by SEAN BURKE – TEAL MP and “Yes” advocate Zali Steggall has dismissed concerns over a $100m Indigenous land claim in the heart of her electorate as being nothing but fearmongering.
Responding to questions raised by State MP John Ruddick about the Balmoral Beach land parcel, Ms Steggall accused Mr Ruddick of being “opportunistic to create fear and misunderstanding”.
- Does Ms Steggall support the Balmoral Beach land claim?
- Does she believe that the passage of a Voice constitutional change will address the significant confusion among her local community over the ownership of otherwise public land?
- No answer.
Mosman Council moved last week to block the claim after only recently being advised of a 2009 petition by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.
A final determination is expected to be made by the NSW Crown Lands Commission.
OPPOSE
Mr Ruddick – a Liberal Democratic Party MP – posted a social media question to Ms Steggall last week asking: “You’re a prominent Yes voter. Do you support this land claim or oppose?”
Despite wide-spread community concerns, Ms Steggall was short and dismissive of Mr Ruddick’s enquiry – before blocking him on Twitter (X).
She responded: “Nothing to do with [Voice] referendum. These claims have been made since 2009 with many others around NSW and have followed the proper process of determination and will do so again.
“Raising them again now is just opportunistic to create fear and misunderstanding.”
Former Mosman Deputy Mayor Roy Bendall, however, has disputed Ms Steggall’s “proper process” claim.
He said he had been surprised that the Balmoral parkland had been subject to a Native Title claim, given the land was occupied and maintained.
“The council has been looking after it and maintaining it for the past 100-odd years and it’s a highly used area for recreation,” Mr Bendall said.
AMAZED
“We have been maintaining it. We’ve had bush care groups maintaining it, so we’re actually amazed that this is even subject to a claim.”
Mr Bendall also said he was bemused as to why government departments demanded the motion be kept confidential up until 30 minutes prior to the council meeting.
“We spent a week trying to find out what the legal basis was for the confidentiality but in the documents that we were originally given we had to agree not to put it in the media, not put it to the public, not even tell local residents that this was happening.”
Politicom also raised a number of questions directly with Ms Steggall’s office this week.
In a written request Politicom asked: Would you kindly advise;
1: If Ms Steggall is in support of this particular land claim? and
2: If she believes that the passage of a Voice constitutional change will address the significant confusion among her local community over the ownership of otherwise public land?
Ms Steggall did not respond.PC
Er, – – – Zali who ?
I am left wondering how many Mosmanites will remember Steggall’s comment at the next election. Steggall needs to put some feet on the ground and be struck with some reality. Perhaps she needs to get some better more educated advisers. Most people with an ounce of common sense can detect BS & Virtue signalling and ZS excels in both.
I’ve heard that some ex-athletes have had one, or two blows too many to the head.
To the sensible right or not sensible left side?
The people of Mosman voted for Steggall in droves. They deserve the consequences.
Zali, our major concerns are the flow-ons, as happened with SSM Plebiscite – that really opened the Pandora’s Box.
Steggall is the epitome of today’s Leftwit sook. Hurls her accusations then hides behind the block button. Stumbling out of her depth, incapable of debate, incapable of reason, and full on into her own personal god complex.
John Ruddick is acting in the very best interests of the people of NSW, who is Steggall representing, it’s certainly not the folk in her electorate who stand to be locked out of vast tracts of their home suburbs.
We need more John Ruddicks and a whole lot less virtue signalling nanny state government.
Public lands held in trust by our elected representatives, too bad about future generations which is the primary excuse from UN Agenda 21 – sustainability for public lands converted to UN registered National Parks.
I have never been given the opportunity to vote for indiscriminate land grabs by fellow Australians because they identify, no proof required, as having Indigenous ancestry, even if in part.
“I am, you are, we are all Australians”.
If the Aboriginal Land Council is so concerned about this Balmoral parkland, I would be interested to know how many of their members participated in any of the bushcare activities and maintenance of this area.
Be fair, Indigenous Australians are all disadvantaged and need more voices.
sarc
Does a land grab provide this for them to improve their lot? Given Pearson admits that the funding for A&TSI’s is only 25% effective (on a radio interview on 2GB), that is $30,000,000,000 of tax-payers money that has not gone to any effective programme. How about people taking responsibility for themselves? How about Parents taking responsibility for their children? And if the missing $30B is more directed to programmes to develop responsibility then nothing is going to work for them. Aussies do not need a Voice (since it is the Australian Constitution proposed for amendment) what it needs are some MORE EARS on those elected to do the job and for them to control and make accountable the various agencies who get to dish out the billions.
Sadly an ALP government is likely to assess the claim on a simple basis, ‘stiff the silvertails, they don’t vote for us anyway’. In doing this, Minns will convert an influential elite with Indigenous sympathies into confirmed No voters. It also raises the question of whether the French tradition of ‘action directe’ will take hold on Balmoral Beach. After all, an isolated pocket of land owned by absentee landlords and surrounded by hostile locals has always been at risk.
The British Empire colonised the country we now call Australia beginning from 1788, and Colonial Governments remained until Federation of States to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.
Most of the areas of responsibility and powers of Colonial Governments were retained by the State Governments, including Aboriginal Affairs, now called Indigenous Affairs.
There was no invasion, the military personnel on board the First Fleet were there to guard the convicts being transported and to act as a police force in the new and first Colony of New South Wales, later with New Zealand added.
Whatever took place in those early colonial days, good and bad, real and imagined, were between ghosts of the past, perpetrators and victims, so how could multicultural Australians today be held responsible for anything that took place under British Government control?
I accept that continuous occupation of land by any of the Aboriginal “mobs” or clans/tribes is a valid reason for granting Native Title. Noting that there were more than 500 plus different “countries” or traditional land of indigenous peoples here. It is claimed that today over 300 remain today. All had different cultural beliefs and languages/dialects. For example, in the Voice+Treaty+Truth objectives of the Uluru Statement treaty process is called a “Makarratta”, the culture and language of thirteen Arnhem Land NT clans. Uluru is the culture and language of completely different people in the NT. And of course Torres Strait Islanders are not Australian Aborigines.
Of course there is a land grab taking place and it must be stopped.
So far fifty five per cent of Australia is controlled by the thirty plus Aboriginal Land Councils. Revenue tax free, no rates.
Same for Uluru Statement Voice+Treaty/Makarratta+Truth telling reparations and sovereignty demands.
Many if not most of the Australians who claim to have Aboriginal ancestors also have ancestors who were “colonisers/invaders” or later immigrants. How could fellow multicultural Australians be held responsible for anything that took place long before we were alive? It is simply ridiculous.
The voice referendum has been described as a “Trojan Horse”, as a “hook” and as an “anchor”, the hook was how Labor Aboriginal Senator Dodson described the voice to people in Broome WA not long ago.
View the videos and listen to Uluru Statement committee members Mayo/Mayor and Reid, and note them thanking “the Communist Elders” for their advice. And their explanation of what the activists want from us.
Approximately eighty per cent of the Australians who identify as Indigenous, see 2021 census, being 810,000 people, are not disadvantaged. They have moved on from traditional lifestyle. The approximately twenty per cent considered to be disadvantaged mostly live in country areas including remote communities and far from the services Australians in more populated areas can access and following traditional cultures and lifestyles.
There are many existing advisory groups to State and Federal governments, plus government departments including for Indigenous Affairs. If another advisory group was needed the Federal Government could legislate to create another, as Labor did when they created the expensive failure that was Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Commission – ATSIC. Locking into constitutional law (Constitution) is to create a legal appeal opportunity to the High Court of Australia to expand Voice into Treaty+Truth telling and objectives, that could not be achieved if ATSIVoice was legislated. Locked in would be that anchor.
Vote NO to division by one race of our many multicultural people.