New shadow Indigenous spokesperson Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine and One Nation’s Pauline Hanson at a Queensland Police conference. Just as we expected, the mainstream media has equated the ‘no’ campaign with black conservatives like Senator Jacinta Price and former ALP National President Warren Mundine. Mundine in particular fronted an ad for his “Recognise a Better Way” campaign this week, which he described in
Brava, Amy M. for writing such a comprehensive rebuttal to the nonsense emanating from Warren Mundine (in a unit alongside another in which a much younger Warren already showed his aloofness I worked in the early 1980s) and from the divisive and look-at-me-alongside-my-racist-mates Jacinta Price. Her Yuendumu Warlpiri roots and family connections are, as I understand it, far from impressed. Two misguided souls - they'll certainly be discarded by their LNP mates once their usefulness is over - but what a sad legacy for them both - to be forever perceived as pawns in the bigger game of maintaining control over First Australians by the vested interests crowd.
Mundine behaved apallingly on the Drum Tuesday night, shouting and sneering, I couldn't help but think He's picked up some really vile habits in the LNP party room/parliament.
Thank you very much Amy. I (feeling-wise) still don't understand the LNP oppositions. Logically, (edit 20/09/23 added words in brackets - if some feel listening to first nations people in designing policies and programs that impact them - a voice could or would lead to and want) to avoid class actions.
And to avoid accountability for denying human rights and for retaining power and paternalism, sure.
I appreciate the background. Truly aweful betrayals.
I agree with everything you have written here, Amy. However, I think Albanese, Burney and other Labor figures need to speak up and call out Dutton, Price and Hanson’s racism. They are clearly engaging in unsubtle dog whistles to racists with language about “special treatment” etc. Instead of calling a spade a spade, Voice proponents are trying to make themselves a small target, emphasising the “recognition” (i.e. hollow symbolism) of the Voice proposal and downplaying the prospect of the Voice being an authority that could actually have an impact on policy. While they pursue this path, they risk further eroding support for the proposal. The referendum may yet pass by a narrow margin, but unless Labor come out swinging and lambast the conservative No campaign as a bunch of racists the Voice will be off to a very shaky start.
Say what you like of Ms Price or Mr Mundine, I’m unaware of either of them ‘denying’ others of a voice or tying to ‘deny others the right to question it’. This piece gives no evidence of this. Strongly expressing an opinion does not mean silencing those with contrary opinions.
If Amy Mcquire disapproves of silencing those with contrary opinions she needs to self-reflect. She explicitly states the black conservative movement “should not be given any airtime”, in the case of Ms Price because she already has a voice in parliament. It’d be a strange polity where members of parliament were not permitted air-time! Rightly or wrongly hundreds of thousands of people voted for Ms Price (were I a Territorian I wouldn’t have) and this appropriately gives her statements an importance and newsworthiness (‘air time’) they otherwise wouldn’t have.
While Black Australia may ‘have a long memory’ in this case the memory seems unreliable. Readers under 30 may not know the notorious (unfounded) talk of ‘pedophile rings’ did not ‘lead’ to the NT Intervention. It was triggered by the earlier“Little Children are Sacred’ report which found the rates of child maltreatment (and sexual abuse in particular) in NT Indigenous communities were at crisis levels and required an urgent national response. The writers were apolitical experts. I’m not aware of anyone proving, or even arguing they got it wrong.
Whether the NT Intervention was the right response is another question. But I’m concerned the unhappy truth of higher rates of Indigenous child maltreatment (confirmed in subsequent findings) is getting obscured, denied and discouraged from being even aired by people who doubtless want to advance Indigenous welfare. It suggests a lack of moral or intellectual courage. It also makes them hinderers rather than helpers in solving a serious social problem.
Just to be clear, of course this doesn’t mean the most Indigenous men are child molesters, any more than the fact men have a vastly higher rate of being sexual offenders means that most men are rapists. It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out to sophisticated minds but sadly it appears to be.
The story on mutitjulu which attempted to vindicate Brough on pedophile rings led to the NT government announcing the littler
Children are sacred report the day after - it was also used by the OIPC to force an administrator on Mutitjulu. This opinion piece is backed up by fact including Mundine’s own history in influencing Howard govt policy on land rights amendments while claiming a voice will undermine traditional owners. The whole point is that the black conservative no campaign silences the progressive no which has already been silenced - they receive vastly more airtime and is based on racist dogwhistling on child sexual abuse which is not founded on any care for black children but on denying grassroots communities a voice, as so powerfully articulated by the CLC yesterday. You have form in commenting on my pieces claiming they are unfounded opinion and yet you continually write mis truths which are not based on fact.
Pardon me but you did indeed call for the silencing of the black conservative “no” advocates case (it should ‘get no airtime’) and that ill-becomes someone criticizing others for ‘silencing’. You also said they were ‘denying others the right to question it’ and I defy your kindest friend to find a smidgeon of evidence in your piece for that slur. I know this is common in political discourse but it doesn’t make it OK intellectually or morally. I make no apologies for calling it out.
On reflection I’ll leave it to the historians as to what lead to the NT intervention, but the existence and findings of “Little Children are Sacred Report” are definitely facts that got a lot of publicity at the time. Not including it from an account of what caused the intervention is a very big omission and it rather undermines the all too common “the NT Intervention was based on a falsehood” narrative you appear to be running. Regardless of what Mr Brough said (and I called his words ‘unfounded’) this expert report then and now speaks with greater authority than any partisan politician or indeed commentator. Or do you think the writers of the report were ‘racist dog-whistling’?
Re: the higher rates of child maltreatment of Indigenous children. The well-known and easily found figures on substantiated child maltreatment sure look like ‘facts’ to me. They also seem pretty good grounds for believing this statement is true - albeit the true numbers will never be known. The sheer scale of the imbalance (488% higher than the Australian average in the 2020-21 figures from of the Oz Inst. of Health and Welfare!) makes the idea of it being totally due to racial/cultural bias of the decision makers implausible. In fact an equally strong argument could be made that in borderline cases they are less likely to apprehend an Indigenous child. They are well aware of the imbalance, wish it wasn’t there and are under pressure to reduce the numbers.
I agree the ‘progressive no’ case is getting little airplay. If so complain about the media rather than the conservative Indigenous no advocates, and certainly don’t advocate they be impeded from acting on their legal and moral right to advocate for their beliefs. You don’t need to be a white racist to have an intolerance problem. In fact the conservative no advocates probably welcome the progressive no voices. They want the amendment defeated and the more voices arguing for ‘no’ the better.
So to sum up. The existence and findings of the “Little Children are Sacred’ are facts. The belief that Indigenous Children have a higher rate of maltreatment is based on facts. The statement that expressing a strong opinion is not the same as silencing those with contrary ones is not an empirical one but I maintain a factual one. Your intolerant quotes are there in black and white for all to see. That covers all the statements in my post. I suggest that rather than saying they ‘were untruths not based on facts’ you actually prove it. I await with interest to see if the one who criticizes people for ‘silencing’ people chooses to delete this post.
PS. Disagreement and criticism come with being a public intellectual-at least an influential one. Preaching to the converted feels good but achieves little. I saw no statement that the comments section was reserved for the like-minded.
Not hundreds of thousands voting for Ms Price in the NT - total voter enrolment is only around 140,000 - hyperbole Mr Wild - it doesn't encourage confidence in the rest of your attacks.
Hi Jim. Point taken I should have said tens of thousands. Many tens of thousands. The point still stands that this gives her statements a degree of public interest and newsworhiness than a lot of people lack and it's both dumb and inappropriate to suggest her comments should not be publicized. I repeat I wouldn't have voted for her.
I note that the CLP ticket had just over 30,000 votes and that Jacinta received just over 3,000 personal votes. And that the CLP vote was down 4%. Make of that what you will. She is newsworthy - but far too much oxygen is given to her comments which tend to be of the "look at me" variety - and usually standing alongside former loudmouths of her political affiliation happy to be seen standing alongside or behind - it's almost palpable their smugness that they have this woman speaking their lines for them. Fair dinkum.
Really enjoyed this Amy. I'm in favour of the Voice but agree its disgusting how little coverage the objections from radical and grass-roots opponents there has been. This alongside a failure so far by government to get out and educate/consult remote communities on the Voice more. Not to mention how the media, and the Greens seemingly, have treated Senator Thorpe. Fascinating to learn of Mundine's history that I had no clue about.
Brava, Amy M. for writing such a comprehensive rebuttal to the nonsense emanating from Warren Mundine (in a unit alongside another in which a much younger Warren already showed his aloofness I worked in the early 1980s) and from the divisive and look-at-me-alongside-my-racist-mates Jacinta Price. Her Yuendumu Warlpiri roots and family connections are, as I understand it, far from impressed. Two misguided souls - they'll certainly be discarded by their LNP mates once their usefulness is over - but what a sad legacy for them both - to be forever perceived as pawns in the bigger game of maintaining control over First Australians by the vested interests crowd.
Mundine behaved apallingly on the Drum Tuesday night, shouting and sneering, I couldn't help but think He's picked up some really vile habits in the LNP party room/parliament.
Thank you very much Amy. I (feeling-wise) still don't understand the LNP oppositions. Logically, (edit 20/09/23 added words in brackets - if some feel listening to first nations people in designing policies and programs that impact them - a voice could or would lead to and want) to avoid class actions.
And to avoid accountability for denying human rights and for retaining power and paternalism, sure.
I appreciate the background. Truly aweful betrayals.
I’m seeking the nuance and the history that can’t be found in much of our media.
So thanks Amy.
I agree with everything you have written here, Amy. However, I think Albanese, Burney and other Labor figures need to speak up and call out Dutton, Price and Hanson’s racism. They are clearly engaging in unsubtle dog whistles to racists with language about “special treatment” etc. Instead of calling a spade a spade, Voice proponents are trying to make themselves a small target, emphasising the “recognition” (i.e. hollow symbolism) of the Voice proposal and downplaying the prospect of the Voice being an authority that could actually have an impact on policy. While they pursue this path, they risk further eroding support for the proposal. The referendum may yet pass by a narrow margin, but unless Labor come out swinging and lambast the conservative No campaign as a bunch of racists the Voice will be off to a very shaky start.
Say what you like of Ms Price or Mr Mundine, I’m unaware of either of them ‘denying’ others of a voice or tying to ‘deny others the right to question it’. This piece gives no evidence of this. Strongly expressing an opinion does not mean silencing those with contrary opinions.
If Amy Mcquire disapproves of silencing those with contrary opinions she needs to self-reflect. She explicitly states the black conservative movement “should not be given any airtime”, in the case of Ms Price because she already has a voice in parliament. It’d be a strange polity where members of parliament were not permitted air-time! Rightly or wrongly hundreds of thousands of people voted for Ms Price (were I a Territorian I wouldn’t have) and this appropriately gives her statements an importance and newsworthiness (‘air time’) they otherwise wouldn’t have.
While Black Australia may ‘have a long memory’ in this case the memory seems unreliable. Readers under 30 may not know the notorious (unfounded) talk of ‘pedophile rings’ did not ‘lead’ to the NT Intervention. It was triggered by the earlier“Little Children are Sacred’ report which found the rates of child maltreatment (and sexual abuse in particular) in NT Indigenous communities were at crisis levels and required an urgent national response. The writers were apolitical experts. I’m not aware of anyone proving, or even arguing they got it wrong.
Whether the NT Intervention was the right response is another question. But I’m concerned the unhappy truth of higher rates of Indigenous child maltreatment (confirmed in subsequent findings) is getting obscured, denied and discouraged from being even aired by people who doubtless want to advance Indigenous welfare. It suggests a lack of moral or intellectual courage. It also makes them hinderers rather than helpers in solving a serious social problem.
Just to be clear, of course this doesn’t mean the most Indigenous men are child molesters, any more than the fact men have a vastly higher rate of being sexual offenders means that most men are rapists. It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out to sophisticated minds but sadly it appears to be.
The story on mutitjulu which attempted to vindicate Brough on pedophile rings led to the NT government announcing the littler
Children are sacred report the day after - it was also used by the OIPC to force an administrator on Mutitjulu. This opinion piece is backed up by fact including Mundine’s own history in influencing Howard govt policy on land rights amendments while claiming a voice will undermine traditional owners. The whole point is that the black conservative no campaign silences the progressive no which has already been silenced - they receive vastly more airtime and is based on racist dogwhistling on child sexual abuse which is not founded on any care for black children but on denying grassroots communities a voice, as so powerfully articulated by the CLC yesterday. You have form in commenting on my pieces claiming they are unfounded opinion and yet you continually write mis truths which are not based on fact.
Pardon me but you did indeed call for the silencing of the black conservative “no” advocates case (it should ‘get no airtime’) and that ill-becomes someone criticizing others for ‘silencing’. You also said they were ‘denying others the right to question it’ and I defy your kindest friend to find a smidgeon of evidence in your piece for that slur. I know this is common in political discourse but it doesn’t make it OK intellectually or morally. I make no apologies for calling it out.
On reflection I’ll leave it to the historians as to what lead to the NT intervention, but the existence and findings of “Little Children are Sacred Report” are definitely facts that got a lot of publicity at the time. Not including it from an account of what caused the intervention is a very big omission and it rather undermines the all too common “the NT Intervention was based on a falsehood” narrative you appear to be running. Regardless of what Mr Brough said (and I called his words ‘unfounded’) this expert report then and now speaks with greater authority than any partisan politician or indeed commentator. Or do you think the writers of the report were ‘racist dog-whistling’?
Re: the higher rates of child maltreatment of Indigenous children. The well-known and easily found figures on substantiated child maltreatment sure look like ‘facts’ to me. They also seem pretty good grounds for believing this statement is true - albeit the true numbers will never be known. The sheer scale of the imbalance (488% higher than the Australian average in the 2020-21 figures from of the Oz Inst. of Health and Welfare!) makes the idea of it being totally due to racial/cultural bias of the decision makers implausible. In fact an equally strong argument could be made that in borderline cases they are less likely to apprehend an Indigenous child. They are well aware of the imbalance, wish it wasn’t there and are under pressure to reduce the numbers.
I agree the ‘progressive no’ case is getting little airplay. If so complain about the media rather than the conservative Indigenous no advocates, and certainly don’t advocate they be impeded from acting on their legal and moral right to advocate for their beliefs. You don’t need to be a white racist to have an intolerance problem. In fact the conservative no advocates probably welcome the progressive no voices. They want the amendment defeated and the more voices arguing for ‘no’ the better.
So to sum up. The existence and findings of the “Little Children are Sacred’ are facts. The belief that Indigenous Children have a higher rate of maltreatment is based on facts. The statement that expressing a strong opinion is not the same as silencing those with contrary ones is not an empirical one but I maintain a factual one. Your intolerant quotes are there in black and white for all to see. That covers all the statements in my post. I suggest that rather than saying they ‘were untruths not based on facts’ you actually prove it. I await with interest to see if the one who criticizes people for ‘silencing’ people chooses to delete this post.
PS. Disagreement and criticism come with being a public intellectual-at least an influential one. Preaching to the converted feels good but achieves little. I saw no statement that the comments section was reserved for the like-minded.
Not hundreds of thousands voting for Ms Price in the NT - total voter enrolment is only around 140,000 - hyperbole Mr Wild - it doesn't encourage confidence in the rest of your attacks.
Hi Jim. Point taken I should have said tens of thousands. Many tens of thousands. The point still stands that this gives her statements a degree of public interest and newsworhiness than a lot of people lack and it's both dumb and inappropriate to suggest her comments should not be publicized. I repeat I wouldn't have voted for her.
I note that the CLP ticket had just over 30,000 votes and that Jacinta received just over 3,000 personal votes. And that the CLP vote was down 4%. Make of that what you will. She is newsworthy - but far too much oxygen is given to her comments which tend to be of the "look at me" variety - and usually standing alongside former loudmouths of her political affiliation happy to be seen standing alongside or behind - it's almost palpable their smugness that they have this woman speaking their lines for them. Fair dinkum.
Well said
Really enjoyed this Amy. I'm in favour of the Voice but agree its disgusting how little coverage the objections from radical and grass-roots opponents there has been. This alongside a failure so far by government to get out and educate/consult remote communities on the Voice more. Not to mention how the media, and the Greens seemingly, have treated Senator Thorpe. Fascinating to learn of Mundine's history that I had no clue about.