-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
Forced Indigenous labour and stolen wages
From the early stages of the British colonisation of Australia right up until the 1960s, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were used as unpaid labour in many sectors such as the pastoralist industry, beche-de-mer harvesting, pearling, the boiling down industry, marsupial eradication, and prostitution, they were also used as household servants. In return for this labour, the Indigenous people were given portions of inexpensive commodities such as tobacco, rum, slop-clothing, flour and offal.[12] Trade in Aboriginal children and adolescents was often sought after. Children were often taken from Aboriginal camp-sites after punitive expeditions and they were used as either personal servants or as labour by the colonists who took them.[13] Sometimes these children were taken very far away from their lands and traded to other colonists. For instance, Mary Durack described how one of her relatives in the Kimberley region bought an Aboriginal boy from Queensland for a tin of jam.
Slavery in Australia - Wikipedia
It's probably not worth discoursing with people who are intentionally and malevolently ignorant.
Wow, how dare the abos fight back.
Lucky we killed 5x back in response. That'll teach them to try and stick up for themselves.
Before you said it would have been better for them if they fought back.
Yes, but there are acceptable ways. Hire a QC, make a submission to the High Court while lobbying government ministers and working closely with the media for some good press. That's what they should have done
We really need the ignore thread button back.
Stumbling onto some of the rubbish in this thread is enough to make you lose faith in the world and top yourself.
Stumbling onto some of the rubbish in this thread is enough to make you lose faith in the world and top yourself.
I beg your pardon " Abo's " . Indigenous Australians. Shows your true colors calling them Abo's.
Mr Michael Woodley Chairman of the Yindjbarndi Aboriginal Corporation has accepted Twiggy Forrest's offer of a pow-wow but will have a deaf ear. Woodley is after a 10% royalty instead of usual Pilbara 0.5% & will go to Arbitration. Woodley appears to think He has twiggy over a barrel as I think Woodley is of the opinion residing Judge most probably will have sympathy towards a Yes Vote thus any increase in His favour would be a victory. Maybe not so as twiggy is no fool & just might close the mine down.
You don't know a lot about what you're talking about.
You could write a book on this, and Paul Cleary has, called 'Title Fight', read that if you have any genuine interest.
A few matters of fact.
1. The usual Pilbara royalty is not 0.5%, I'm guessing you got that from one of Astons columns in the AFR, he has been doing some good work, but he is wrong on that fact. The average is more like 1.5-2%. Remember that is the average, low as 1%, high as 2.5%, there is one outlier at 3%. A few at 3 and one at 3.5% in the Kimberley.
2. Your speculation on arbitration is completely wrong, both on how the system works legally and how it actually works in practice. Legally, the Native Title Tribunal arbitrates if agreement between Aboriginal landowners and the Mining or petro company cant be reached, (agreement is reached in the vast majority of cases, see below) under the Act the Tribunal is meant to be a 'neutral Arbiter'. In practice they always find in favour of the mining company. Roughly 150 arbitrations since 1993 and I think the current score is miners 147, blackfellas 3 or 4. And those 3 or 4 were very small marginal mines, or quarries, where the cultural values were high and irrefutable. Obviously, this means that in most cases Aboriginal landowners take whatever deal they can get to avoid arbitration. Some miners (there are good and bad, TF is the latter) actually say to Aboriginal people in negotiations 'take the deal or we go to arbitration'.
Another thing on the arbitration process, the Tribunal cannot rule on royalty rates under the act. They can send the parties back to mediation, or say yes to the development with no reference to royalty so the miner pays what they feel like paying (this is what usually happens), or they can knock back the development, (remembering the 150:1-odds of that happening).
3. Forrest has fought the land claim 3 times, and lost 3 times. Christ knows how much money he has spent on legal fees, it would be at least $10 mill, and maybe as high as $20 mill, maybe even higher. He is in breach of his legal responsibilities to negotiate in good faith with the TOs.
4. Considering all of the above, and the basics of negotiation strategy, who in their right mind would not go hard at him? They won't get 10%, but asking for it is making a strong statement. Its an opening bid, and a justifiable one. The mine has been operational for 5-odd years, a mine life of 25 years, thats 20% lost royalties right there, with opportunity costs, as well as the money spent on opposing the claim, the lack of good faith that represents, it is perfectly understandable. Hopefully they get a good deal, a just deal. 4 or 5% IMO all things considered.
Twiggy might close the mine down? Not sure if you're taking the *smile* or not. No mine in Australia has ever, contrary to some tabloid mythology, ever been closed due to payments or any other obligations to Aboriginal TOs, not ever. Zero. If a mine gets closed its because the ore has run out, or its not economically viable due to logistic or market factors.
Last edited:
Thanks for that Snake. You have elaborated more than the tabloids. I Googled Woodley so long drawn out battle , swords drawn. Interesting to see Federal Court verdict but I do think Twiggy will Appeal if above 3%.
The West Australian, the only daily over there,
Is only a nude on page 3
shy of The Truth
Woke ...... Means judging everyone in the past by the standards of the present.
It is the belief that people who lived a 100 ,500 or 1000 years ago should have known better.
It is like getting mad at yourself for not knowing what you know when you were ten.
Did Columbus commit atrocities ?. Of course , but then people were generally atrocious then just to survive.
Everybody who could afford one had a slave. The Sumerians. The Greeks. The Egyptians. The Romans . The British . The early Americans
The word slave comes from Slav, because so many Slavic people were enslaved & they are as white as the Hallmark Channel but in today's world the truth conflicts with the narrative. The truth has to apologize.
Being woke is like a magic moral time machine where you judge everybody against what you imagine you would have done 1n 1066 & you always WIN.
A couple of years ago, they made a movie called The Aeronauts, in fact they were both men, but the movie made one of them a woman, because, as the other director explained : "representation is important ". So true because Women never get enough credit for the things they did not do.
It is the belief that people who lived a 100 ,500 or 1000 years ago should have known better.
It is like getting mad at yourself for not knowing what you know when you were ten.
Did Columbus commit atrocities ?. Of course , but then people were generally atrocious then just to survive.
Everybody who could afford one had a slave. The Sumerians. The Greeks. The Egyptians. The Romans . The British . The early Americans
The word slave comes from Slav, because so many Slavic people were enslaved & they are as white as the Hallmark Channel but in today's world the truth conflicts with the narrative. The truth has to apologize.
Being woke is like a magic moral time machine where you judge everybody against what you imagine you would have done 1n 1066 & you always WIN.
A couple of years ago, they made a movie called The Aeronauts, in fact they were both men, but the movie made one of them a woman, because, as the other director explained : "representation is important ". So true because Women never get enough credit for the things they did not do.
