It’s scheduled for the 9th of August so it aligns with the United Nations International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. 🌏

The event is dedicated to celebrating positive community development and tackling critical tough issues like identity fraud, all while fostering growth and self-determination.

Register Now

Event Schedule (so far):

11:00 AM - 11:05 AM
Welcome

11:05 AM - 11:25 AM
Keynote Presentation: Understanding Aboriginal Identity Fraud

11:25 AM - 11:45 AM
Panel Discussion: The Impact of Identity Fraud on Indigenous Economies

• Drew Hayden Taylor

• Nathan Moran

11:45 AM - 11:50 AM
Break

11:50 AM - 12:10 PM
Celebrating Indigenous Entrepreneurship

12:10 PM - 12:40 PM
First Nations Mentor Blaze

12:40 PM - 12:45 PM
Break

12:45 PM - 01:05 PM
Workshop: Strategies to Combat Identity Fraud

• Matthew Karakoulakis

01:05 PM - 01:25 PM
Panel Discussion: Governance and Policy Solutions

• Jason-Urranndulla Davis

• Lois Peeler

01:25 PM - 01:30 PM
Closing Remarks and Future Directions

• Victoria Grieves Williams

Why You Should Attend:

This forum is an invaluable opportunity to learn from and network with community members and Allies, including entrepreneurs, policy makers and activists.

Engage in meaningful discussions about community development, social challenges faced by First Nations and explore innovative solutions.

Featured Sessions:

• Understanding Aboriginal Identity Fraud: A dive into the complexities and impacts of identity fraud on Indigenous communities.

• Governance and Policy Solutions: Discussions on how to create robust systems to protect Indigenous identities and resources.

Special Highlight: The event includes a First Nations Mentor Blaze, a unique session where attendees can interact with each other, gaining insights and increasing your network.

Register Now!

Don't miss out on this impactful event by registering today to secure your spot (limited spaces) and be part of the change toward empowerment and integrity for First Nations.

👉 Register for the First Nations Economic Forum

Landmark Conviction: A Step Forward in Combating Indigenous Identity Fraud

Recently, the conviction of Karima Manji for defrauding Inuit organisations has set a significant precedent in the fight against Indigenous identity fraud worldwide.

And if you don’t know, Manji falsely claimed Inuit status for her twin daughters to get over $158,000 in financial benefits… but was sentenced to three years in federal prison, a sentence that far exceeded the Crown's recommendation to deter other fraudsters and to set a precedent.

But the gravity of Manji's crime highlights the critical need for stringent measures to safeguard Indigenous identities and resources because identity fraud not only causes financial losses but also undermines efforts to close the socio-economic gaps faced by First Nations.

Furthermore, the Australian Institute of Criminology estimates the annual cost of identity fraud in Australia to be over $3.1 billion so Indigenous identity fraud likely contributes to this figure, which diverts resources meant for genuine beneficiaries and eroding trust in support systems.

Thus, the Manji case serves as a wake-up call for governments who control First Nations to enhance verification processes and enforcement mechanisms.

And by protecting Indigenous identities ensures that resources reach the rightful recipients to foster genuine progress toward closing the disparity gap.

So join us at the First Nations Economic Forum to learn more about these critical issues and be part of the solution!

Share Barayamal Newsletter

Subscribe now

And at the heart of this review is a resonant call to action…because the status quo maintained by both Labor and Liberal bureaucrats is failing to meet the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal communities.

Australian Referendum on Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Fail.

Massive failure from Labor and Aboriginal bureaucrats, who not only lost hundreds of millions of funding that was probably spent just on media and promoting The (Labor) Voice, which could have instead gone to Aboriginal housing and closing the gap…

But instead, this personal agenda might have set back Aboriginal human rights, specifically the aspirations of self-determination, by many years….

So in hindsight, what Gary Foley said about The Voice was true.

“What Aboriginal people called Aborigines Talking Shit In Canberra”, he chuckles.

But in summary, even though the overarching idea was good (closing the disparity gaps), they offered just an advisory board and constitution recognition, which was probably not a strong enough proposal to get most Australians to vote yes.

And the closest thing I can compare to is the 1999 Australian republic referendum, which had a good overarching idea, but the solution proposed by Howard’s Liberal party turned many people off from voting yes.

So while it’s easier to deflect legitimate criticism and blame the anti-Indigenous groups, at the end of the day, I think there were bigger issues in the foundations of the proposal.

Just a massive waste of time and money.

2024 NSW Aboriginal Land Council Election

So while the election will take place over January (registrations) - February (election), NSW Aboriginal Affairs, specifically NSW Aboriginal Land Council, which falls under David Harris MP’s portfolio, seems to be in a massive mess.

From losing around $100 million in the Statutory Investment Fund (SIF) to having 2x Councillors leaving within a couple of months because of HR/governance issues.

And even though the NSW Labor party promised positive change, they seem to be happy to stick with the status quo, which is disappointing because Aboriginal people deserve better!

But in saying that, NSW Premier Chris Minns campaigned for change outside of the “doomed towers” for change and supposedly shook hands with victims and promised to help, only to forget about them…

So with that in mind, we can’t expect much from him or NSW Labor…

And it’s nothing personal against Aboriginal people. It just seems to be politicians and bureaucrats (Labor, Liberals, etc.) sticking to the status quo, which seems to be talking a lot but not delivering much value to the community.

But hopefully mob in NSW see that the old NSWALC Councillors seem to be displaying similar behaviour / characteristics to Western politicians, and hopefully enough people vote for change in 2024.

Aboriginality Identity Fraud

It seems to be getting out of control… and the reason why nothing is being done is because it seems to align with the government and (large) corporate agenda.

Like Westpac, many companies would prefer to allow their employees to self-identify to make it appear like they are helping close the gaps, even though there is probably a massive gap in their actual impact vs what they promote in the news.

And while the Westpac scandal is outdated (2022 story), don’t be fooled… this is but the tip of the iceberg.

There seems to be a lot more “under the ocean” which hasn’t been exposed yet.

For example, Indigenous Business Australia just celebrated 21,000 home loans… but how many of those loans went to frauds instead of (Aboriginal) people who needed it!?

The actual costs and missed opportunity costs in closing the disparity gaps are massive.

And a recent article by Robert Chappell called “Staff Picks 2023: Indigenous community looks to heal weeks after a “pretendian” is exposed” actually looks into the tangible negative impact of people pretending to be Indigenous.

But here's the deal… it's not only about money, like getting loans for houses or businesses or even snagging grants from government or philanthropic organisations.

Because some of these “Pretendians” are getting jobs as so-called 'experts' on Indigenous culture and policies.

So we're talking about big decisions here – policies that are supposed to fix deep-rooted issues like colonialism… but what happens when these 'experts' aren't who they say they are and are non-Indigenous people pretending to be Indigenous?

It's more than just a little 'oops, got it (heritage) wrong' moment. 😅

Because their advice could lead to policies or academic research that ends up hurting real Indigenous peoples and communities in ways that matter.

Summary

A year of bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do, which is a lot of talking but little action / impact… and that’s not just my opinion because the data shows that the gaps aren’t closing.

In addition, you have to remember that the government changed the (closing the gap) targets to make it easier for them to fix the disparities, but they still keep failing to progress things…

So I wouldn’t be surprised (maybe in 2024?) that they scrap the whole thing because it kind of exposes them, to be honest… and the worst thing for a politician is losing public confidence (failing to do stuff) and ultimately losing their only KPI, which is getting enough votes.

So in wrapping this up (2023), it sure had its rollercoaster moments in Aboriginal affairs – from the bumpy referendum journey to identity fraud scandals shaking things up.

Most of the identity fraud scandals were in Canada and USA… but Australia seems to lag behind at times (probably because of our slow internet speeds?), and it won’t be too long until fraudsters in Australia are exposed.

But hopefully these fraudsters will be prosecuted by the government and have to pay back the money they’ve taken from Aboriginal people, cultural damage, and maybe even jail time, which will deter others from doing the same.

But hey, let's not get stuck in the doom and gloom.

Because the new year is knocking on our door, and it's loaded with possibilities for positive change… and the fresh breeze of hope is just around the corner, waiting for us to embrace it. 🤞🙏

And looking ahead, I'm optimistic that the (real) voices of First Nations will ring louder and clearer.

Going into 2024, hopefully this spirit could be the game changer in pushing for more meaningful and impactful policies.

So as we say goodbye, let's not lose sight of the lessons learned.

Here's to 2024 – a year where we hope to see the dawn of new beginnings, stronger communities and policies that truly reflect the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal peoples.

Real self-determination.

Let's roll up our sleeves and prepare to make it a year to remember for all the right reasons. Here’s to positive change! 🌟

For many years, NSWALC has been touting itself as Australia’s largest Aboriginal member-based organisation, and this claim might have been in circulation since the tenure of former CEO James Christian who now seems to be a Board Member of the Western Sydney University Board of Trustees and still claiming that NSWALC is the largest…

But is this claim truly reflective of the council’s structure and membership?

NSWALC ONLY Has 9 Members

Nicole Courtman, Interim Registrar under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, provides clarity on the matter.

According to her, “The NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) is a statutory body established under Part 7 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (ALRA).

The members of NSWALC under section 120 of the ALRA are the elected Councillors for the 9 regions.

The voting members of the Local Aboriginal Land Councils in each region are entitled to vote in the election for the Councillors under section 121(5) of the ALRA.”

NSWALC-membership-enquiry_RegistrarDownload

This statement reveals a significant discrepancy.

While the NSWALC seems to be claiming the collective membership of the 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils, which totals around 28,000 members, the actual membership of the NSWALC itself comprises only the 9 elected Councillors (9 regions, 1x Councillor per region = 9 members).

This raises the question: Is NSWALC intentionally misleading the public, or is this a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding?

The distinction between NSWALC and the Local Aboriginal Land Councils is crucial, as it pertains to representation, governance, and the voice of the Aboriginal community.

It’s essential for organisations like NSWALC to be transparent and accurate in their public communications because misrepresentations on this scale, whether intentional or not, can erode trust and undermine the very purpose of such bodies.

And in the age of information, transparency is not just a virtue but a necessity. The Aboriginal community, and indeed the broader Australian public, deserve clarity on this matter.

Only with trust and transparency can organisations like NSWALC continue to effectively champion the causes they represent.

NSWALC claims to be bigger on their website and media

https://alc.org.au/our-organisation/

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/coffs-harbour/lands-council-joins-the-march-for-bowraville-justice/news-story/c4721ab73f789490a255a2adacd41880

https://nit.com.au/02-07-2020/1218/nsw-aboriginal-land-council-withdraws-investment-from-rio-tinto-advises-members-to-do-the-same

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-27/aboriginal-organisation-will-push-for-a-treaty/8990786

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/about_uws/leadership/board_of_trustees/board_of_trustees_membership2/board_of_trustees_membership

https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/indigenous-group-with-650m-investment-portfolio-pulls-out-of-rio-20200627-p556wg

https://nit.com.au/19-06-2023/6423/new-south-wales-aboriginal-land-council-to-actively-campaign-for-voice

https://www.insights.uca.org.au/nsw-aboriginal-land-council-to-support-yes-campaign/

We all want to know what our elected officials are up to so I recently tried to get some info on Councillor (Cr) Charles Lynch from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) since the 2024 NSWALC elections are coming up…

The reason why is because I wanted to see if there were any complaints about him since being elected (2015) or if there’s been any professional misconduct…

Fair enough? If our democratically elected councillor does something wrong, then the public should know…

But there’s a plot twist!

Instead of receiving a reply from NSWALC’s Governance Officer (Stevie Hayes) in relation to my request for information that I sent this morning, I got a random out-of-the-blue email straight from Cr Charles Lynch.

This is the same guy in January 2023 who said he would get back to me about how many Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) in the Northern Region were labelled as high-risk because he didn’t know for sure…

I mean, I know he’s super busy and all but hasn’t he checked on the other 13 LALCs he’s in charge of? Like, is Red Chief Local Aboriginal Land Council the only one having issues or what?

Who knows…

But anyway, the email I received from Cr Charles Lynch after I submitted an official request for information to NSWALC, is titled “Interest in the operations of NSWALC and my performance as an elected Councillor”.

And I have to say, it’s pretty weird and a little juicy…

But here is the original letter. I will provide the letter verbatim in bold and then annotate it with initial comments in normal text for your reference.

I’ll also follow up with emails to the Office of the Registrar (Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 NSW) and MP David Harris – Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, to try and clarify some of the allegations from Cr Charles Lynch.

Stay tuned for more updates on this wild political story and the 2024 NSW Aboriginal Land Council election…

NSWALC Dean Foley correspondence August 2023 V7CJL | sent by Charles Lynch

As the Councillor for NSWALC Northern Region I welcome your interest in our organisation’s operations and my performance as a Councillor. It is important we are answerable for our actions as we focus on delivering real outcomes for the Aboriginal communities we serve. However, while NSWALC welcomes scrutiny and accountability, I do not welcome continued irresponsible and incorrect information being spread. 

It’s great to see officials from NSWALC open to public interest and scrutiny…. democracy and freedom 101.

That said, I’m a bit puzzled by the claim that “irresponsible and incorrect information” being spread is pretty strong because if there are specific instances or pieces of info that are incorrect, it would be genuinely helpful to point them out. It’s all about clarity, right? 😉 Just a thought. Thanks (again) for nothing Charles!

NSWALC is the largest member based Aboriginal organisation in NSW and we are committed to ensuring a better future for Aboriginal people, including pursuing cultural, social and economic independence for communities. The NSWALC plays a crucial role in a large number of programs benefiting Aboriginal communities, from advocacy, support, facilitation, and service delivery. 

Charles Lynch highlights the significance of NSWALC, and there’s no doubt they play a big role but just to clarify a point: the 30,000 or so members they often mention?

Those are actually members of the 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs), not directly NSWALC’s.

And if we dig a little deeper, it’s the Office of the Registrar that manages these members, not NSWALC…. which makes anyone with half a brain wonder why the LALC members are often cited in the news as NSWALC members.

If were going to have a discussion about misinformation then the NSW Government and NSW Fair Trading might need to look into claims that “NSWALC is the largest member based Aboriginal organisation in NSW”.

And I’ll be touching base with the Office of the Registrar via email to clear this up but as a side note, their (Registrar) website literally mentions that they are “Maintaining a consolidated roll of all members of Local Aboriginal Land Councils.” Always good to have all the facts in hand!🕵️‍♂️📊

So where are NSWALCs members and who manages them, Charles?

Our support for Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) to act as custodians of Country and representatives of Aboriginal communities is central to our goals. Our focus is about working to support the network of 121 LALCs across NSW and working for the return of culturally significant and economically viable land. The LALC network are community-controlled organisations, they are self-governing. As a community they make decisions for their own future. As a Councillor I am not a voting member of every LALC in Northern Region nor can I be a board member of a LALC. I am not involved in the appointment of LALC Boards (other than by casting my single vote as a voting member of my LALC), as they are democratically elected from and by the membership of each LALC.  Importantly as a councillor I have no control over the disruptive and destabilising behaviours of individuals, be they on a LALC Board or in a LALC membership. I wish to make it clear that I do not condone such actions and will always call it out. 

Reading through this paragraph is painful, but a couple of things pop out. Firstly, Charles mentions “121 LALCs across NSW” but from what I’ve seen on their own website, it’s stated as 120. Maybe there’s been an update? Or maybe Charles isn’t totally sure. From my past interactions, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the latter but I’ll keep an open mind.

And the whole bit about “As a Councillor I am not a voting member of every LALC in Northern Region nor can I be a board member of a LALC” is a tad confusing. Not sure who implied he was?

The main point I’ve been driving at is that as a Councillor, he should be stepping up to support these organisations…

But reading between the lines, he seems to suggest, “Hey, LALC problems? Not my circus, not my monkeys.” Some leadership there, huh? 😂🤦‍♂️🎪🐒

Cheers to our fearless leader of the Northern Region, Charles Lynch!

Truly inspirational… with leadership like that, they’ll close the disparity gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous sooner than later (sarcasm intended)...

Like many community organisations, there will always be localised issues. However, NSWALC implements a wide range of systems to assist LALCs, including: compulsory Governance training for all LALC Board Members; support in developing Community Land and Business Plans; and the use of Performance Improvement Orders and Advisors when requested or otherwise needed, to improve the performance of a LALC who may be having difficulties with performance or their Governance. 

Blah, blah, blah… same nonsense as above/before. Typical politician behaviour, deflecting problems onto the community and LALCs… absolutely no leadership.

NSWALC sets a high benchmark for a community-controlled organisation. Our financial statements are independently audited by a delegate of the NSW Auditor-General. For the past decade, NSWALC has received an unqualified audit opinion, which means the NSW Auditor-General Office concludes that NSWALC’s financial matters are dealt with correctly. 

Just a quick note on Charles Lynch’s mention of the NSW Auditor-General’s ‘seal of approval’ on NSWALC’s financial matters.

Which sounds impressive on the surface, but let’s dig a bit deeper. While the NSW Auditor-General has indeed audited NSWALC, it’s important not to misconstrue what these audits imply.

Because according to a direct reply I received from the Audit Office:

“The Auditor-General conducts an annual audit of NSWALC’s financial statements… If we do identify issues during the course of our audits these are usually raised directly with the entity audited… Outside of our reports to Parliament, our audit work is covered by legislative secrecy provisions, and as such we will not be able to report back to you on the outcomes of our audit work.”

So, while the audits provide an opinion on the financial statements, it doesn’t necessarily mean they delve deep into the nitty-gritty or intervene in entity decisions.

Taylor Powell from the Audit Office further clarified that they “do not currently have a performance audit on NSWALC planned in the near future.”

So let’s not get ahead of ourselves with the whole “unqualified audit opinion” narrative because there’s usually more to the story when talking to politicians, and transparency is key! 🔍📑

The NSWALC Statutory Fund continues to outperform market benchmarks when compared to two NSW Treasury Corporation investment portfolios and two Mercer median portfolios held by other institutions. Following the market correction of the previous pandemic years, our strategy continues to be based on investment for perpetuity. 

Alright folks, let’s break down Charles Lynch’s statement on the NSWALC Statutory Fund...

But first, it’s important to know that Charles was/is an accountant and “He is a fellow of the Institute of Public Accountants.” Let that sink in as we continue…

Charles boasts that the NSWALC Statutory Fund is outpacing some NSW Treasury Corporation investment portfolios and two Mercer median portfolios held elsewhere.

However, diving into the numbers, there’s a different story to be told…

So, on 30 June 2018, total assets were pegged at $713.247 million.

Fast forward to June 30, 2022, and we’re looking at a SIF valuation of $598.7 million.

That’s a sharp decrease of $68.5 million just for the 2021-22 fiscal year alone.

So, let’s get real…

If the portfolios Charles is comparing to are losing more than $100 million like NSWALC since 2018, it might be time for a strategy rethink, perhaps even hiring a new investment manager.

I mean, I’m not an expert or an accountant fellow like Charles, but the numbers and performance don’t match up…

“Outperforming” might be a relative term, but there’s much to dissect here. Food for thought! 🤔💰📉

FYI: the SIF is responsible for resourcing the operations of NSWALC and its network of 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs), is under the stewardship of the Council of NSWALC. As of June 30, 2022, the SIF had a valuation of $598.7 million, marking a substantial decrease of $68.5 million for the 2021-22 financial year. From 2018 – 2022, they lost over $100 million…

I strongly encourage that you familiarise yourself with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to ensure you are citing accurate information. It is also important that you disclose your conflict of interests to your audience, and not misrepresent information/footage. 

Well, good old’ Charles is at it again with his vague statements…

Firstly, he nudges me to familiarise myself with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, but it’d be more helpful if he could pinpoint where he thinks I’ve gone astray… I mean, if I’ve quoted something incorrectly, sure, I’m all ears.

But vague advice? Not particularly constructive.

Now, regarding the “conflict of interests” and misrepresentation of info/footage – Charles, mate, you’ve lost me… or are you lost?

Either way, as far as I know, I’ve been transparent about my affiliations.

I’ve openly declared my membership with the Red Chief Local Aboriginal Land Council, and some are aware of my family’s connection with the Gomeroi Native Title (‘traditional owner’ status if it’s worth anything…).

It’s curious, though, how Charles throws around words like “misinformation” and “conflict of interests” without actually detailing what he believes I’ve gotten wrong.

I’d appreciate specifics over general allegations… and to be honest, is it appropriate for politicians to make these broad-brush claims against their constituents without substantive backup?

A tad unprofessional, if you ask me. 🤷‍♂️

If you think you can add value to your community, I encourage you to become an active member of your LALC and participate in building a better future for our next generations.

Charles, let’s cut through the generic talk… these standard encouragements, while sounding noble, often lack the depth that reflects an understanding of what individuals like myself have gone through.

Your call for me to become active? Newsflash: I’ve been in the thick of it.

I applied for the CEO position at the Red Chief LALC, and that chapter took a distressing turn… While I can’t delve into specifics due to a non-disclosure agreement, many are aware of what transpired.

What’s baffling is that NSWALC, possibly even yourself, seemed to be in the loop but provided no assistance.

Where was your “leadership” then?

Additionally, just for the record, I am an active voting member at the Red Chief LALC and I’ve been a Member for over 15 years. I grew up Aboriginal… did you, Charles?

My upbringing rooted in our Aboriginal community taught me the importance of contributing, and I always have, always will.

But instead of general urges, perhaps we could look at real, on-ground issues and address them? Like you/Council spending a lot of money on yourselves…

Just a thought. 🤔📜📌

Summary:

I enquired about any concerns or inappropriate behaviour linked to Cr Lynch since his 2015 election, but instead of hearing back from the NSWALC’s Governance Officer, I got a direct email from Cr Lynch himself.

This surprise email led to an in-depth analysis and discussion of Lynch’s response.

His email focused on the following:

1. Defending the NSWALC’s operations and his performance.

2. Highlighting the NSWALC’s role in supporting “121” LALCs.

3. Emphasising that as a Councillor, he doesn’t have a say in the workings of each LALC.

4. Stressing the measures taken by NSWALC to help LALCs, like Governance training.

5. Boasting about the financial performance of the NSWALC Statutory Fund.

On the surface, this system allows Aboriginal people to vote for Councillors who will represent their interests, mirroring the democratic processes familiar to many Western nations… but if you take a deeper dive reveals that while the structure may be democratic, it might not fully align with the cultural and communal values of the Indigenous peoples it serves.

And the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasises the importance of Indigenous communities having the autonomy to make decisions in ways that are culturally and contextually appropriate for them.

So one of the core tenets of this declaration is that Indigenous Peoples should have the right to make their own decisions and execute them in ways that resonate with their traditions, values, and cultural practices.

And while the NSW Aboriginal Land Council Elections might seem like a step in the right direction, there are concerns about how closely they adhere to the principles laid out in the UNDRIP.

Which from a sheer numerical standpoint, doesn’t seem promising… and I'm not referencing the vast differences in figures from health to wealth; I'm speaking about the numbers from the 2019 NSW Aboriginal Land Council Election.

Here’s a quick summary of the election which was conducted by the NSW Electoral Commission…. but feel free to skip this block and let’s get to the main point again.

“NSWALC’s principal clients are the network of 120 LALCs, and the 25,000 Aboriginal people who are their members.” - NSWALC Annual Report 2018-2019 Part 1 (page 5)

• 25,000 Members (2019).

• Total enrolment number is 15,426 or 61.7% of all Members.

• 38.3% NSWALC Members were unable to vote.

• Total votes for the election were 4,124 (or 26.74% of 15,426).

• Only 4,124 or 16.5% out of the total 25,000 Members in 2019 actually voted…

• The election cost “approximately $984,000 (excluding GST)”.

• Approximately $238.63 per vote.

Anyways, this is why it's crucial to distinguish between leadership that identifies as Indigenous and leadership that embodies Indigenous values and traditions… and why it’s also crucial to identify government and (large) corporation public relations campaigns which I’ve touched on —> here.

But the point is the current system, though it may be “led” by Indigenous individuals and controlled by the NSW Government, still primarily operates largely from a Western perspective.

And it also raises another question: Are these elected leaders truly representing the collective interests of the Aboriginal community in NSW or are they consciously or unconsciously prioritising personal or familial interests?

While the former may still function within a Western paradigm, emphasising individualistic priorities, the latter emphasises the broader community's welfare, addressing social, environmental, and long-term concerns of the Aboriginal community.

This is why it's crucial to reflect on this…

Especially when many Australians and Western citizens are frustrated with their leaders and politicians who prioritise personal or corporate agendas over community welfare.

And as Indigenous people, many of us don’t seek to be moulded into the Western political mould, where leaders often prioritise personal gains or those of their corporate backers.

So the challenge lies in ensuring that the NSW Aboriginal Land Council and its Councillors, and other “Indigenous” government bodies, evolve to become platforms where the essence of Indigenous empowerment is not just about having colonial government entities that are Indigenous “led”, but about integrating ways that are genuinely reflective of Indigenous values and promote self-determination

So while the NSW Aboriginal Land Council Elections are undoubtedly a significant stride towards integrating Indigenous peoples into the (Western) democratic process, there's still work to be done to make it more culturally appropriate…

And to truly honour the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it's crucial to ensure that these democratic processes are not just superficially inclusive or public relations campaigns but deeply resonant with the values and aspirations of the Indigenous communities they aim to serve.

Microsoft bought LinkedIn and now the platform seems to be heading downhill in the name of “Professional Community Policies” despite the new fancy features. 

And Microsoft has a history of acquiring companies and not doing justice to them (did someone say Nokia?) but since Microsoft took over LinkedIn, there has been an increase in the number of complaints from black, people of colour and Indigenous people who claim they have been targeted and banned from the platform.

Even The New York Times wrote an article about how LinkedIn was using its “Professional Community Policies” to potentially delete content and ban black users that posted content it deemed offensive.

Unlike the anti-Indigenous users of LinkedIn who troll Indigenous people and post discriminative/racist content but are never reprimanded for their unprofessional behaviour, double standards much?

But when a billionaire (Bill Gates) emphasises the significance of free speech and even cautioned about the potential threat to free speech on Twitter by Elon Musk, it raises questions when a company like Microsoft which he founded/owns acquires a social platform that is now arguably subject to more censorship than Twitter has ever experienced.

This leaves me pondering the actual state of free speech.

And to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if LinkedIn’s “Professional Community Policies” under Microsoft rule are now discriminatory towards Indigenous and people of colour.

The reason why I say that is because when I was invited to be a founding member of the Microsoft Reconciliation (RAP) Advisory Board, I was originally excited because the closing the gap targets between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians had not been met or even close to it at the time, and now one of the biggest and resource-rich companies in the world was ‘committed’ to helping Indigenous people.

I wasn’t excited about my own professional development because the First Nations advisory board members received no financial compensation for their time and expertise, which is another story…

But when I learned that the philanthropic side of Microsoft in Australia supposedly only had a budget of only $50,000 to give to an external charity/organisation, I lost all the excitement and expectations I had in Microsoft's ability to help close the disparity gaps in Australia.

It made me question the company's capacity and sincerity to effectively address and narrow disparity gaps in the country.

In all fairness, it is likely that Bill hasn’t had the opportunity to visit First Nations communities in Australia before.

But it’s important to note that some of these communities face similar challenges as those in third-world or developing” countries, despite being located within a "developed first-world" country like Australia. This might explain the lack of a larger philanthropic budget allocated to Australia at the time.

But from my personal perspective, it seemed to reflect a larger issue within the company culture in Australia—with an emphasis on minimal corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts in pursuit of maximising profits.

And it raises questions about the true intentions behind many company Reconciliation initiatives in Australia and whether they genuinely prioritise a positive community impact or simply engage in token gestures for appearance's sake.

And to add it this point, it was surprising (or not) to discover that even the individual responsible for the retail operations at Microsoft Australia at the time showed a lack of interest in providing assistance or interest towards closing the disparity gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, despite also being a founding member of the Microsoft Reconciliation (RAP) Advisory Board (ironically).

When I approached him to inquire about potential discounts or opportunities to make Microsoft retail products more accessible to First People, he simply mentioned the existing student discounts, which unfortunately closed the door on exploring further possibilities to close the disparity gaps through Microsoft retail products.

If I had approached him with a proposal that could enhance their profits and increase his bonus pay, I’m confident that he would have been more engaged and eager to explore the topic further.

This was a valuable learning experience from an Indigenous perspective - don't expect much from large corporations, as they won't do much (compared to their profits) unless there's a clear path toward making more money... did someone say government procurement contracts?

But if corporations and billionaires spent more money on their corporate social responsibility initiatives than they do on public relations and “philanthropic” efforts, they would 100% make a bigger impact and create positive change.

And while it is important to acknowledge the positive impact of some of their philanthropic efforts, it can’t be denied that there is a recurring pattern of prioritising PR and media relations within their corporate strategy.

Let’s be honest here…

And if Microsoft and LinkedIn were serious about diversity and respecting Indigenous rights, they would review their “Professional Community Policies” to ensure that these policies are being fairly applied.

Even a person of colour who’s an international author and activist, Ruby Hamad was supposedly targeted and banned from LinkedIn for mentioning ‘white women’, which are the titles/themes of her books…

If I still had access to LinkedIn, I would have found the post on LinkedIn talking about this issue that potentially discriminates against people of colour and Ruby Hamad, and how the platform applies double standards to its “Professional Community Policies.” But yeah, nah, I was banned from the platform too.

When I say that LinkedIn has become more censored than Twitter, I'm not joking. It seems Bill Gates’ Microsoft only applies their right to free speech as long as you don't mention their ties to Jeffrey Epstein or affect their money-making relationship with governments.

But surprisingly, I haven't even gotten a warning or been threatened with a ban on Twitter… thanks, Elon!

One thing that can be said about Elon Musk is that he doesn’t (usually) pretend to be a philanthropist like many others in the business world. Even though he probably isn’t the right person to push world policies that benefit society as a whole, when it comes to innovation, he does well.

In contrast, the person who is arguably responsible for influencing world policies at the United Nations and developing countries needs to do better.

Let’s start with fewer PR campaigns and more results…

And before large corporations resort to portraying themselves as victims and attempt to portray their contributions as fair (while shifting the blame onto the most economically disadvantaged), I would like to present the ABS taxation revenue snapshot as a point of reference.

39% personal income revenue vs only 19% from company tax doesn’t seem fair… just like Microsofts’ LinkedIn “Professional Community Policies”.

Share

P.S. It’s important to address the issue of claiming workers' personal income tax as a Company tax contribution. This practice, which is probably aimed at avoiding further taxes or exploiting tax avoidance loopholes, raises concerns about fairness and accountability.

P.P.S. Microsoft, you shouldn’t be surprised… but feel free to continue playing your fiddle and exaggerating the amount of work you do in the CSR/Reconciliation field.

With the concept of reconciliation gaining prominence, corporations have embraced this narrative as a means to demonstrate their commitment to Indigenous communities.

But behind the glossy CSR campaigns and public gestures, a darker truth lurks – the rise of fake reconciliation.

Some companies exploit reconciliation as a mere public relations tool, diverting attention from their actual impact on Indigenous communities. The telltale signs of fake reconciliation like only advertising their “achievements” during Reconciliation Week could have detrimental effects on genuine efforts towards Indigenous empowerment and progress (like greenwashing).

Now let's examine the case of NRMA Insurance.

Before we proceed, it's important to note that I am not making any claims about their intentions or the authenticity of their reconciliation efforts.

But it is crucial to ask some critical questions to ensure transparency and avoid falling into the trap of blakwashing – a term similar to greenwashing but applied to Indigenous initiatives.

NRMA Insurance claims to have empowered Indigenous businesses through their partnerships with Jawun, the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, and CareerTrackers. While these partnerships may sound commendable on the surface, it's essential to delve deeper into the nature of these collaborations.

A closer look reveals that two-thirds of these businesses are actually non-Indigenous-owned entities working within the Indigenous space.

This raises concerns about whether they can genuinely be labelled as "Indigenous businesses."

It prompts us to question the extent of Indigenous ownership and control within these partnerships and whether they truly prioritise Indigenous empowerment or self-determination.

Also, the ownership structure of the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation remains unclear…but if it’s Indigenous owned let me know in the comments or via email.

Anyways, without clear information on the ownership of this organisation, it becomes challenging to assess its authenticity and alignment with Indigenous values and aspirations.

“The Aboriginal Carbon Foundation supports carbon farming projects, led by Indigenous rangers.”

While it is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the positive contributions made by these organisations in their efforts to close the disparity gaps, it is also equally crucial to shed light on the existence of blakwashing and fake reconciliation.

It’s a reality that we must confront and address.

Blakwashing (like greenwashing) refers to the deceptive practice of presenting superficial initiatives that appear to support Indigenous causes while lacking genuine substance or meaningful impact. It’s essential for true Allies of First Nations to look beyond the surface of these initiatives and examine them critically.

By encouraging deeper scrutiny and engagement, we can ensure that the pursuit of reconciliation is not undermined by tokenistic gestures or empty promises.

We must hold organisations accountable and push for genuine actions that prioritize Indigenous empowerment, self-determination, and true collaboration.

Let us strive for authentic reconciliation that goes beyond surface-level gestures and addresses the systemic issues and historical injustices faced by First Nations.

Together, we can create a more equitable and just society that honours and respects Indigenous cultures, voices, and aspirations.

Share

June 1, 2023

SYDNEY, NSW - Concerns have arisen regarding the validity of a research survey by global market research firm, Ipsos, which claimed that 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support The Voice, an Indigenous advisory body to Parliament.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and The Voice proponents, including Alyawarre woman and Uluru Dialogue Co-Chair Pat Anderson AO, have cited the research as a substantial part of their campaign. 

But questions about the verification process used to confirm the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage of the survey's participants cast a shadow on the research's credibility.

In a recent enquiry, Simon Wake, CEO of Australia & New Zealand for Ipsos, described the iMob recruitment method which relies on the company's panel of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. According to Wake, "the iMob recruitment method guarantees our participants are real people of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander decent and are aged 18+.”

When asked about the exact method of confirming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, Wake referred to Ipsos' network of local researchers and elders. 

However, he did not provide further details or evidence of a systematic process aligning with the Commonwealth government's three-part definition of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.

Critics have argued that the reliance on self-identification and personal connections within the communities introduces potential for bias and inaccuracies in the survey data. 

Without concrete evidence of heritage, the study's claim that 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support The Voice has been called into question.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has a longstanding record of challenging misinformation, yet the present circumstances indicate that his advocacy for The Voice may be based on potentially misleading research.

As the dialogue around The Voice continues, it is essential that transparency and accuracy guide the decision-making process.

The voices of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples deserve to be heard, understood, and respected, and any claims made on their behalf must be substantiated with robust, credible evidence.

-ENDS-

Media Contact:

Dean Foley

Barayamal

p: +61 458 980 232 

e: d.foley@barayamal.com

Resources:

• Ipsos research enquiry.

• Ipsos research disclosure statement.

Share

This research engaged with individuals identifying as 'Indigenous Australians' from various regions nationwide, with the survey conducted between January 20th to 24th this year. (Photo: Getty)

The recent publication of an article potentially promoting false information and propaganda for The Voice raises concerns about the motives behind such content. In particular, the affiliation of universities with government funding and the perceived push for The Voice highlights a potential conflict of interest.

Just because 90% of Labor employees say yes to the vote doesn’t mean 90% of the whole population support The Voice…

Drawing conclusions about the overall support for The Voice based solely on a specific group's opinions is not an accurate representation and fails to consider the diverse perspectives within the broader First Nations population.

And common sense dictates that such generalisations should be approached with caution…

Adding to that is the limited involvement and voter turnout among First People is a matter of concern, particularly when considering the engagement of Aboriginal individuals within the NSW Aboriginal Land Council processes.

The relatively low percentage of Aboriginal members, approximately 10-12% of 30,000 members, actively participating in the voting process underscores a larger issue of disillusionment and disengagement within the community.

This disparity between the membership base and the level of participation reflects a clear disconnection between the current system and the aspirations of Aboriginal people.

The pressing inquiry that necessitates an answer is the source of the statistics being cited by the Labor Party.

Are they paying universities or research firms large amounts of money to come up with these claims?

Ipsos claimed 80% of First People supported The Voice at the start of the year which is probably what Albanese and The Conversation were talking about…

Anyways, there’s a need for additional investigation into the research methodology and credibility employed, particularly in terms of how the Indigenous identity of participants was determined.

Was self-identification the only criterion used for their research participants?

The irony of the situation arises when the Labor Party accuses the Liberal Party of disseminating false information, considering the potential concerns surrounding the credibility of their own claims.

You can read an article about the Ipsos poll here, where they claimed earlier this year that 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice.

I reached out to them via email to inquire about their research methodology and the process of participant participation mentioned above. Hopefully, they’ll be able to clarify…🤞

Share

While the construction department has been criticised for inadequate oversight leading to families being left homeless by dodgy builders, the gambling industry is facing its own set of challenges with promotional lotteries that have been exploiting a legal loophole by using a backend product to effectively operate commercial lotteries, raising questions about the legality of these practices.

The current state of affairs in both the construction and gambling sectors underscores the critical need for robust regulations and heightened oversight. The overarching goal is to safeguard consumer protection, promote fairness, and maintain integrity within these industries.

It is crucial to address the concerns surrounding the current practices, as they appear to have persisted under the watch of the current Labor governments, Ministers, and bureaucrats.

Efforts must be made to rectify these issues and restore public trust in the governance of these sectors.

What’s this gotta do with Indigenous stuff?

The issue of government officials and bureaucrats allowing negative practices to occur under their watch extends beyond the construction and gambling sectors.

It also encompasses the concerning problem of Aboriginal identity fraud and the lack of decisive action taken to address this issue.

The act of individuals falsely claiming Aboriginal identity not only undermines the integrity of Indigenous cultures and communities but also hinders the efforts to achieve equity and address historical injustices.

It perpetuates a system where resources and opportunities intended for Indigenous people are misdirected to those who do not genuinely belong to the community. This diversion of resources not only undermines the well-being of Indigenous individuals and communities but also impedes the advancement of social and economic equality.

It is crucial for the government and relevant authorities to prioritise the identification and prevention of identity fraud. Strong measures must be implemented to crack down on individuals misrepresenting their Aboriginal identity for personal gain.

By doing so, it not only protects the rights and opportunities of First People but also upholds the values of justice and fairness that underpin efforts to close disparity gaps.

To achieve meaningful progress, it is imperative that governments, policy-makers, and Indigenous communities work collaboratively to develop and implement comprehensive strategies that address identity fraud.

This includes raising awareness, strengthening verification processes, and establishing penalties for those found guilty of fraudulent claims.

Only through decisive action can we ensure the protection of Indigenous rights, preserve cultural integrity, and foster true progress towards closing disparity gaps.

Indigenous art sector says sales have dropped after allegations of interference by white staff at Tjala Arts

The negative impact on the Aboriginal art sector due to the lack of integrity in genuine artwork created by Indigenous people is a matter of great concern.

This sector serves as a significant source of income for artists and communities.

While it is commendable that the government has launched an investigation into Aboriginal art authenticity to protect consumers and ensure the sustainability of the industry, it raises the question of why similar efforts have not been made to address the issue of Aboriginal identity fraud!?

Both issues involve misrepresentation and undermine the integrity and authenticity of Indigenous culture and market/industry. Just as there are measures in place to safeguard the authenticity of Aboriginal art, it is imperative that similar attention is given to the issue of identity fraud.

It is essential for the government to recognise the parallels between the challenges faced by the Aboriginal art sector and the issue of identity fraud.

Both require concerted efforts to establish mechanisms that preserve the authenticity and integrity of Indigenous culture, while also safeguarding the rights and opportunities of First People.

Summary

It is important to strike a balance between providing a supportive environment and avoiding unnecessary government intervention.

A responsible government should recognise the need to safeguard its citizens while also respecting individual freedoms and autonomy.

By finding this balance, the government can foster an environment that encourages growth, protects the well-being of its citizens, and supports the diverse needs of the community as a whole.

Through effective policies and enforcement across various sectors such as building, gambling, arts, and identification, the government has the power to create a more just and supportive environment that allows communities to thrive.

And before you dismiss this as mere opinion, it's important to note that there are tangible goals set by NSW Aboriginal Affairs themselves to measure progress in closing the disparity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Closing the Gap in NSW

These goals provide a clear framework for evaluating their effectiveness.

But it’s disheartening to see that despite occasionally adjusting these goals to make them more "achievable," the department continues to fall short of meeting the desired outcomes.

This raises concerns about the efficacy of their strategies and calls for a critical examination of their approach to addressing the persistent disparities that exist.

Central to their mandate is the allocation and management of funding dedicated to Indigenous programs and initiatives. But questions continue to arise regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of these investments.

Are the funds reaching their intended beneficiaries? Are they making a significant impact on closing the disparity gaps?

NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister, David Harris

Generally speaking, Aboriginal Affairs under the previous Liberal/Nationals government in NSW left much to be desired, but there was renewed hope with the arrival of the Labor Government.

The new NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister, David Harris from the Labor Party, initially showed promise. On April 11, 2023, I posted on LinkedIn highlighting the alarming failure rate of Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and the increasing number of LALCs placed under administration, which he acknowledged was a significant issue and on his ‘agenda’.

But despite the initial optimism, it seems that after a few weeks, the situation remains unchanged.

And while it's too early to judge based on results, it's worth noting that other states with Labor Ministers that have been in charge of Aboriginal Affairs for a long time are still struggling to achieve their goals in relation to closing disparity gaps.

Case in point

An email (and follow-up) was sent to David Harris and I CC’d his department, NSW Aboriginal Affairs, regarding a complaint about a charity fundraiser event booking and highlighting the concern that things may remain unchanged in Gunnedah since 14 December 2022.

For me, it raises the question of whether the current system with non-Indigenous people and their sidekicks, can effectively address the closing-the-gap targets, and suggests that alternative models such as self-governance may yield better results.

Anyway, I received a response that was understandable.

In most cases, complaints or resolution processes require gathering additional information to make an informed decision on the matter.

But what caught me off guard and seemed quite strange was the second email I received from Tina Swan, Manager of Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA) Compliance and Government Aboriginal Affairs at the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.

What bothered me, and you can read my complete response here, was that Tina appeared to only consider Tim Gumbleton's opinion and the emails he provided, without thoroughly reviewing the entire correspondence and considering both sides of the issue.

But what struck me was the failure to consider a basic principle of asking "why". Why did Dean state that email communication was sufficient? Why did he decline to speak with Mr. Gumbleton over the phone?

These are simple questions that should be taken into account in any complaints and resolution process, as they provide valuable insights and a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

If they had applied some basic reasoning or thoroughly reviewed all the available information, they would have been aware that I had previously spoken to Tim Gumbleton over the phone and felt uncomfortable doing so again. That is why I insisted on relying on email correspondence with him, which I deemed sufficient.

But they failed to do so, and as a result, I have little hope that things will improve for Aboriginal people in NSW under Labor and David Harris.

It seems that the same patterns and status quo will persist, without any significant changes or improvements.

Tim explicitly directed me to contact NSW Aboriginal Affairs, implying that he did not wish to engage in conversation with me.

But upon reaching out to NSW Aboriginal Affairs, I was advised to communicate via phone with the very person I had a complaint about, and who had previously been unhelpful…

Stuck in the Status Quo

The deep-rooted disenfranchisement experienced by many Aboriginal people stems from a longstanding lack of trust in the current system's ability to address their needs and concerns effectively.

Years of marginalisation, historical injustices, and broken promises have left a profound impact on Aboriginal communities, leading to scepticism and disillusionment.

The failure of the system to deliver meaningful change, coupled with a sense of being unheard and overlooked, has further eroded trust.

To foster real progress and restore faith in the system, it is crucial to engage Aboriginal communities in decision-making processes, empower their voices, and ensure that their unique perspectives and experiences are valued and respected.

Only through genuine collaboration and a commitment to meaningful change can we begin to address the underlying issues and rebuild trust in a system that is meant to serve all Australians.

The low participation and voter turnout among Aboriginal people in the NSW Aboriginal Land Council processes are indicative of a broader sense of disillusionment and disengagement within the community.

With a membership base of approximately 30,000, the fact that only 10-12% of members show up to vote highlights a clear disconnect between the current system and the aspirations of Aboriginal people.

There is a pressing need for meaningful change to address the concerns and priorities of the community… but at this time, the prospects for such change seem uncertain under both the current and new government(s).

It is crucial for leaders and policymakers to acknowledge these challenges and work towards building a system that genuinely represents and uplifts the voices of Aboriginal people in NSW.

Only through inclusive and accountable governance can we hope to overcome the existing disillusionment and foster a future that respects the rights and aspirations of all Aboriginal individuals.

The recent exposure of yet another individual posing as an Indigenous person, or a "Pretendian” in this specific case, has sparked renewed debate about the need for a crackdown on Indigenous identity fraud worldwide.

Elizabeth Hoover, a US professor, recently came forward and admitted she had no Native American heritage after claiming it her "whole life" and benefiting from her self-identified Indigenous background.

But the damage had already been done, as Hoover had received academic fellowships, opportunities, and material benefits that may have been intended for actual Native scholars.

And the impact of Indigenous identity fraud goes beyond just financial gain for individuals.

It also has non-tangible costs, particularly in terms of closing the disparity gap initiatives.

Funding and opportunities meant for Indigenous communities and individuals are often diverted to non-Indigenous individuals who falsely claim Indigenous heritage.

So, what can be done about this issue?

Fraud is a growing problem in many parts of the world, and Indigenous identity fraud is no exception. With the recent exposure of yet another Pretendian who falsely claimed to have Indigenous heritage, it's become clear that action needs to be taken to address this issue.

However, any crackdown on Indigenous identity fraud must be done in a culturally appropriate manner, as many First Nations and Indigenous people don't accept the Western blood quantum ideology.

Blood quantum - how much aboriginal blood to claim benefits?

The blood quantum way to measure Indigenous identity is a colonial construct that has been forced onto Indigenous communities. It is a Western idea that is used to define Indigenous identity based on the percentage of Indigenous ancestry a person has and this system of measurement has been used to exclude many Indigenous peoples who do not meet the threshold required by the colonisers.

Moreover, it is not a culturally appropriate method of measuring Indigenous identity because many Indigenous cultures do not view identity solely based on ancestry.

Instead, Indigenous identity is often tied to community, culture and relationships with the land and ancestors. The blood quantum system erases these important cultural markers of identity, which is harmful to Indigenous peoples and their communities.

Furthermore, the blood quantum system perpetuates the colonial myth that Indigenous peoples are a dying race, and it is often used to limit Indigenous peoples' access to land, resources, and services. It also creates a division between Indigenous peoples who are considered "full-blooded" and those who are not, leading to discrimination within Indigenous communities themselves.

The use of blood quantum to measure Indigenous identity is wrong and harmful, and there is a need to decolonise and recognise the diversity of Indigenous identities based on cultural markers rather than colonial constructs.

This all perpetuates the disparity gap and undermines the work of initiatives aimed at closing that gap.

Anyways, Indigenous identity fraud isn't the only type of fraud that's becoming increasingly prevalent. Scam emails and text messages are also on the rise, targeting vulnerable individuals and causing financial and emotional harm.

It's time for the government to take a stand and protect its citizens from these fraudulent activities, whether they are of the Indigenous community or not.

But any action taken against Indigenous fraud must be done in a culturally sensitive way that respects the values and beliefs of all individuals involved. Only then can we ensure that justice is served and that vulnerable communities are protected from the harmful effects of fraud.

Top reasons why Aboriginal identity fraud can be harmful to the community:

• Undermines the credibility of Indigenous people: Aboriginal identity fraud can damage the trust that Indigenous communities have built with the wider society. It can make it harder for people to believe the stories and experiences of real Indigenous people, which can lead to a lack of support for Indigenous causes and issues.

• Reduces opportunities for genuine Indigenous people: Aboriginal identity fraud can result in people who are not genuinely Indigenous receiving opportunities that should be reserved for Indigenous people. For example, scholarships, jobs, and leadership positions that are designated for Indigenous people may end up going to someone who is not Indigenous, which reduces the number of opportunities available for real Indigenous people.

• Perpetuates stereotypes and misconceptions: Aboriginal identity fraud can reinforce stereotypes and misconceptions about Indigenous people. For example, if someone pretends to be Indigenous and is later exposed, it can create the impression that Indigenous people are trying to take advantage of special privileges. This can lead to resentment and division between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

• Erases the experiences and struggles of Indigenous people: Aboriginal identity fraud can erase the experiences and struggles of real Indigenous people. If someone who is not Indigenous is claiming to have experienced discrimination or trauma because of their Indigenous identity, it can trivialize the very real experiences of Indigenous people who have faced discrimination and trauma because of their identity.

• Undermines efforts to address historical injustices: Aboriginal identity fraud can make it harder to address historical injustices that have been committed against Indigenous people. If someone who is not Indigenous is claiming to have experienced the same injustices, it can make it seem as if the injustices were not really that bad or were not specifically directed at Indigenous people. This can make it harder to build support for efforts to address the injustices.

Share

And in order to counteract deceptive and inaccurate marketing in the realm of environmentalism, a term known as "greenwashing" was coined, which pertains to companies making false or inflated assertions regarding their environmental practices to enhance their image.

A similar phenomenon is now emerging in the area of Indigenous procurement policies, with some companies engaging in what is known as "blakwashing" (like greenwashing) or “black cladding”.

Blakwashing refers to the practice of using shell companies and middlemen that have been labelled as "Indigenous businesses" to enable government and corporate organisations to tick a diversity supply box and promote potentially misleading statements, such as having given X billion dollars to Indigenous businesses.

The Indigenous Procurement Policies (IPP) were introduced by the Australian Government in 2015 to increase procurement opportunities for Indigenous businesses and to help close the disparity gaps. Under the policy, government departments and agencies are required to award a certain percentage of their contracts to Indigenous businesses.

However, in some cases, non-Indigenous companies have set up shell companies or partnered with Indigenous middlemen to access these contracts, without any real benefit flowing to Indigenous communities. In other cases, Indigenous businesses have been used as a front to access contracts, with little or no involvement from Indigenous people in the actual delivery of the goods or services.

This exploitation of Indigenous procurement policies is not only unethical but also undermines the original purpose of the policy.

The IPP was originally designed to aid Indigenous businesses that were extensively promoted and supported for their capacity to hire other Indigenous individuals, thereby contributing to the reduction of disparities. However, the current situation has resulted in non-Indigenous people and their partners profiting from these contracts, instead of having a positive ripple effect in Indigenous communities through business procurements.

The issue of blakwashing highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the procurement process. It is essential that the government and corporate organisations take a more active role in ensuring that the policy is being used as intended. This can be achieved through measures such as auditing, reporting, and public disclosure of procurement contracts awarded to Indigenous businesses.

Furthermore, the government and corporate organisations must work with Indigenous communities to ensure that Indigenous people are at the forefront of these businesses and are receiving genuine economic and social benefits. This will require investment in training and capacity-building programs for Indigenous businesses, as well as the establishment of strong partnerships between Indigenous communities and the private sector.

The first time I learned about the exploitation of social procurement contracts for purposes other than their intended use was from a South African Afrikaner. They relayed an anecdote about an African individual who had established themselves as the go-to person for contracts meant to assist black Africans. This individual purportedly owned dozens of companies (shell companies) and formed partnerships with other entities in order to obtain social procurement contracts.

At first, I dismissed the notion as being hyperbolic and unlikely to occur in Australia, but after leaving the Royal Australian Air Force and immersing myself in the Indigenous business realm, I can attest that it is indeed transpiring here.

Although the extent of this deceptive practice and the proportion of contracts it accounts for remains unclear due to a lack of transparency (which facilitates this issue in the first place), I would not be surprised if it comprised the majority of the X billion dollars of contracts designated for genuine Indigenous businesses.

While governments and corporations appear to be cognizant of this problem, they seem content to use it as a checkbox exercise and leverage it as a means to publicise their reconciliation initiatives, rather than address the issue at hand.

The impetus behind this post in the Barayamal Newsletter was a recent video I viewed featuring Neil Patel (marketing expert), who discussed this very "issue" in the United States (viewed by some as a means to make a profit rather than a genuine issue).

This underscores the fact that this phenomenon is pervasive, and governments and corporations are primarily focused on merely fulfilling a checkbox requirement.

“And the moment someone ended up telling me how Magic Johnson generates a lot of his revenue because he's a minority, and gets a lot of contracts, partners with other businesses, white-labels it and uses his name, becomes a, quote, unquote, owner of that business, and then outsources it…. I don't know if this is true, this was just what someone in the minority space ending up telling me.

And they were saying, let's say, if someone has a food company, and they have the contracts with a lot of the hospitals that are run by the government, like the VA. They're looking for minorities to provide it.

But there's already a lot of big corporations that provide the food. So Magic Johnson may go create a business, that's in that space, partner with the big supplier who already provides the food to these hospitals, he'll go get the contracts, and then work with them to actually fulfil it.” - Neil Patel.

“…Because the government is like very hardcore about hitting their quotas for racial minorities. And so around here, like I actually know a couple of guys, and basically what they do is the people I know are all African American.

They get the contract, they put their name on the contract, they then outsource the entire thing to like Deloitte or KPMG or whatever and they take like, you know, 15% of the revenue or whatever.”

“They create a consulting firm, that's like the Minority Inc, and then Minority Inc goes against the contracts that farms it out to like Deloitte or whoever.”

In conclusion, blakwashing is a disturbing trend that undermines the original purpose of Indigenous and social procurement policies in general. It is essential that the government and corporate organizations take action to address this issue and ensure that the policy is being used as intended. This will require greater transparency, accountability, and investment in Indigenous businesses and communities to ensure that the benefits of these policies are felt where they are needed most.

Subscribe now

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!

Founder at Indigenous Community Collaborative

Melody is a member of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, born and raised in Mohave Valley, AZ. She is driven by a strong desire to help create a vision to find educational and career opportunities for students, individuals seeking personal growth, communities, and employers.

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!

Support the show

First Nations Lottery instead of donating, buy a charity lottery ticket—it's a win-win!