Nothing to Fear – It’s just a Statement

It seems our political elite have learned nothing from the Voice referendum debacle or the Western Australian government’s humiliating retreat from its recent attempt to redraft the State's heritage laws as they are now back at attempting once again to embed the indigenous industry into other peoples business.

The latest attempt is being rolled out quietly via what’s known as Ag Min where the various State and Federal agriculture ministers meet and dream up new ways to regulate agriculture.? At their last meeting they announced the roll out of a National Statement on First Nations in Agriculture.

Which immediately raises the question: what is a National Statement? What does it mean, and what weight does it carry? It’s clearly not a Policy Statement, nor a Strategy, a Position Paper, a Green Paper, or a White Paper. Maybe it’s like the Voice—that we were told there was nothing to fear—or is it simply the prelude to a Discussion Paper, which then becomes yet another Action Plan? You know the type—that cost a fortune and achieve nothing.

To find out I went hunting around to see what other "National Statements" are out there and what they mean, and the more I looked, the more concerned I became.

It seems that Statements do indeed have a very loud political voice that can reverberate for decades and even change the nation. For example, Canada has its National Indigenous Economic Development Statement, New Zealand has a National Statement on Religious Diversity, and we’ve got our own National Statement on Climate Change. All three started out innocently enough but were quickly hijacked by the progressive Green left to drive legislative change that ends up having adverse impacts on property or individual rights along with threatening the wealth of the nation.

Let’s take the Australian National Statement on Climate Change, which the Morrison government rolled out in 2022. It was innocent enough until grabbed by Labor when they won government who then used it to help justify their Climate Change Act, which locked in their economy-killing 43% 2030 emissions target. The end result is we now have the likes of Woodside running around the Wheatbelt buying up farmland in a desperate attempt to offset their emissions, something no doubt the Morrison government never expected their Climate Statement would lead to.

This raises the question of what’s likely to be in this Aboriginal Farming Statement when it finally appears early next year. We don’t know the fine details because, like the Western Australian Heritage Act and the development of the Voice, there is no detail offered in advance, no doubt because it might scare the natives (in this case the natives are the non-indigenous farmers).

Having read and completed the survey the Government has put out as part of the consultation process, I suspect you can almost write the final paper, as the questions read like chapter headings.

For example, the survey asks: What would meaningful First Nations involvement in the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sector look like? Then they lead you to the promised land with the following loaded questions:

• Do you think that the National Statement on First Nations in Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry should include: Acknowledgement that First Nations peoples were managing land and sea Country for food and fibre production prior to colonisation? Acknowledgement of the impacts the agricultural, fishing, and forestry industries had on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples following colonisation? Meaningful inclusion of First Nations voices in the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors, such as through representation in industry leadership and decision-making? Meaningful economic inclusion of First Nations peoples in the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors, such as through employment opportunities and agribusiness ownership?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes; will no doubt be the vast majority of responses from the usual array of bleeding hearts who respond to these surveys.

The first question sets the scene of 60,000 years of dispossessed farmers, the second identifies the victims, the third points to the need to give them a Voice over land management, and the fourth opens the floodgates for vast amounts of taxpayer funds to buy up more farms, pastoral stations, and fisheries licences.

The whole thing is aimed at appeasing the Indigenous grievance industry, using agriculture as the pathway to economic empowerment and reconciliation. It all looks so innocent, but it’s riddled with risks to farmers’ property rights while offering little to those who live in third-world conditions far from the economic reality of the real world.

You would think governments have learned from their past mistakes and the failure of endless attempts to bridge the gap. Just look at the reams of policies they’ve spawned, which have done little to reduce the gap in living standards for regional and remote Indigenous communities.

Here’s but a few, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (1976), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (1990), the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (1991), the Native Title Act (1993), the National Indigenous Australians Agency (2019), the Closing the Gap Framework (2008), and the Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017). What have they achieved other than fostering division, corruption, and rent-seeking and now we can add this new National Statement on First Nations in Agriculture to the list of virtue signalling failed political ideas

We’re told that agriculture ministers agreed that this statement should be "ambitious" and guided by First Nations self-determination principles. Let’s hit pause. "Self-determination principles"—well, according to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that means Indigenous peoples have the right to freely determine their political status, pursue economic, social, and cultural development, and govern their own affairs. For those of us with long memories, this worked out fabulously with ATSIC—a bureaucratic circus of cronyism, corruption, and incompetence that eventually imploded.

And now? The ministers want this National Statement to also advance First Nations "perspectives, experiences, and interests." Interests? Does this means control of the Indigenous estate? Let’s be clear—when they talk about an “estate,” they’re not talking about their estate, the one we gave to them. They mean veto rights over 80,000 farmers, pastoralists and fishers who have private property rights. We’ve only just seen off Western Australia’s heritage laws and their attack on property rights, and now the Federal government is opening a new avenue for the rent-seekers to come knocking.

We are told the statement’s goal is to drive "greater economic inclusion" for First Nations in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. But without recognising the fundamental flaws in handing assets over to people who lack the skills and governance to manage them, history then history is bound to repeat itself.

Remember the 40 million hectares of pastoral leases that were handed over to Indigenous groups, thanks to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account? Those mostly pastoral stations, collectively worth billions, were meant to be Keatings gift of shining examples of Indigenous economic empowerment. Instead, most have struggled financially and ended up as bastions of animal welfare neglect and run-down infrastructure until they mostly went broke and had to be sub-leased out. The same story plays out in the fisheries sector, where licences and quotas were handed over, only to be sub-leased back out to non-Indigenous operators who have the skills and expertise to run a viable fishing operation. But ignoring this history the Government thinks it can magically no doubt with taxpayers help "increase Indigenous involvement" in agriculture? But where’s the plan to address the repeated failures of governance and management we’ve seen for the past 40 years?

Reinforcing the impression the government is going to throw good money after bad, the survey focuses on the fact that indigenous involvement in agriculture has failed because of a "lack of capital."? Well, here’s a thought experiment: countless migrant families have arrived in Australia since—let's pick a date—1967, the year of the referendum that took Aboriginal affairs out of State control and gave it to the Commonwealth. These new Australians have come often with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and many have built thriving farms from scratch. Vietnamese and other migrants have faced discrimination and adversity, yet through grit and hard work, they’ve become part of Australia’s farming community. No taxpayer support here and no one stopped Indigenous Australians from doing the same.

This is why I get concerned when governments start drafting statements that hint at addressing "inequities" using other people’s money. This reeks of nothing less than Marxism—an ideology that takes private productive land and turns it over to communal ownership, which is exactly what the Government has been doing when buying assets and handing them to Aboriginal corporations. We all know how well that worked out in Communist Russia—about as well as it has worked out here.

Readers who have suffered through Bruce Pascoe’s 2014 book of fiction dressed up as fact ‘Dark Emu’ will be aware of the attempt to convince the world that precolonial Australia was farmed for 60,000 years by the indigenous inhabitants.? The book despite being pulled apart as having no factual basis has captured the imagination of the progressive elite who love the idea that the hunters and gathers were really estate living farmers. The end result is they have taken the idea of? Aboriginal and Agriculture and linked it to tens of thousands of years of land management—a narrative that, if weaponised through this Statement, could be used as another attempt to weaken freehold and pastoral rights across the country.

The question is, are we prepared to let these seemingly innocuous ideas evolve through —the "Statement"— and be used to undermine the very foundation of agricultural land and water ownership in Australia, all in the name of correcting perceived historical injustices?

If federal government want to waste taxpayers’ money and follow Keating’s failed land acquisition policy, then let them explain how this time will be different.

But if the various State and Federal Ministers for Agriculture really want to make a statement that offers opportunities for Aboriginal people, then start with the existing 40 million hectares of the Indigenous-owned estate and unshackle them from the dead hand of government bureaucracy and red and green tape.

But such a move would give the few indigenous Australians who live on these properties real self-determination, the right to own their own land outright, access to capital and the right to get rich or go broke —something the progressive left would never countenance, as they don’t really trust Indigenous people to manage their own affairs without the guiding hand of the State.

Noting how it’s almost a foregone conclusion that the Statement when it appears in early 2025 will be full of motherhood statements about 60,000 years of indigenous agriculture, how we have much to learn of their ability to care for country, plus the inevitable demands for taxpayers money to help close the gap not to mention a greater say in how the real farmers farm their land, I thought I would try and get in front with my version of what the National Statement on First Nations in Agriculture should offer.

?

Free Free at Last

National Statement on First Nations in Agriculture

The Australian Government recognises the importance of genuine self-determination for First Nations people in the management of their agricultural, fisheries, and forestry assets. To foster true economic empowerment, we commit to removing the government regulations and bureaucratic barriers that have historically limited Indigenous control over the existing indigenous estate which has been given to them. This includes converting leasehold land into freehold title, removing restrictions on the right to sell and opening the door to the right to mortgage. Such a move would provide First Nations people with full ownership and decision-making power over what then can for the first time be considered their land under the laws of the land.

By lifting restrictions on land management, such as environmental laws that limit the ability to clear trees, build dams, or pursue other agricultural developments, we aim to grant First Nations people the freedom to manage their assets in a way that reflects both their cultural heritage and economic aspirations.

This Statement affirms our commitment to Indigenous Australians as full partners in agriculture, with the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by all landholders in Australia. We will work to dismantle the bureaucratic red and green tape that has stifled the productivity and potential of Indigenous lands. First Nations people will be empowered to develop their agricultural businesses free from unnecessary government interference, ensuring that they have the opportunity to build sustainable, profitable enterprises that contribute to the prosperity of their communities and the nation as a whole.

?