2901

Submissions: Your Feedback

Submissions from people and organisations who have agreed to have their feedback published are provided below.

The views expressed in these submissions belong to their authors. The National Indigenous Australians Agency reserved the right not to publish submissions, or parts of submissions, that include, for example, material that is offensive, racist, potentially defamatory, personal information, is a copy of previously provided materials, or does not relate to the consultation process.

An auto-generated transcript of submissions provided as attachments has been made available to assist with accessibility. These transcripts may contain transcription errors. Please refer to the source file for the original content.

Please note not all submissions are provided in an attachment. For submissions without an attachment, click on the name of the person or organisation to view the text.

Site functionality has recently been improved. You can now search by participant name and submission number. You can also click on the number, date and participant column headings to sort the order of submissions.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that submissions may contain images or names of deceased people.

If you require any further assistance please contact Co-designVoice@niaa.gov.au.

 

Submission Number
2901
Participant
Joanne Coulter
Submission date
Main Submission Automated Transcript

Voice Secretariat
Reply Paid 83380
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Re: Indigenous Voice

To Whom It May Concern,

I live in Queensland and my Federal electorate is Capricornia. My age range is 55-
64 years old; I am self-employed.

I am writing to protest the Indigenous voice. I support equality of opportunity
and recognise it is the successful cornerstone of our great nation. Aboriginal
disadvantage
is worsening and in some regions, dysfunction has become normalised
which is a sad reflection of our failure to address the real causes of
disadvantage.

General Personal comments in attached statement.

The Voice must not proceed because the following has not been addressed.

Unresolved Corruption
Australians have spent trillions of dollars on attempting to improve Aboriginal
disadvantage. The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) task force operated
between 2007 and 2014 and visited 145 Indigenous communities, 58 regional
towns and held almost 2000 stakeholder meetings. It found widespread abuse of
power and connections with organised crime within Aboriginal organisations. It
confirmed, 'Individuals in positions of authority have engaged in child abuse,
violence and fraud' (refer to link on the
website http://onevoiceaustralia.com.au for details).

Self-Appointed Aboriginal Leadership
The same Aboriginal people involved in the Uluru Statement were involved with
ATSIC which had to be dismantled because of corruption. These same people
designed the Native Title Act and control the Voices of Aboriginal people. They have
achieved little and have not improved the quality of life for Aboriginal people. The
money they receive does not reach Aboriginal people living in communities.

Aboriginal identity Fraud
Aboriginal identity fraud causes harm and generates anger in Aboriginal
communities. It is assumed the government and by association, the Australian
people do not care. For
instance, many politicians continue to ignore the undeniable evidence proving
Bruce Pascoe has no Aboriginal ancestry (see genealogy report
here https://australianhistory972829073.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/bruce-
pascoe-how- a boriginal-is-he/ website for details). It is inappropriate to expect
the Australian people to trust those consulting the government on the
implementation of the Voice are all Aboriginal descent because identity fraud is
known to be rampant. It is also challenging for Aboriginal people living in
communities to trust the Voice process and most do not know about it.

Submission by Joanne Coulter
Mandatory Audits
Aboriginal people have not been consulted comprehensively about the Uluru
Statement. There has been no independent audit of Aboriginal communities
and/or appropriate consultations on the Voice. No alternative strategy has
been offered, and/or funded.

The Unknown Risks of the Native Title Act
Native title does not offer the same protection as Crown land. Warren Mundine
OAM suggested native title will cover as much as 70 per cent of Australia by
2030 and the Hon Gary Johns said it was more like 80 per cent. Native title
land is controlled by Aboriginal organisations which do not offer Aboriginal
people shares in their land and/or property ownership rights. It has proven
useless to Aboriginal people and it has prevented them.
from achieving economic independence. The self-appointed leadership encourages.
dependence upon social housing which discourages enterprise. Unlike other
countries, share in equity for social housing tenants does not exist. Tom Calma,
former ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner and Co-Chair of Minister Wyatt’s
Voice said, ‘Native title is at the bottom of the hierarchy of Australian property
rights.’

Yours sincerely,

Joanne Coulter

Attachment… General Personal Statement.

Submission by Joanne Coulter
General Personal Statement

Over the course of my life, I have had a many and varied association with
indigenous people. My first encounter was growing up with the locals on the
Sunshine Coast and going to school with them. They were part of the crew at
school or work, and part of a thriving community.

In 1978 I travelled around Australia visiting Indigenous Communities which were
still under the management of the Church Missions. The History of them is many
and varied but the focus that interested me was that they had to be self-sufficient.
As a community they had to run a business, farming or follow native traditions of
hunting to sustain the community. This meant they were not a huge financial
burden as it is today. To do this their education and skills within the community
were developed. The Church missions also sort work for the younger ones on Cattle
or Sheep Stations so they could be financially independent. Cherbourg Mission in
Qld had a thriving dairy farm, Woorabinda had a thriving cattle property and others
each had derived an income to keep them supported financially and in skilled labor.
Today these are no longer there…why???

There was little or no domestic violence, low levels of child abuse, low child or adult
suicide levels, limited child trafficking. Low unemployment as the Churches gained
employment for the youth and others from around the area. It was a community
working together to improve and be sustainable. Children received good education
and those who showed any promise were sponsored for do years 11 & 12 in
boarding school in a hope of furthering their education in the tertiary sector. They
were sponsored at the Tertiary Level as well. During all this time the funding from
the State and Federal Governments was at a far lower level than it is today. No top-
heavy administration. So, what changed?

Department of Indigenous Affairs in State government started purchasing housing
separate to the Department of Housing. The idea was to have Indigenous scattered
among the general community and not in so called Welfare Communities. That
seemed to be working fine. While this was progressing, Indigenous Activists started
pushing for alternative arrangements to the Missions and wanting their own
autonomy. Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, and Michael Manson being the key
players. The only problem is that those pushing this were not the ones living on the
Missions. With the assistance of Government bureaucrats, the momentum for this
appeared to be pushed by Activists, more than the grassroots indigenous who
account for 70% plus of the Indigenous Community.

By this time, I was living in Hughenden living and working among the Indigenous
Community there. I took in abused women because the men would not enter the
house of a white person, so the women were safe. We had them for about a week
for the men to calm down or find alternative arrangements.

The Indigenous community had links to several Communities in Qld and were
growing concerned at the new way the Activists were wanting things run. Activists
and government bureaucrats had visited some of these Missions and the Elders
were against what was being proposed. Meetings among the Elders was held but
they were told that this is how things were to happen and that the Churches would
be taken off the missions. The community would then be run it under a structure.
The alcohol bans would be immediately lifted. They were told they had to teach
their children the Indigenous Culture of which the Elders objected to as had been
raised in the Christian Faith and remembered the old ways and did not want to
Submission by Joanne Coulter
follow down that path. In their mind they had a happy life and a happy community.
As mentioned before, low domestic violence, unemployment, child abuse where not
on the headlines as they are today.

So how did a young white woman like me get to know all this back then?? Elders
from Cherbourg would stay at my home as they travelled between Murgon to
Cloncurry for meetings about these changes they had been told had to go through.
They spoke of their concerns for their community and what they saw as a future for
their people should it happen. At no time were they given the opportunity of a vote
on these matters nor had any say on how it would change their community and
especially on the lifting of the ban on alcohol. Over a few years we listened to their
plight and concerns for the future of their people. But they had no one to turn to
who could help them as people on the missions had NO VOICE or VOTE.

Where is the democracy when all these people had no voice nor a vote in how their
future would become? When you have an Elder sitting at your kitchen table crying
over the future of his life and his community, you must wonder how on earth did
these Indigenous Activities get it so wrong. They were not listening to the people at
all. They were not treating them as equals at all. It was nothing more than an
internal self-appointed dictatorship and because the activists were making so much
noise the governments caved in like a pack of cards. Not once did they ask the
people what they wanted. And they are still not asking them what they want.

From 1990 ATSIC came into being and became nothing but a huge disaster with
embezzlement of funds and mismanagement and discord among the indigenous
communities. One of the claims about ATSIC was not properly representative of the
people, pointing to its lack of engagement with Indigenous communities. And yet the
elders of the mission were calling this out saying this is what is going to happen.
The final review of ATSIC in 2003 proposed the strengthening of regional councils to
reduce the detachment of the national board from communities. Again, another
attempt to throw money at the problem and employ more bureaucrats.

In amongst this there was Native Title and the establishment of the Indigenous
Land Councils. By now the Indigenous communities are starting to fall apart as
they have no direction, alcohol bans were lifted and the quality of life on the
missions were going downhill. Domestic violence starts to increase, child abuse,
child trafficking and suicides start to rear its ugly head.
The implementation of the Indigenous Land Council Act was spearheaded by Paul
Keating with the Indigenous self-appointed leaders. With the assistance of the
Australian Communist Party the Indigenous Land Council Act was drawn up and
presented in NSW State Parliament and passed. Did any of these people go round
to the Indigenous Communities and ask what they would like or given a vote on
these matters… NO!! NO VOTE AND NO VOICE.

Submission by Joanne Coulter
The Indigenous Land Councils as they Stand today are nothing but a socialistic
structure under which the grassroots indigenous must live. Each Council has a
spokesperson, and that spokesperson need not have to live on the community. The
head of the Indigenous Land Council has autonomous authority. So, the people
today in these communities are left with this…

1. They have no voice in how their community is run

2. They have no vote in what happens in their community.

3. They cannot own their own home on their own Native Title Land.

4. They can be evicted from their Native Title Land as has happened in
Wilcannia just because they were outspoken about what was going on in
their community. Valid points that some did not want raised.

5. They cannot run a business without the authority of the Indigenous Land
Council and paying fees to the Indigenous Land Council.

6. They live in Aboriginal Housing that rarely gets inspected or repaired.

So how did these people get herded into Socialistic style Communities with less say,
interaction and ability to have a say or vote in how their community is run? What
happened to all those thriving businesses that allowed many communities to self
sufficient prior to the Churches being removed? They went from living on a Mission
where employment was high, could come and go as they pleased. They were well
educated and respected members in the community. How did they go from having
low domestic violence figures and sexual assault to now having 2/3 of all Australia’s
sexual assault statistics? How does 2.85% of our population have the highest
sexual assault figures in Australia and yet back in 1978 your barely heard a
whisper about it???

These people don’t have a life…the activists and fake indigenous in all these
organisations collecting $35 billion a year are keeping them in that state because it
suits their purpose. Where is all this money going because the 70% of grassroots
Indigenous are certainly not getting it. In socialistic communities with NO VOICE
OR VOTE. And we are to assume that this Uluru Statement is going to be the
savoiur of these people. The Indigenous advisers, activists and government
bureaucrats have ignored the majority of the people leaving them in a hell hole that
the lovely, concerned Elder who sat at my kitchen table and warned me of what will
happen to his people. He was right. It did happen and I am disgusted in not only
the governments of the past to allowing this to happen but also the so-called
Indigenous Leaders who have caused all this to happen as it is today. They got their
money and their autonomy and completely forgot about the people. They stand on
their pedestal but 70% have NO VOICE and the Uluru Statement will keep it that
way.

Submission by Joanne Coulter
Give the 70% grassroots indigenous a greater say in their community and vote on
things that matter. Ensure the Funding that is handed out is not duplicated for
Indigenous in metropolitan areas where there is duplication of services and
administration. Those in remote areas need it far more than those in the
metropolitan areas. Upper levels of Indigenous Governance are infiltrated by fake
indigenous and paying themselves salaries that is draining this country of funds
that should be going to the communities. One issue…why does the community in
Wilcannia of 450 no longer have a decent supermarket after the last one burnt
down over 10 years ago. It is a 200 klm drive to Broken Hill to get decent priced
food, yet they will get an Art Gallery for what?? How does that help the health of the
community or help their budgets in buying food? Where is the management of this
community and ensuring basic needs are met? Why do most of their houses still
have sceptic toilet systems?? Its next to the Darling River. The Indigenous Land
Council is at fault here as they are not caring for the people. These communities
are merely existing. If anyone thinks that the Uluru Statement will change all this
then they have no idea what really goes on in the communities and have not spoken
with them. They have no VOICE!!!

SAY NO TO THE ULURU STATEMENT AND GIVE THE GRASSROOTS PEOPLE A
VOICE AND VOTE IN THEIR COMMUNITY INSTEAD.

Submission by Joanne Coulter