THE VOICELESS DECADES

At a “virtual” function and discussion for The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 8 July 2020, Josephine Cashman, Indigenous lawyer and businesswoman, spoke for The Sydney Institute on the complexities surrounding leadership of Indigenous politics over decades. She was joined by Indigenous leader Warren Mundine who spoke frankly about the “truths” that matter to Indigenous Australians and what government and leaders must do. Warren Mundine AM is a chairman of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and is also the Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce.

THE VOICELESS DECADES

JOSEPHINE CASHMAN

I still believe there is nothing you can change from outside; you can scream your head off, you can fight and no one is going to take any damn notice if they don’t want to. Someone within the system has to stand up and put forward an idea or say something is wrong. If you’re inside the system you can influence the decision makers. I know, I have done it. – Neville Bonner, the first Aboriginal Australian to be elected to federal Parliament as a Liberal Senator for Queensland[i].

We have been conditioned to believe in systematic racism. At the same time, our colonial past is argued to be one cause of poverty, victimisation and over incarceration of Aboriginal people. However, these are not related. The voiceless majority of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people are not to blame. Nonetheless, we are pitted against each other to make it easy to divide and conquer. In other words, it is easier to control people if they are fighting each other, rather than as a united force focused on the cause of our discontent.

It might be surprising to discover the solution has nothing to do with altering the Constitution, creating a Voice to Parliament, treaties and/or more government control. The solution lies in ending the double standards, economic apartheid (especially land title), improving mobility, focusing on our right to parliamentary representation and personal decision making.

For the past 20 years those responsible for these failures have been a small elite group of Aboriginal people who have designed and managed the implementation of our policies, legal frameworks and this Aboriginal elite has partnered with green billionaire sponsors with significant media, legal and political influence. The National Indigenous Australian Agency released its interim Report outlining a proposal for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It was written as part of the co-design process, launched by Minister Wyatt in November 2019 and it outlines the structure and practical purposes of the Voice.

….[A] National Voice would have a broad scope to advise on nationally significant matters of critical importance to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia^[ii].

However, the report fails to outline many fundamental concerns because an Indigenous Voice could become a parallel system of parliamentary representation, conferring political rights onto a class of people which are not available to other Australians. In other words, it would be based on race. In effect, it could become a reproduction of a third chamber of Parliament for Indigenous Australians, giving it the power to exercise an informal veto over laws debated in the Parliament. It could be worse because this group could falsely claim to be speaking on behalf of Aboriginal people when it is not representative of the views of all of us.

For many decades these elites have had exclusive access to decision making and extensive financial resources, despite not having a significant base and/or achieved positive results. This elite group is selected by people of influence and public commentary which is reluctant to question their authority for fear of being accused of racism. Many have been labelled racist and the effects of this does not end there.

Voiceless people on the ground and many others do not understand why the same people hold power. These people do not generally volunteer or contribute to their communities and most do not work with people on the ground. They are not known and elders have had bad experiences with them, as many display an arrogance which comes with untapped power and the ability to attract public funding without accountability. The outcomes are obvious and it is worsening, despite the fact those responsible for the failure, have caused death and loss of human potential and dignity.

This group has been rewarded for maintaining and improving their influence and failures. There are endless positive stories for the Voice in the media and little opposition. For instance, few interviews have been conducted with the voiceless elders. This is one reason Aboriginal people were not broadly consulted about the Voice. They must wait until the design has been completed before making a contribution.

Aboriginal social hierarchies are distinct from each other. Australia is composed of many Aboriginal nations stretching from above Antarctica in Tasmania to the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory. Nonetheless, there are shared cultural values and social practices. For instance, there is no word in Aboriginal languages for race. Relationships are determined by the relationship to the land, environment, clan and skin group. From the land, our sounds become our words, our stories become our songs and our songs became our ceremonies, our teachings and our beliefs become our laws. We are strong. We know who we are, wherever we go.

The voices of Indigenous people on the ground are valuable and deserve to be heard. As each Aboriginal culture is unique, it is therefore integral to be culturally sensitive to the variations between regions and communities; to know variable community needs and be able to implement required communication essentials. The value of conducting regular community engagements to encourage feedback and to facilitate the measurement of outcomes and effectiveness cannot be underestimated. This process is too often ignored.

It is a fact voices on the ground are rarely heard and the so-called Aboriginal leadership which governments and corporations consult are often disconnected from the communities they claim to represent. Hence the money, resources and programs often fail to reach communities and/or the people where it is most needed. To compound this, there is a growing number of Aboriginal identity fraud claims which is causing ingrained harm and also generating anger because Aboriginal people assume the government and by association the Australian people, does not care.

If the Voice goes ahead, it will have devastating consequences for Aboriginal people and for the boarder Australian community. The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) was well placed to run a National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force (NIITF). It is the only criminal intelligence agency with the national footprint and access to specialised capabilities, such as coercive powers to collect, analyse and provide information regarding abuse of power, child abuse and other crimes affecting Indigenous communities.

The Indigenous Intelligence Task Force 2007 to 2014 visited 145 Indigenous communities, 58 regional towns and held almost 2000 stakeholder meetings. It found widespread abuse of power and connections with organised crime within the organisational web of Aboriginal Australia.

Individuals in positions of authority have engaged in child abuse, violence, fraud and the distribution of alcohol and illicit substances.^[iii] … Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals linked to these groups have been identified in drug trafficking and financial criminal activities in regional and remote communities.^[iv]

I have more than 20 years experience on the ground and have worked as a Crown Prosecutor. I often found fake Aboriginal people holding the power in Aboriginal communities and using fear, intimidation tactics and applying double standards.

The ACC in-depth investigation into Aboriginal communities focused on the causes, particularly the way crime had been allowed to flourish. Some of its conclusions have been classified as sensitive and 65 of the 66 reports have never been made public. It found financial crimes and exploitation of Indigenous organisations occurred in every jurisdiction and was likely to increase in remote communities which were particularly vulnerable.

It also found there were incentives for organised crime groups to exploit Indigenous organisations which was likely to remain high because it was correlated with real and/or perceived low risk of detection. Some executive officers of Indigenous corporations were found to have been bribed, had influenced Board members and exploitation of payments from mining royalties and Indigenous Land Use Agreements within Native Title were likely to continue^[v].

Indigenous program funding is significant and also vulnerable to financial crime and exploitation. It is considered government expenditure in Indigenous communities is approximately $33 billion each year and remoteness has been said to allow offenders to seek employment with other organisations after their criminal activity and exploitation has been detected. This behaviour is often facilitated by the reluctance of some community Board members to make complaints and/or cooperate with regulatory authorities and/or these authorities fail to act.

The latest Productivity Commission report written in 2015 reveals direct government spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is estimated to be $33.4 billion, which amounts to $44,886 for each Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, compared to $22,356 each for non-Indigenous Australians. These figures will likely increase in 2021.

It also found some Indigenous corporations continue to be exploited by Board members wishing to advance personal, family and/or group interests. These members pressure office holders to approve programs and/or policies and often, not for the benefit of the organisation and/or community. Office holders face pressure to submit to the authority of the Board or face employment termination.

None of these concerns have been addressed and the people running these organisations have not been held accountable and many have been the stakeholders in agreeing to the Voice. Before I was removed from the Wyatt Senior Advisory Committee, I was aware of some people involved in the Uluru Statement were accused of being involved in serious criminal offences, so I requested the Co-Chair, Marcia Langton for a Crimes Commission and AFP briefing. Nothing happened.

Australia introduced the Native Title Act in July 1977 however the effect of it began when the Native Title Act 1993 law was passed by Parliament. The purpose was to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for it to co-exist with the national land management system. In the second reading of the Native Title Act 1993 speech, Paul Keating said:

Today we move that much closer to a united Australia which respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equality for all, and he concluded by saying, Already, in the process of developing the Bill, we have learned a great deal about each other and how to work together. We have extended the frontier of our mutual understanding. Perhaps the most outstanding but by no means the only, example of this has been the participation of representatives of the combined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Organisation Working Party in the unprecedented negotiations leading to this legislation.

 In hailing what she termed “a remarkable settlement and historic agreement”, Lois O’Donoghue, the Chairperson of ATSIC said, ”Indigenous affairs will never be the same again in our nation.”^[vi].

 Unfortunately, this legislation is best described as a colossal failure of common sense, designed by the same six Aboriginal elite groups who designed the Voice, and who were the same group invited to negotiate with Prime Minister Keating. There was no process and communities must live with the consequences, none of which can be described as sensible. It has resulted in family fights which were not a problem previously. For example, my mother told me there were only two families involved and Pacific Islander groups who had falsely claimed Aboriginal heritage became involved. $10 million was on offer and this group took it.

From an economic perspective, Native Title has provided Aboriginal Australians with no independence and simultaneously mining titles which previously gave title have now severely diminished. The Act has been poorly drafted and has removed useful functions. Native Title is now untransferable and therefore land cannot be sold or mortgaged and it is unclear about ownership, geographic extent and conferred rights. It has proven useless to Aboriginal people and a nightmare for investors because of the uncertainty. It has cost our nation productivity, opportunities, employment and gives Aboriginal people no rights to become economically independent^[vii].

Gary Foley an Aboriginal activist, academic, writer and actor was part of a group who in 1972 established the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra and the Aboriginal Legal Service in Redfern has said:

The Native Title Act [is a] fraud. It was negotiated by a group of unrepresentative swill – unelected, self-appointed or government appointed. Keating said, we’d better find some Aboriginal people to negotiate with, we’ll have you, you and you. This is the manner in which the so called A-team of Aboriginal negotiators came about. An incompetent bunch they were. The Professor of Indigenous Studies at Melbourne University, Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson … these people are not mugs, and yet they signed off on an … We saw Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton and Lois O’Donohue up there in Parliament clinking champagne glasses, patting themselves on the back, patting Paul Keating on the back, saying this was one of the greatest things in the history of Aboriginal Australia.^[viii]

These same people have been involved with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) which has proven to be a failure and has cost billions of dollars. It has achieved little and has not improved the quality of life for Aboriginal people. It must not be allowed to reoccur. There has been a lack of accountability, inefficient organisation squandering of public funds.

I remember sitting outside a ministerial office at Parliament House with a relative around the age of 11 when an Aboriginal woman came out in conversation and mutual agreement. I recall hearing Aboriginal women complaining about the corruption, gambling, drunkenness and bad behaviour of some elected members who made many non-Indigenous Australians Aboriginal people in order to increase their vote and ensure their returned to power. I recall this lady saying, “John Howard has so many black fellas ringing him, telling him to close it down, but he has no choice.”

Most of the ASTIC members had high paying Aboriginal positions. One man went on to run the State Aboriginal Land Council (which holds a billion dollars in cash but could not maintain the repairs and maintenance of their housing stock) and he did not make it easy for Aboriginal Land Council members to own land. He went on to be the CEO of the National Congress of Australian First Peoples which spent $38 million in a few years and is now the CEO of one of the wealthiest Land Councils in NSW.

No publicly funded organisation should consider itself immune from accountability. Yet ATSIC has sidestepped accountability by hiding behind the veil of racism.

During 25 years of change, things remain unchanging and the flow of public money continues to reach the same Aboriginal elite industries and voiceless Aboriginal people and the public are called racist. The Uluru Statement concludes with an oratory elaboration: “In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard.”^[ix]  There has been $55 million spent on this Uluru process and Aboriginal people on the ground have not been consulted.

Despite the millions of dollars showered upon these elite Aboriginal groups over the past 50 years, there has been little improvement to the real problems such as economic improvements, housing affordability, education and the safety of our children.

Attempts to separate Australians must be rejected. All Australians are equal. I am calling for Aboriginal funding to be cut and for the system to be redesigned. I am inviting the government to stop allowing Aboriginal elites and their green funders to force decisions upon us. The Constitution should not be rewritten to divide us. Lest we forget, we belong to the land.

Bayami creation the great spirit with you. In the beginning Bayami stepped from the sky to create the land, to form mountains and valleys, to fill rivers with water and to create all living things. Everything Bayami created has a purpose, plants were placed on the land and men and women at special places. He made the first laws governing the way Aboriginal people lived and these laws have remained unchanged for thousands of years on this magical continent. Bayami remained to make certain all living things he created lived together harmoniously. When he was satisfied, he had achieved his purpose, he stepped into the sky from which he came, where he remains watching over his people and this magical land, we call Australia^[x].

I am proposing the following:

1. No Voice to Parliament
2. No constitutional changes
3. The dismantling of Aboriginal legislative processes
4. The abolishment of race funding
5. Aboriginal families be allowed to transfer Land Council land to individual ownership
6. The abolishment of Native Title
7. To return some freehold title to local traditional owners. Freehold land can be held in a mainstream legal entity and used to establish local businesses. Traditional owners become shareholders and can use the land. It can be based on the Alaskan model[xi]. Government and agencies can hold land in trust for Aboriginal people and fund it for five to ten years.
8. In 2019 it was reported the Alaska Native Corporations accounted for 16.7% of the Alaskan gross domestic product which accounts for over one-fifth (21.8%) GDP. Alaskan Native Corporations accounted for 68.8% of Alaskan based jobs^[xii] and none have failed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971^[xiii]. Although there have been amendments to the legislation, it has been a remarkable success.
9. In 2019, Anthony Drabek, a member of the Koniag Board and former CEO of Natives of Kodiak Inc wrote a piece in the Anchorage Daily News, declaring it had changed his life and the future of Alaska,
   My ancestral homeland and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or ANCSA helped me rebuild my life. Enrolment under ANCSA had just begun in 1970, when I came home to Kodiak after four years as a U.S. Army aviator and two combat tours^[xiv].
10. I am calling for the mapping of Aboriginal Australia. It is doubtful whether the federal Aboriginal Affairs department would be able to answer a simple question about individual community resources, literacy and housing availability and/or computer literacy competence in regional and remote communities. In other words, there is a need to map community needs, facilities, expertise, capabilities and more.

    I am calling for the mapping of Aboriginal Australia.

11. Form Agreements with the people on the ground
12. Abolish organisational interference

Relevant Chronology of Aboriginal History

1. In 1967, Prime Minister Harold Holt appointed H.C. Nugget Coombs as Chairman of a new Council of Aboriginal Affairs.
2. In 1972, the Whitlam Government established the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee which was to become the first national body elected by Aborigines. Although its role was advisory, it was seen as the first step towards Aboriginal self-determination.
3. In 1972, the Whitlam Government established the first separate Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
4. In 1977, the Fraser Government replaced the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee with the National Aboriginal Conference.
5. In 1979, the body proposed a Treaty between the Australian government and Aboriginal nations
6. In 1981, functions of the Council for Aboriginal Development, previously established by the Fraser government were taken over by the Aboriginal Development Commission.

   In 1981, functions of the Council for Aboriginal Development, previously established by the Fraser government were taken over by the Aboriginal Development Commission.

7. In 1990, the Hawke Government merged the functions of the Aboriginal Development Commission with those of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to create the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which became formally responsible for overseeing government programs such as health and education.
8. In 1991, the Hawke Government with unanimous cross party support established the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, “to promote a process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community”, based on “an appreciation of indigenous cultures and achievements . . . of . . . the indigenous peoples of Australia”.
9. The Keating Government brought in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which rendered a serious threat to our future wellbeing as it provided Aboriginal holders of native title, a land holding with the right to negotiate with anyone who wanted to come onto the land to do business but did not give them any real property rights. This ushered in government control.
10. The National Congress of Australian First Peoples (NCAFP). In 1990 the Hawke government created the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which became formally responsible for overseeing Aboriginal government programs. However, this led to one public scandal after another. This body was abolished in 2004 by the Howard government with the Labor government support.
11. In April 2010, one of the last actions of the first Rudd government was to establish a new national representative body for Aboriginal Australians, the National Congress of Australian First peoples. It was established as a private company to, give advice, advocate, monitor and evaluate government programs. In practice, its chief function was to restore some of the well paid ATSIC office bearers which its abolition had removed. Consecutive governments have funded it but in May 2016, the Turnbull government refused to continue to fund it, after it spent over 30 million dollars, this included for a period paying its co-chairs more than half a million dollars a year.
12. Recognition: In 1991 the Hawke Government enacted the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 under which the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established. Ten years later, the Council established a new private incorporated body, Reconciliation Australia (which subsequently superseded its creator). This body pursued a bewildering array of initiatives and programs in workplaces, schools, including early learning centres and Aboriginal communities and involved organising a National Reconciliation Week from 27 May to 3 June annually.

    In 1991 the Hawke Government enacted the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 under which the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established.

13. In 2006, Prime Minister Howard and Professor Mick Dodson launched the Reconciliation Action Plan to be administered by Reconciliation Australia. Among its activities has been the Recognise Campaign, aimed at boosting support among Australians for recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
14. An Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. 8 November 2010, Julia Gillard proposed a referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise the special place of our first peoples. She appointed an expert panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, co-chaired by Professor (now Senator) Pat Dodson and Mark Liebler with terms of reference to report to the Government on the options for constitutional change and approaches to a referendum that would be most likely to obtain widespread support across the Australian community.
15. On 16 January 2012, this Expert Panel reported, recommending a package of measures:
    1. Removing Sections 25 and 51(xxvi) from the Constitution. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and appoint a new head of power to make laws on their behalf (Section 51A).
    2. A new provision specifically relating to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages (Section 127A).
    3. A new provision removing future capacity on the part of the Commonwealth, the States or the Territories to discriminate on the imputed ground of “race” (Section 116 A).
16. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. After considering the Expert Panel report, the Gillard government moved to establish a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, to inquire into and report on steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition – under the chairmanship of two Aboriginal parliamentarians Ken Wyatt and Senator Nova Peris. The Joint Select Committee produced three reports: an Interim Report in July 2014; a Progress Report in October 2014 and a Final Report on 25 June 2015. It recommended s51(xxvi) of the Constitution should be repealed, The Committee heard that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will accept nothing less than a protection from racial discrimination in the Constitution.

    The Committee heard that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will accept nothing less than a protection from racial discrimination in the Constitution.

17. The Act of Recognition Review Panel The review was initiated by the Abbott government on 27 March 2014 and Chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson. It reported on 19 September 2014 and unlike most of its counterparts, it not only carried out its work with a business-like expedition, it also seemed to retain contact with reality. Among its important conclusions were:
    1. That level of awareness for change and its meaning remains low.
    2. Evidence exists determining the fact we are losing momentum and awareness is drifting.
    3. Crystallising the question to be put to the Australian voters lies at the heart of the referendum. The more electors were told about Recognition, the more disenchanted they became. Proposals contested for pride of place in the referendum and electors were disinclined to favour any of them.

       Crystallising the question to be put to the Australian voters lies at the heart of the referendum.

18. The Referendum Council. On 7 December 2015, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten announced the appointment of the Referendum Council, co-chaired by Patricia Anderson and Mark Leibler. Its task was to consult widely throughout Australia and take the next steps towards achieving constitutional recognition of First Australians. After six months of meetings with the organisational leaders around Australia, the Council produced a discussion paper. Apart from expressing their opinions in the discussion paper, these meetings elected delegates to attend a first nations National Constitutional Convention at Ayers Rock in May 2017. Meanwhile the same Aboriginal elites were selected. They developed the new concept of a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal advisory body to sit alongside Parliament with the right to advise on legislation. It is a procedural nightmare and effectively institute another right to negotiate.

    Apart from expressing their opinions in the discussion paper, these meetings elected delegates to attend a first nations National Constitutional Convention at Ayers Rock in May 2017. Meanwhile the same Aboriginal elites were selected.

19.  It has demanded the establishment of a first nations Voice to be enshrined in the Constitution; a Makarrata Commission to supervise the agreement process between governments and first nations; a declaration including truth telling about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories; a Makarrata Commission to supervise the agreement process between governments and first nations and a declaration to include truth telling about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history.

ENDNOTES

[i] Angela Kay Burger (1979), ‘Neville Bonner, a biography Hardcover,’ Macmillan, p 31

^[ii] The National Indigenous Australian Agency (2020), Australian Government

Interim Report Outlining A Proposal of An Indigenous Voice To Parliament, p 10 https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2021-01/apo-nid310489.pdf

^[iii] Australian Crime Commission’s (ACC) National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force (NIITF), ‘The Final Report Of The National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force 2006-2014’, page 16

^[iv] Australian Crime Commission’s (ACC) National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force (NIITF), ‘The Final Report Of The National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force 2006-2014’, page 22

^[v] Australian Crime Commission’s (ACC) National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force (NIITF), ‘The Final Report Of The National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force 2006-2014’, page 22

^[vi]  Native Title Bill 1993, Second Reading, Parliament of Australia, 16 November 1993, House Hansard, p. 2877, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1993-11-16%2F0029%22;src1=sm1

^[vii] Deloitte Access Economics, ‘Review of the Roles and Functions of Native Title Organisations’, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-review-roles-functions-native-title-organisations-010314.pdf

^[viii] Gary Foley (2005), ‘The Struggle For Aboriginal Rights,’ Socialist Alternative http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/pdf_essays/marxism_foley.pdf

^[ix] The Uluru Statement From The Heart (2017), National Constitutional Convention https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement

^[x] Josephine Cashman, (2019), “Do Indigenous Philosophies Present An Opportunity To Address Poverty?” https://bigriverfoundation.com.au/speech-do-indigenous-philosophies-present-an-opportunity-to-understand-social-impact/

[xi]  Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Of 1971, Public Law 92-203,

History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments’. http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm

^[xii] Power The future (2019), Alaska Native Corporations’ Success Is Noteworthy for Jobs & Revenue https://powerthefuture.com/alaska-native-corporations-success-is-noteworthy-for-jobs-revenue/

^[xiii] Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act

^[xiv] Anthony Drabek (2019), ‘ANCSA changed my life — and Alaska’s future’ https://www.adn.com/opinions/2021/02/20/ancsa-changed-my-life-and-alaskas-future/