestiture powers over the major players in the supermarket duopoly. The Nats wanted a renegotiated Coalition agreement to lock in the policies the political duopoly had just pledged to voters - divesture, nuclear energy, a $20 billion regional future fund, and regional telecommunications. No dice. Amid the anger, there is also schadenfreude. "The parties of divide-and-conquer have thoroughly conquered themselves," noted Thomas Mayo drily, a prominent advocate for the defeated Voice referendum. The Nats had effectively forced the Liberals' hand in 2022 by campaigning against the Voice five months before Peter Dutton officially followed suit. Now in damage control mode, opposition "pollies" insist their life-long bond is merely in abeyance, asleep rather than dead. But this is one deceased-looking parrot. For a start, only one of these parties will be the official opposition. Post-divorce, the smaller Nats will lose that status and thus forego frontbench salary loadings and additional shadow ministerial staff allocations. The House Representatives will be transformed, and not just because of Labor's eye-watering 50-seat lead. Geological and geographical metaphors are common in politics - think landslide wins, tectonic shifts and steep mountains to climb. So where does the end of the Coalition as-we-know-it, stand metaphorically? While to most voters, its passing will fall well short of an earthquake, because that already happened on May 3, it qualifies more as an aftershock. But this is an aftershock of the decisive kind, the rumble that finally brings a weakened house in on itself. And further ructions are imaginable including resignations and even byelections. Back in 1987, when the two conservative parties last split, ensuring their electoral failure in the federal election that year, Bob Hawke had famously quipped "if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country". There is much in this. For, whatever differences and tensions the coalition arrangement had papered over, its joint branding has been a sellable package, with the LNP (as it is often shorthanded) winning and governing more often than its common enemy, the ALP. For all that though, this bust-up might be an opportunity in disguise - especially for Sussan Ley who faces the daunting but existential task of rebuilding the Liberals' decimated city base. A frank assessment of Peter Dutton's disastrous leadership will inflame divisions between sane Liberals in the urban centre-ground and the party's "Foxified" right wing, but corralling the conservative Nats into any realigned public presentation would have only added to the difficulty. Ley's mission involves reforming a structurally decrepit Liberal Party and renewing its base in order to attract disaffected urbanites in what she calls "modern Australia" - especially younger voters and women. Rebuilding might just be easier without Barnaby Joyce and the nuclear Nats in her backpack. Just three weeks ago, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was boasting that it alone was fit for the rigours of national leadership. Australians were assured that the unique city-country partnership was rock-solid, bursting with purpose and singularly focused on you, the voter. Now, it has turned on itself and an arrangement considered so institutional that its title warranted capitalisation, has collapsed, its sworn life-partners unwilling to reconcile, unable to cohabitate. Feelings are hurt and angry words are flying. Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie told reporters that "a reasonable request was put to a trusted partner, and it was refused". This pointed lament referred to the Nats' commitment to forced divestiture powers over the major players in the supermarket duopoly. The Nats wanted a renegotiated Coalition agreement to lock in the policies the political duopoly had just pledged to voters - divesture, nuclear energy, a $20 billion regional future fund, and regional telecommunications. No dice. Amid the anger, there is also schadenfreude. "The parties of divide-and-conquer have thoroughly conquered themselves," noted Thomas Mayo drily, a prominent advocate for the defeated Voice referendum. The Nats had effectively forced the Liberals' hand in 2022 by campaigning against the Voice five months before Peter Dutton officially followed suit. Now in damage control mode, opposition "pollies" insist their life-long bond is merely in abeyance, asleep rather than dead. But this is one deceased-looking parrot. For a start, only one of these parties will be the official opposition. Post-divorce, the smaller Nats will lose that status and thus forego frontbench salary loadings and additional shadow ministerial staff allocations. The House Representatives will be transformed, and not just because of Labor's eye-watering 50-seat lead. Geological and geographical metaphors are common in politics - think landslide wins, tectonic shifts and steep mountains to climb. So where does the end of the Coalition as-we-know-it, stand metaphorically? While to most voters, its passing will fall well short of an earthquake, because that already happened on May 3, it qualifies more as an aftershock. But this is an aftershock of the decisive kind, the rumble that finally brings a weakened house in on itself. And further ructions are imaginable including resignations and even byelections. Back in 1987, when the two conservative parties last split, ensuring their electoral failure in the federal election that year, Bob Hawke had famously quipped "if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country". There is much in this. For, whatever differences and tensions the coalition arrangement had papered over, its joint branding has been a sellable package, with the LNP (as it is often shorthanded) winning and governing more often than its common enemy, the ALP. For all that though, this bust-up might be an opportunity in disguise - especially for Sussan Ley who faces the daunting but existential task of rebuilding the Liberals' decimated city base. A frank assessment of Peter Dutton's disastrous leadership will inflame divisions between sane Liberals in the urban centre-ground and the party's "Foxified" right wing, but corralling the conservative Nats into any realigned public presentation would have only added to the difficulty. Ley's mission involves reforming a structurally decrepit Liberal Party and renewing its base in order to attract disaffected urbanites in what she calls "modern Australia" - especially younger voters and women. Rebuilding might just be easier without Barnaby Joyce and the nuclear Nats in her backpack. Just three weeks ago, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was boasting that it alone was fit for the rigours of national leadership. Australians were assured that the unique city-country partnership was rock-solid, bursting with purpose and singularly focused on you, the voter. Now, it has turned on itself and an arrangement considered so institutional that its title warranted capitalisation, has collapsed, its sworn life-partners unwilling to reconcile, unable to cohabitate. Feelings are hurt and angry words are flying. Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie told reporters that "a reasonable request was put to a trusted partner, and it was refused". This pointed lament referred to the Nats' commitment to forced divestiture powers over the major players in the supermarket duopoly. The Nats wanted a renegotiated Coalition agreement to lock in the policies the political duopoly had just pledged to voters - divesture, nuclear energy, a $20 billion regional future fund, and regional telecommunications. No dice. Amid the anger, there is also schadenfreude. "The parties of divide-and-conquer have thoroughly conquered themselves," noted Thomas Mayo drily, a prominent advocate for the defeated Voice referendum. The Nats had effectively forced the Liberals' hand in 2022 by campaigning against the Voice five months before Peter Dutton officially followed suit. Now in damage control mode, opposition "pollies" insist their life-long bond is merely in abeyance, asleep rather than dead. But this is one deceased-looking parrot. For a start, only one of these parties will be the official opposition. Post-divorce, the smaller Nats will lose that status and thus forego frontbench salary loadings and additional shadow ministerial staff allocations. The House Representatives will be transformed, and not just because of Labor's eye-watering 50-seat lead. Geological and geographical metaphors are common in politics - think landslide wins, tectonic shifts and steep mountains to climb. So where does the end of the Coalition as-we-know-it, stand metaphorically? While to most voters, its passing will fall well short of an earthquake, because that already happened on May 3, it qualifies more as an aftershock. But this is an aftershock of the decisive kind, the rumble that finally brings a weakened house in on itself. And further ructions are imaginable including resignations and even byelections. Back in 1987, when the two conservative parties last split, ensuring their electoral failure in the federal election that year, Bob Hawke had famously quipped "if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country". There is much in this. For, whatever differences and tensions the coalition arrangement had papered over, its joint branding has been a sellable package, with the LNP (as it is often shorthanded) winning and governing more often than its common enemy, the ALP. For all that though, this bust-up might be an opportunity in disguise - especially for Sussan Ley who faces the daunting but existential task of rebuilding the Liberals' decimated city base. A frank assessment of Peter Dutton's disastrous leadership will inflame divisions between sane Liberals in the urban centre-ground and the party's "Foxified" right wing, but corralling the conservative Nats into any realigned public presentation would have only added to the difficulty. Ley's mission involves reforming a structurally decrepit Liberal Party and renewing its base in order to attract disaffected urbanites in what she calls "modern Australia" - especially younger voters and women. Rebuilding might just be easier without Barnaby Joyce and the nuclear Nats in her backpack.
ABC News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Australia votes 2025 — what message should we take from this election result?
If democracy is the will of the people, what does this federal election result say about Australia? In his election night victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australians had voted for Australian values, claiming these were fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. But is this right message we should take from the election result? This conversation was recorded live at the 2025 Melbourne Writers Festival in partnership with The Wheeler Centre. To explore more Melbourne Writers Festival talks, visit Speakers Judith Brett Political historian Author, The Fearless Beatrice Faust, Robert Menzies' Forgotten People, Australian Liberals and the Moral Middle Class, and The Enigmatic Mr Deakin, (winner, 2018 National Biography award) Cathy McGowan Former Independent MP for Indi Author, Cathy Goes to Canberra: doing politics differently Thomas Mayo National Indigenous Officer of the Maritime Union of Australia "Yes" campaigner in the Voice to Parliament referendum Author, Dear Son, Letters and Reflections from First Nations Fathers and Sons, Always Was, Always Will Be: The Campaign for Justice and Recognition Continues, and more Sally Warhaft (host) Interviewer, broadcaster, anthropologist and writer Host, The Fifth Estate event series at The Wheeler Centre Former editor, The Monthly magazine Author, Well May We Say: The speeches that made Australia Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, La Trobe University
West Australian
04-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Federal Election 2025: Key Voice campaigner Thomas Mayo hails Labor victory as support for welcome to country
A key supporter of the Voice to Parliament has hailed Labor's barnstorming Federal Election victory as an endorsement of welcome to country ceremonies and a rejection of 'ignorance' and 'xenophobia'. Thomas Mayo was one of the most prominent campaigners for the Yes vote in the failed 2023 referendum on amending the Australian constitution to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. 'Tonight, Australia voted no to ignorance and yes to acknowledgement,' the Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander posted on X on Saturday night. 'No to xenophobia and yes to welcomes, no to regression and yes to progress.' Former Liberal leader Peter Dutton last week said he thought Aboriginal welcome to country ceremonies had become 'overdone'. The issue of the failed Voice was also reignited last week when Foreign Minister Penny Wong hinted in a podcast there was a chance it could be revived — though she later backed away from those comments. Mr Mayo added that leading figures from the Coalition, One Nation, Trumpet of Patriots and right-wing campaign groups had been rejected resoundingly by voters. 'Peter Dutton, Jacinta Price, Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, the IPA and Advance henceforth have no mandate,' he wrote. 'They've been thoroughly told no.'
Daily Mail
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Key architect of The Voice to Parliament makes major claim about Anthony Albanese's election win
Key Voice architect Thomas Mayo has declared that Labor's resounding election victory was a national endorsement of Welcome to Country ceremonies. The cultural practice became a major issue in the final week of the election campaign after an address by Bunurong elder Mark Brown at Melbourne 's Anzac Day dawn service was drowned out by boos and jeers. One of those responsible was a neo-Nazi and the ugly scenes were condemned from across the political spectrum. But the episode sparked a national debate after a veteran was filmed telling a Channel Nine reporter it was a 'slap in the face' for those who have served their country in battle to be welcomed to it. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he thought the ceremonies were 'overdone', later clarifying that he did not think they were appropriate on Anzac Day. The debate around Indigenous recognition continued after Foreign Minister Penny Wong suggested the Voice to Parliament – a separate indigenous body with powers to influence government legislation - was, like marriage equality, inevitable. But now Thomas Mayo, one of the key advocates of the Yes campaign, has claimed that Labor's thumping majority is an overwhelming rejection of Coalition's criticism of Indigenous recognition. 'Tonight, Australia voted No to ignorance & Yes to Acknowledgement; No to xenophobia & Yes to Welcomes; No to regression & Yes to progress,' he wrote on X. After a week in which the news was dominated by controversies around Welcome to Country, the Prime Minister delivered a defiant Acknowledgement to Country during his victory speech on Saturday night 'Peter Dutton, Jacinta Price, Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, the IPA & Advance henceforth have no mandate. 'They've been thoroughly told NO.' His comments were echoed by Anthony Albanese in his victory speech on Saturday night. After a week in which the news was dominated by controversies around Welcome to Country, the Prime Minister delivered a defiant Acknowledgement to Country. 'I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet,' he said, to huge applause and cheers from the crowd. 'And I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging today – and every day.' In October last year, Mr Mayo insisted constitutional change, like the rejected Voice to Parliament, could still take place down the track. 'Do you accept that this particular proposal, given it has been rejected by the Australian people is dead - or do you think it could still have a future,' ABC host Patricia Karvelas asked Mayo in an interview. 'There's still a future that includes Indigenous people in the constitution. Sure, in reality it's not going to happen again for a while,' he replied. 'It will be a while before any politicians will have the courage to put it to the people and hope for the best. 'We don't always get things right in a democracy. If we accepted the "No" answers that we got about equal wages or about our right to vote as Indigenous people ... things would be worse today. 'Because more than 60 per cent of young people voted "Yes" between 18 and 24, that tells me that we've got a future, and what we tried to do last year will be achieved.' Mr Mayo criticised the No campaign and acknowledged that their slogan of 'if you don't know, vote No' was, in his words, 'unfortunately extremely powerful'.
