Note:
My personal politics lead me to have particular opinions. One of those is that the native title system, as an exemplar of establishment solutions to challenges set forth by First Nations peoples, is a set of concessions to the post colonial globalised political economy in Australia. This aligns my views with various Sovereign thinkers. In my writing and research I look at the political economy as it is. As a researcher I find that the most important ethical principle is to fully acknowledge the diversity of world views. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people engage with the native title system and other post colonial systems that give agency to governments, NGOs and corporations, but do not necessarily benefit their communities, they would like to see those systems vastly improved. The diversity of world views ranges from rejection of the system to varying levels of engagement, but across the spectrum the demand for self determination can be heard.
Introduction
Put simply, the Voice was a policy proposal without an implementation plan. Constitutional enshrinement was deployed as a vehicle to establish a new bureaucracy because it offered a ‘fix’ for the most ‘wicked problem’ in policy implementation, the evaporation of political will.
Prominent Aboriginal Australians were tasked with conducting an admittedly underfunded consultation process to produce a consensus outcome that could be taken to a referendum. This consultation took place while the commonwealth funding program, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) was being badly run. The members of the Referendum Council were charged with threading the needle to find a constitutional solution that addressed the questions of how to move forward with self determination, reconciliation, constitutional recognition, sovereignty and the reform of coordinated support via government funding.
When Labor came into office it rejected the draft Voice legislation, mothballed the CATSI Act review and chose not to release reports or commission audits that would have revealed if efforts to better deliver the IAS were effective. It seems that previous efforts to ‘strengthen organisational governance’ were not on Labor’s radar. The Voice seemed to occupy the entire polity.
Where I’m coming from
I write about Green-Black relations. I look at the relationships between environment and climate NGOs, and Indigenous communities on issues that are close to the hearts of First Nations peoples. I investigate issues and new developments from a diversity of perspectives.
In early 2016 I had a yarn with an Indigenous activist and mentor to young Indigenous campaigners in Sydney. We met to talk about ‘forefronting’ Indigenous people as a problematic strategy for climate campaigners. I listened to the unfortunate story of a young activist who was very nearly burned out after a forefronting effort which was part of a climate rally and march went sour. I also heard about Indigenous organisations being encouraged to sign on for the Recognise campaign in order to receive funding.
In June 2017 I had an informative discussion with governance specialist Dr James Swansson who prepared a report looking at the early years of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations and its effectiveness in preventing corporate failure in Indigenous corporations. Dr Swansson’s case study based methodology provides documentation of the unfortunate circumstances befalling significant cultural bodies.
I wrote a series of blog posts in 2017 and 2018 looking at the critical context behind the near failure of the Indigenous corporation which holds the Native Title rights and interests over Abbot Point. I looked closely at the central roles played by ORIC, the North Queensland Land Council and the Queensland government, and saw what I suspect is modern day paternalism dressed up in bureaucratic garb.
The Invisiblised Struggle of an Ally: Who will take notice of ORIC’s ‘show cause’ letter to KMYAC?
The Adani court case nobody is talking about
Put the North Queensland Land Council in the frame
Labor’s prerogative and Ken Wyatt’s legacy
It is the prerogative of the new party taking power to choose not to continue legislative reform processes begun by the previous government. The Albanese government chose to leave the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act) proposed amendments and the results of the comprehensive review lead by Ken Wyatt to gather dust. Labor’s priority was the Voice referendum which Ken Wyatt supported.
There is an enormous silence around the mothballing of the CATSI Act reform process. Perhaps those whose opinions are highly relevant to the question of why the process was abandoned feel that Labor had legitimate reasons, or perhaps Labor had reason to not unpack the legislative dovetailing necessary to impose a new bureaucracy, like the Voice, on Indigenous Australians.
If Ken Wyatt had spoken up about the loss of a significant chunk of his legacy, or Peter Dutton had spoken up about the importance of good governance for Indigenous corporations, or if Linda Burney had spoken up about importance of good corporate regulation for enshrining an effective Voice bureaucracy, then the discourse on the Voice might have been less divisive.
CATSI Act reforms are important
The CATSI Act creates the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) as a regulator of Indigenous corporations, many of which are established to represent and manage rights and interests conferred under the Native Title Act.
The CATSI Act creates ORIC under Article 1 (4) of the Racial Discrimination Act:
Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate
advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such
protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals
equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall
not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do
not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different
racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which
they were taken have been achieved.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00014
The CATSI Act preamble states:
The law is intended, for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, to be a special measure for the advancement and protection of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00055
The section titled ‘Objects of this Act’ lists 5 objects which all relate to the creation and functioning of ORIC. The first of these objects states:
(a) provide for the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Corporations;
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00055
ORIC is empowered to regulate Indigenous corporations to ensure good governance. It is patently obvious that good governance supports strong organisations which in turn strengthens the ability of First Nations communities to negotiate from a position of strength.
In their submission to the Review of the CATSI Act Phase 2 the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) affirmed the role played by the CATSI Act in helping to deliver self determination.
Each reform, and the package as a whole, must facilitate and provide a
vehicle for contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations
for self-determination and self-management; they must recognise and
value Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and ways of governing, free from
discrimination and regulatory overburden.
https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/AIATSIS%20CATSI%20Act%20Review%20Phase%20Two%20Submission%20Oct%202020.pdf
The final report of the CATSI Act Review showed that participating organisations made a strong case for continuing the process.
National Native Title Council’s (NNTC) submission commented, ’The time frame also does not provide allowances for those affected by COVID 19, which has reduced the capacity of NNTC to consult regularly with their members in person.’ VACCHO also had concerns the, ‘…current inquiry will not get the level of stakeholder engagement required to understand the diverse and divergent ways this Act will affect the regulation and operations of more than 3,000 Aboriginal organisations nationally’. Another five submissions called for further consultation.
https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/catsi-act-review-final-report.pdf
The CATSI Act has a particular role with regard to Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs). Corporations formed to manage Native Title rights and interest have particular challenges which require regulatory bodies to provide targetted support.
Consulting firm Hopgood and Ganim noted the NIAA recommendation that consultation continue.
The NIAA has recommended further consultation around issues relevant to RNTBCs, including the viability of an economic vehicle status model and the creation of registered trusts.
https://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/page/knowledge-centre/blog/final-report-of-the-catsi-act-review-%E2%80%93-proposed-changes-for-indigenous-corporations
The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the proposed CATSI Act amendments outlined the importance of the CATSI Act and the challenges faced by RNTBCs.
As noted above, corporations registered under the CATSI Act play a central
role in delivering services and supporting economic development in
Indigenous communities, particularly in remote Australia. In introducing the
bill, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, MP noted
that since its commencement, the CATSI Act has had a central role within the
Indigenous economic and corporate sector, and argued that the sector
currently provides ‘vitally important services such as health, education,
housing and employment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024788/toc_pdf/Corporations(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander)AmendmentBill2021[Provisions].pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
The committee also reported that stakeholders were concerned that the proposed reforms would not meet the specific needs of Native Title corporations.
RNTBCs are incorporated because the Native Title Act requires that native title
holders establish a corporation to represent and manage or hold their native
title rights and interests in trust. RNTBCs must be incorporated under the
CATSI Act, and unlike other corporations, they must be designed and
supported to exist in perpetuity, because the native title rights and interests
they hold or manage will continue forever, and be exercised by succeeding
generations of native title holders.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024788/toc_pdf/Corporations(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander)AmendmentBill2021[Provisions].pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Justice denied
The saying goes: Justice delayed is justice denied. Is this the case with the CATSI Act reform process. Did Labor calculate that the push for the Voice referendum justified stalling the reform process because they could return to the process with an enshrined voice?
The AIATSIS submission to the Voice Co-Design process cited the CATSI Act among other measures when discussing what are termed ‘existing arrangements’ in the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report.
Ongoing discussions about comprehensive settlements with traditional owner groups should continue to complement this process, noting the primacy of the role of traditional owners in Indigenous governance and the need to accommodate traditional owner diaspora in decision-making and governance structures.
https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/AIATSIS%20Submission%20-%20Indigenous%20Voice.pdf
The last paragraph of the foreword for the Co-Design final report places “strengthening existing arrangements” squarely in the Voice remit.
An Indigenous Voice will provide the right mechanism, working with and strengthening existing arrangements, for the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard on issues that affect us.
https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
Some may suggest that Labor most probably had good reason to not continue with the CATSI Act reform process, and that Ken Wyatt had good reason to stay quiet about the rejection of his two marquee projects in favour of pursuing the Voice referendum. In August 2022 the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet produced a document titled Unfinished Parliamentary Business: an overview of potential Indigenous Australians portfolio measures, that document asserts that based on support for the proposed amendments, Labor is likely to continue the reform process.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations reforms
At the dissolution of the 46th Parliament, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 was before the Senate, having passed the House of Representatives. This bill was the Government’s response to the Comprehensive Review of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006,[41] as well as a number of previous reviews; for full discussion, see the Bills Digest.[42]
In the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration committee Inquiry into the bill, both ALP and Greens senators expressed support for many of the overall objectives of the bill, subject to amendments, but expressed concern about the short time available for consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.[43] Both parties subsequently moved amendments in the Senate (see the Bill homepage).[44] This support for the Bill’s overall objectives suggests similar measures may be presented to Parliament by the new government.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Unfinished_Parliamentary_Business_potential_Indigenous_Australians_portfolio_measures
I could find no statement of any kind on the public record offering an announcement or rationale relating to the decision not to continue with the CATSI Act reform process. In June 2023 I contacted the NIAA who referred me to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations who advised me that there was no activity relating to the CATSI Act. Here is their response via email:
I write on behalf of the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations in response to your correspondence of 28 June 2023.
I wish to confirm that there are currently no processes or consultations regarding CATSI Act amendments. Any future processes or consultations will be posted on ORIC’s website, located here.
UNDRIP and self determination
A key term in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is ‘self determination’. It is easy to see how a well managed regulatory bureaucracy subject to routine review with clear pathways to legislative reform can support the objectives of self determination.
The submission by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the Voice Co-Design Process contains a clear statement about self-determination in reference to the ‘independence and sustainability’ of the Voice bureaucracy:
Self-determination is an outcome as much as it is a process of negotiation. It
is about determining, through legitimate dialogues with the nation state, how
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are able to pursue their own
political, cultural, social and economic interests, while retaining the right to
participate fully in Australian life.
https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian_human_rights_commission_submission_to_the_indigenous_voice_interim_report_final_2_0.pdf
Many have argued that the Native Title system confers weak negotiating rights to Indigenous corporations when negotiating land use agreements and cultural heritage management plans. Many argue that the UNDRIP principles should be properly operationalised under the Native Title Act. I would argue that every effort should be made to monitor and report on ORIC’s effectiveness at preventing corporate failure. I would argue that continuous efforts to reform and improve the CATSI Act are required to support self determination.
The Law Council of Australia in their submission to the Inquiry into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (2022) argue that a constitutional Voice would be a “manifestation” of the right to self determination:
A referendum for a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Australian
Constitution should be pursued as a matter of priority. Such a Voice would be a
manifestation of the right to self-determination, which is the fundamental
principle underpinning the UNDRIP.
https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/fbfd761e-43fe-ec11-945c-005056be13b5/2022%2006%2024%20-%20S%20-%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20Application%20of%20the%20UNDRIP%20in%20Australia.pdf
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University submission to the same inquiry gives a good summary of the state of affairs in regard to UNDRIP.
There is presently little evidence in Australia of enactment of UNDRIP principles
at the Commonwealth level.
[]
There are three feasible means for enactment by the Commonwealth of UNDRIP
principles: interpretive provisions; a Human Rights Act specifically enumerating
the principles; embedding principles of self-determination and free, prior and
informed consent into specific legislation (eg Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)).
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2945354/Submission-to-Senate-Legal-and-Constitutional-Affairs-Committee-Inquiry-into-the-Application-of-the-UNDRIP-June-2022.pdf
It is one thing for a new government to reject proposed amendments, it is another thing to dispense with a review process, but this is what Labor did when it exercised its prerogative to abandon the efforts of Ken Wyatt and Nigel Scullion before him. Could Labor have chosen to reject the proposed CATSI Act amendments produced by the review process, but continued with a new phase of review? Could an ongoing review process have considered 2 Voice pathways: a return to the legislated Voice in the case of a ‘No’ result, and the constitutionally enshrined Voice supported by draft legislation in the case of a ‘yes’ result?
Truth-telling and Self Determination
It seems to me Celeste Liddle was right on the money when she argued that truth-telling is the first and most important step. If the people of Australia are to comprehend why and how the struggle for self determination consistently fails, then truth telling about the past and what is taking place right now needs to take place.
there’s not a lot of truth to what is on the table
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/celeste-liddle-voice-truth-telling-first-important-step
Gary Foley is adamant that the Voice was not self determination. Surely self determination needs to be founded on truth-telling?
So, at the end of the day, it’s nothing new, and nothing to get excited about. I can’t really see any good reason to either vote yes, or to vote no. The whole exercise is just yet another effort to put a bit of lipstick on the pig. It’s yet another device to divert the people from the real issues of self-determination, economic and political independence, which have been the consistent Aboriginal political demands since the first modern day Aboriginal political organisation, the AAPA, in the 1920s.
https://overland.org.au/2023/10/the-use-and-abuse-of-history-in-the-voice-referendum-debate-an-interview-with-professor-gary-foley/
Ben Abbatangelo pointed to the question: What is happening now? He rightly tied the present to the past and asked what it is that government is not doing.
There is a grotesque disconnect between what’s being said and what’s being done. The focus on the future is obscuring what’s happening in the present – all of which is a violent continuation of the past. There is so much the Albanese government could be doing right now to improve the lives of First Nations communities, but it isn’t.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230610000941/https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2023/06/10/actions-speak-louder-than-the-voice#mtr
Kaiyu Moura Bayles is a veteran anti-Recognise campaigner who has a clear view of the key stakeholders in the reconciliation ‘movement’: government, NGOs, and corporations. She made her positions known to the Referendum Council in 2017.
Self determination will be forfeited and replaced with a Government Authority on all matters
affecting Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander People.
https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/submission/2017-06/PMC%2050.%20Kaiyu%20Bayles.pdf
Black People’s Union calls recognition a “con” and derides an advisory body that would not deliver the power for Indigenous communities to determine their own fete, but rather to merely advise government.
There are Yes campaigners telling us that this is self-determination. Self-determination means control over our own social, political, and economic affairs. This proposal is not the self-determination asked for in the ATSIC report, nor our Land Rights movements, nor at the regional dialogues, nor in the dictionary definition – it does not allow us to determine our own affairs, only advise on them.
https://www.blackpeoplesunion.org/articles/conning-us-into-recognition
The CATSI Act legislative reform pipeline
December 2016 – KPMG ‘Regulating Indigenous Corporations’ report
The focus of the CATSI Act and ORIC on corporate governance capacity building also reflects the
importance of many of these corporations for their communities as key service providers delivering
health, employment, education and other important community services. The failure of these
organisations in many cases would have major consequences for the delivery of valuable services in
these communities, not to mention issues associated with the mismanagement of government
funding for these services.
https://www.oric.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2017/ORIC-review-final-report_Dec-2016.pdf
This video of Nigel Scullion’s speech is a significant document. It shows that there was active effort to move Indigenous organisations over to CATSI Act regulation in order to receive IAS funding.
So that’s why under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy we’ve ramped up the number of Indigenous organisations that are winning contracts.
https://youtu.be/1jhMOceNSl0?si=tathoAXL-3WQ0vAT
I’ve indicated to them that if you’re not an Indigenous organisation by the 30th of June 2018 you won’t have a contract with me because they all come to bear there.
https://youtu.be/1jhMOceNSl0?si=tathoAXL-3WQ0vAT
So, we are motivated to create regulatory regime, sophisticated, would be enabler for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations to grow and thrive in a modern economy.
https://youtu.be/1jhMOceNSl0?si=tathoAXL-3WQ0vAT
2019 – CATSI Act: Technical Review – DLA Piper
The CATSI Act makes a number of special provisions for corporations which hold or
manage native title rights and interests, which results in number of statutory differences
between RNTBCs and CATSI corporations generally, such as protections provided to
directors, officers and employees against liability for breach of statutory duties provided
they have acted in good faith in fulfilling their obligations under native title legislation.
https://www.oric.gov.au/sites/default/files/TechnicalReviewCATSIAct_DLAPiper.pdf
March 2021 – Hopgood and Ganim – Final Report of the CATSI Act Review
A key focus of the review was the CATSI Act’s role as a special measure for the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act, supporting and building the capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. The NIAA heard criticism that the CATSI Act was paternalistic and that it provides insufficient flexibility for indigenous corporations.
https://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/page/knowledge-centre/blog/final-report-of-the-catsi-act-review-%E2%80%93-proposed-changes-for-indigenous-corporations
October 2021 – The Senate: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee release their report following their inquiry into the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 [Provisions]
In providing their views in relation to the provisions of the bill, a number of
stakeholders acknowledged the importance of the CATSI Act, particularly as a
means of supporting self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander corporations.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024788/toc_pdf/Corporations(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander)AmendmentBill2021[Provisions].pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
The reconciliation/referendum pipeline
1991 – Reconciliation Council created by the Hawke government
2001 – The Reconciliation Council hands over duties to Reconciliation Australia
2015 – Reconciliation Australia lead the Recognise Campaign which garnered significant support from NGOs and business. An archived Recognise webpage shows the partner list from May 2015, shortly before Rio Tinto signed on as a partner. It reveals an extensive list of corporatios and civil society organisations.
2015 – Referendum Council announced by Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten, and appointed by the Turnbull government, members of Reconciliation Australia join the Referendum Council
The Referendum Council, which includes former members of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the Reconciliation Australia Board, will also play a key role in maintaining the momentum required for the referendum.
https://www.reconciliation.org.au/referendum-council-a-welcome-step-forward/
2015 – The Final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is released
2017 – The Uluru Statement from the Heart is presented as a consensus/evidence based statement founded on broad consultation
Note:
Megan Davis in the Quarterly Essay, June 2023 on the limited budget for consultation
it became apparent that the money required to run thirty-two to thirty-five regional dialogues was not going to be available. Therefore, we were forced to cut the dialogues to twelve dialogues in twelve regions. Statistically the dialogues were a robust sample.
https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/qe/90/the-road-to-uluru/2955
2017 – The ‘Recognise’ campaign officially ends
The RECOGNISE campaign has come to an end, and its parent organisation, Reconciliation Australia, will be taking responsibility for this important work in the future.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171217143001/http://www.recognise.org.au/index.html
2018 – The Final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is released
2019 – The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process is launched
2021 – Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report is released
Sector alignment and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy
Decisions about funding and governance are at the core of operation of the NIAA. Megan Davis in the Quarterly Essay, June 2023 argued that the mismanagement of the IAS was a “primary driver of a Voice”.
The most criticised policy raised universally by the constitutional dialogues was the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), introduced by Tony Abbott’s government. Yet few Australians know anything about this primary driver of a Voice.
https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/qe/90/the-torment-of-our-powerlessness/2952
Davis cited the Performance audit report Auditor-General Report No. 35 of 2016–17: Indigenous Advancement Strategy as evidence that Indigenous community organisations were suffering under Nigel Scullion’s leadership as Minister for Indigneous Affairs
The department’s grants administration processes fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources. The basis by which projects were recommended to the Minister was not clear and, as a result, limited assurance is available that the projects funded support the department’s desired outcomes.
https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/qe/90/the-torment-of-our-powerlessness/2952
The Aboriginal Benefit Account and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy grant guidelines (2021) reference the Strengthening Organisational Governance Policy but little can be known about the state of that policy or the effectiveness of the Commonwealth funding and strengthening governance efforts.
Aboriginals Benefit Account (ABA) – Incorporation requirements
Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) Grant Opportunity Guidelines: Agency Collaborates (non-competitive)
The Price Waterhouse Coopers – Strengthening Organisational Governance – evaluation report – 2021 was “accepted” by the NIAA in December 2021 and marked “Publication pending”, but as of the time of writing, and despite all my efforts since 25 September 2023, the document has not yet been published.
Asset classes at stake:
I’m going to postulate here that the reason the details on the roll out of the Voice bureaucracy were so limited is because the plans for large scale restoration projects and natural capital projects designed to ‘protect’ the environment while creating value in the form of ecosystem services like carbon sinks, water sheds and biodiversity would require the engagement of Native Title bodies corporate.
I would contend that allowing the CATSI Act reform process to stall along with the rejection of a draft (enshrined) Voice legislation, and making no effort to assess the state of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy had the effect of limiting the unpacking of the bureaucratic environment onto which the Voice bureaucracy would be grafted.
Marcia Langton is the patron of the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation. The core business of the AbCF is to support carbon farming initiatives to generate carbon credits and revenue for “Traditional Owners’.
Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting employed the concerning term, the “Indigenous Estate” with reference to tangible and intangible “assets”.
Australia’s Indigenous Estate is made up of assets held by or for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and includes tangible assets (such as lands and waters) as well as intangible assets (such as cultural and intellectual property rights, and environmental and biosciences practices). If the government established licensing or tax incentives to encourage corporations to genuinely partner with Traditional Owners to deliver renewable energy, they could support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ desire for greater self-determination, while also moving the nation closer to our climate goals.
Australia’s Indigenous Estate comprises more than 40% of Australia’s land mass (and up to 60% when you factor in currently unresolved land claims), therefore the scale of what we’re talking about is enormous. There’s a huge opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander landowners and rights holders to realise their ambitions for self-determination and to generate income streams that are independent of government which can be spent on what individuals and communities themselves deem to be important.
https://www.themandarin.com.au/178372-joining-the-dots-esg-and-the-indigenous-estate/
The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation argue that Indigenous people have a “competitive advantage” in “environmental [natural capital] markets”.
Environmental markets – e.g. natural capital
markets and biodiversity
[]
Indigenous people have a competitive advantage
in the sector
https://www.ilsc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FA-National-Indigenous-Land-and-Sea-Strategy-DIGITAL-3.pdf
The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network is a peak body with a membership that includes “Australia’s largest land councils”. Governments and particularly the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation are supportive of the ICIN.
The Indigenous carbon industry is a major emerging industry which has recently rapidly expanded from the successful West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project launched in 2006 to over 35 Indigenous-owned savanna fire projects across the Top End of the Northern Territory, the Kimberley and Far North Queensland.
https://www.icin.org.au/the_indigenous_carbon_industry
Major ‘No’ donor Simon Fenwick sees a market for carbon farming on lands where Traditional Owners exercise rights and interests.
But Mr Fenwick’s interest in Indigenous affairs is not solely political or philanthropic.
He is also a director and shareholder of New Harvest Investment Management, a private company seeking to raise more than $50 million to invest in joint ventures with Indigenous landholders.
“Investments are made to assist traditional owners unlock the value of their land in agricultural and carbon projects,” the New Harvest website says of the fund, which has attracted $10 million from the National Australia Bank.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-10/no-voice-campaign-donor-simon-fenwick-indigenous-ventures-730/102955688
It is clear that Fenwick’s invesment vehicle NHIIIF is targetting the ‘Indigenous Estate’.
NHIM’S INDIGENOUS IMPACT INVESTMENT FUND (“NHIIIF”) HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO INVESTS IN ASSETS THAT ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE ASSETS OF FIRST NATIONS AUSTRALIANS. INVESTMENTS ARE MADE TO ASSIST TRADITIONAL OWNERS UNLOCK THE VALUE OF THEIR LAND IN AGRICULTURAL AND CARBON PROJECTS. INVESTMENTS ARE OF AN ECONOMIC AND IMPACT NATURE FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS AND INVESTORS ALIKE.
https://newharvestim.com/the-funds/nhim/
Conclusions
The reconciliation/referendum/Voice process and the CATSI Act reform process followed parallel streams. Both processes produced concrete legislative proposals during Ken Wyatt’s time as Minister for Indigenous Affairs. But the Voice, in the form that was brought to a referendum, was little more than a policy implementation proposal to create a bureaucracy that would largely inform the NIAA on how to manage its portfolio responsibilities.
Labor and the Yes campaign appear to have no Plan B. If they were truly committed to stopping the the rot, why are they not talking about strengthening the ‘existing arrangements’ referred to in submissions to the Voice Co-Design process?
Anthony Albanese was not only vague on details about the Voice implementation, but he is vague on details about his next moves. Other than statements like “We will continue to do what we can” and some mention of Makarrata/truth telling, there is little of substance.
Choosing not to take certain actions also has the effect of not exposing details on the public record that could adversely shift public sentiment. We should consider that there were counter-unpacking motives in both the establishment No and Yes camps. We should also be mindful that the Yes-No discourse took place largely between the establishment campaigners. Good faith dialogues between Yes campaigners and Indigenous advocates for a No vote never really happened. We should ask what issues might have been unpacked if those dialogues had taken place.
Everyone associated with the Yes campaign ought to be calling for extra-rigorous efforts to interrogate the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. Yes campaigners should be calling for a return to CATSI Act reforms, a new audit of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, and an inquiry into the services provided to the Commonwealth by Price Waterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting.
At the end of the Voice referendum journey we can see that once again Indigenous people and their ongoing demands for self determination have been used as a political football. This is the only way that neoliberalism operates. It manifests and deploys strategies of tension so that both ‘sides’ gain from going to war, and while the battle rages, the primary object of the battle becomes lost.
We Suspect Silence 