Category: Aboriginal Issues

The Federal opposition front bench: Diet Labor

Posted by – 27 May, 2013

May has been busy. Turnbull has ‘re-launched’ the Republican movement.

Constitutional change to create a republic shouldn’t be ranked against other issues, like the recognition of indigenous Australians, Mr Turnbull added.

But, he said, “I’d rank it slightly ahead of the recognition of local government.”

Gee…the trifecta of constitutional tyranny explained in so few words. Remarkable that anyone on the front bench of the Liberal Party could hold such views.

So far Abbott believes in at least two of the three constitutional issues mentioned by Turnbull: Canberra taking control of local government and the creation of an aboriginal aristocracy. From Abbott today.

“The Aboriginal dimension is as much a part of Australia as our law, our language and our democracy. That is why it must finally be acknowledged in our national Constitution.

“I see acknowledging Aboriginal people in our Constitution not as changing it, but as completing it.

Okay….changing it, but not changing it????

Does anyone seriously think that the rank and file of the Coalition of centre-right parties believe in any of this? Unlikely. Seems Abbott is happy to take his base for granted, like David Cameron in the UK.

If Abbott continues down this path, then the same fury that has seen Gillard become unpopular will be turned on Abbott and he will not last. It will start in the blogs, social media, then make its way into talk back radio and then finally The Australian, Sky News and the rest of the main stream media.

Isn’t need enough?

Posted by – 16 July, 2012

Not sure it is an issue of critical national importance:

A LIBERAL National Party resolution calling for the scrapping of Abstudy payments for indigenous students was offensive, says Tony Abbott’s indigenous affairs spokesman.

Senator Nigel Scullion said the resolution, narrowly passed at the Queensland LNP convention in Brisbane at the weekend, could not be supported by anyone with “half a brain”.

The Coalition should embrace welfare based on need not race, so in that vein I support abolishing Abstudy and channeling Abstudy clients into existing student assistance programmes.

Law and order

Posted by – 22 March, 2012

At least law and order is being maintained somewhere:

AT LEAST four people have been arrested during a police and City of Perth ranger operation to evict people from an illegal Aboriginal tent embassy.

About 40 police backed by the the riot squad, the dog squad and a police helicopter descended on the area and police say three people have been arrested for disorderly conduct and one person for a suspected assault on a police officer.

The Federation can work.


Posted by – 2 February, 2012

Gary Johns picks apart the expert panel calling for aristocratic styled rights for those that self-identify as aborigines.

…..the experts did not recommend non-discrimination. In place of the race power, they want recognition of culture, and laws for the advancement of Aborigines. What if these are contradictory?….They are seeking to use as a substitute for race a far more nebulous concept, culture, to achieve recognition. It seems that culture is the new black.

Then we can have a mature discussion about aboriginal culture – its not all dots on bark.

Just say no to these tax-payer funded rent seekers

Posted by – 19 January, 2012

No is a very simple quick word and it is the best way to sum up my reaction to the proposal to give ‘aboriginal’ people special legal entitlements in our constitution:

“negative reply,” early 13c., from O.E. na (adv.) “never, no,” from ne “not, no” + a “ever,” from P.Gmc. *ne (cf. O.N., O.Fris., O.H.G. ne, Goth. ni “not”), from PIE base *ne- “no, not” (see un-). Second element from PIE *aiw- “vital force, life, long life, eternity” (see aye (2)). As an adj. meaning “not any” (c.1200) it is reduced from O.E. nan (see none), the final -n omitted first before consonants and then altogether. No-no (n.) first attested 1942. No problem as an interjection of assurance, first attested 1963. Phrase no can do “it is not possible” is attested from 1914. Construction no X, no Y attested from 1530s (in no peny no pardon).

A few issues stand out.

  1. The proposal is driven by self-interest, not what is in the best interests of the country. A panel of self-apportioned tax payer funded ‘experts’ – usual suspects – have come up with the proposal. Normally referendums are initiated by the people via some type of convention, not a closed elitist shop. There is no mass movement wanting these changes. The only support for this proposal is from those that stand to benefit, both in status and financial standing.
  2. The whole proposal seems to give legal status to a latter-day leftist endorsed aristocracy, where special legal privileges and access to taxation are provided to a group of people based on genealogical connection, and where rights are hereditary – able to be passed on to children without recourse to merit or justice (not fake social justice). Unlike the Queen however, these people would actually enforce their claims over laws and taxation. As a consequence the whole proposal is hideously anti-democratic and an affront to the principles of private property, individual liberty and equality before the law. Better suited to some type of medieval kingdom than a democratic Commonwealth.
  3. What is an aborigine and how does one qualify? Recent legal cases seem to suggest that one need only have a vague distant genealogical connection to have the cash registers ring and emblems thrown in your direction. Is this a fair method of determining who gets access to these aristocratic like privileges over laws and taxation?
  4. The proposal claims that the constitution racially discriminates against aborigines. I’ve read the constitution and I can’t find the section that is racist. There is a section that allows the Commonwealth to make laws for Aborigines, which was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum. There is nothing racist about the constitution. Presumably the ‘expert’ panel would not want that section abolished and along with it the privileged access it affords them to Commonwealth taxation.
  5. The whole proposal is predicated on an historical fraud. The concept of Australia is a strictly non-indigenous idea. The first people to recognise that Australia was an island continent, to call themselves Australian and to envisage a nation for a continent and a continent for a nation were not Aboriginal. So for instance, when the ‘experts’ claim that: “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages..” they are mistaken. The original Australian language is English.


Looks like the advocates are going to take there time:

THE deadline for holding a referendum to acknowledge indigenous Australians at or before the 2013 election has been abandoned, because the expert panel fears it would face certain defeat if it were rushed.

I’m pretty confident it would face certain defeat, period.

When is someone not an aborigine?

Posted by – 28 September, 2011

No doubt by now you have heard of the Federal court ruling which found against Andrew Bolt over comments he wrote about nine people who may in fact not really be aborigines, but self identify as such to claim government benefits and privileges.

The judge claimed that Bolt’s articles breached Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is one of those laws written with enough ambiguity to allow the above nine freedom haters to use and abuse to protect their native racket.  The Herald Sun say they may appeal. The ABC is salivating tonight on the news about the decision.

Apart from the obvious freedom of speech issue, the salient issue is about who really qualifies as an aborigine. At what point is someone not allowed to be an aborigine, or does someone only have to self-identify as such to claim the range of benefits and privileges that society and the government see fit to bestow upon aborigines? Australia does not seem to have any blood quantum laws relating to those claiming to be aboriginal. For instance, some native American tribes require a person to have at least one parent to qualify for a tribe in order to qualify for US government benefits. Other tribes stipulate other qualifications. Here in Australia it seems anything goes. The above nine were claiming after the court case that they don’t have to prove their genealogical ‘identify to anybody’. This would not be an issue, except that they use that identify to fleece the rest of us of our hard earned money.

BTW, the ABC’s 730 report did not interview a single person who disagreed with the ruling.


“Regardless of the niceties of the case, the fact is today in Australia… journalists, commentators, ordinary citizens are not free to make critical and unpopular remarks in the course of ordinary political exchange,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“I think that is a terrible thing.

I don’t know how to solve the problem: change the constitution or just the law? What is clear is that self-identified Aborigines are all unproductive government funded and protected individuals, like some type of latter-day aristocracy.

The incredulity of it all

Posted by – 8 August, 2011

Conservatives have been banging on about the ill effects of welfare for years, but now all of a sudden aboriginal leaders are claiming they have discovered something:

WITH his heartfelt plea for an end to welfare handouts in the remote indigenous domain, Galarrwuy Yunupingu has thrown down the gauntlet.

The northeast Arnhem Land clan leader is insisting that the entire political and bureaucratic class confront the failure of the passive welfare paradigm in remote Australia.

He wants no more tinkering around the fringes of the vast network of social support projects now in place but instead the abolition of welfare payments to his people — and for the simplest of reasons: “It’s a killer.”

Yunupingu’s call, couched in a mazy speech on the opening day of the weekend’s Garma culture festival, was delivered to an audience of startled luminaries.

Seems not everyone is convinced.

Gillard says no to Christian God, yes to the god of the dream time

Posted by – 28 September, 2010

Gillard is an atheist. Fine. Everyone is entitled to their own personal choices free of government interference. It’s called individual liberty, something the left do not always subscribed to, but something that should be respected. So it was no surprise that Gillard skipped out on the parliamentary church service to welcome in the new parliament today. Gillard also refused to swear an oath to God in becoming PM. That’s her business, no need for vain hollow acts.

However, in rejecting Christianity and in the customs that follow,why did Gillard (and Abbott!) endorse and attend the aboriginal ‘welcome ceremony’ for the new parliament today? The ‘welcome ceremony’ is a quasi-religious event that has nothing to do with the Constitution or Westminister custom. More to the point, ‘welcome ceremonies’ have nothing to do with Australia: the political idea of the world’s only unified, democratic and free continent-nation, a distinctively non-aboriginal concept. What type gall must a person have to think they can ‘welcome’ Australians to the country they and by implication their ancestors conceived of and built up?!?!

“On the occasion of this opening of the 43rd Parliament I welcome you,”

So said the chief witch doctor:

“With this welcome I express the hope of a united, reconciled nation, the oldest living culture joined with the many diverse cultures of a modern successful Australia.”

Apart from the fact that when Howard was PM no one from the left was calling for unity or political consensus, and also the habitually dubious claim that aboriginal culture is the oldest living today: what aspect of Aboriginal culture are we all meant to be reconciled with at this time?

(pause….silence….crickets chirp)

Gee where to begin, ritual torture and abuse? Welfare and drug dependency? Don’t say happy unified families and communities. This is not an aboriginal idea more an aspirational ideal shared by most Australians.


Now we have Gillard via the GG pushing the ‘first Australian’ mantra.

….the need for constitutional reform to recognise the First Australians and local government were also of “great significance in this term.”

And of course the political elite don’t mean the first people to actually identify and call themselves Australians. The first recorded English usage of the name ‘Australia’ was by Matthew Flinders in 1814. Governor Macquarie began to use the name from 1817 and from then onwards British people born in Australia began to call themselves Australian. The first Australians, a geographic and then a demographic term.

As far as we know aboriginals had no coherent concept of a continent. Supposed mythical dreams and maps interpreted and ‘discovered’ by sympathetic academics are not a substitute for the former. Nor were Aboriginals unified as a common people who identified themselves as Australians or anything of the like.

Federation gave birth to a Australia as a political and economic concept. Aboriginals were by and large separate from the Federation process, and hence debate occurred as to if they were entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, etc…

In any of this how can the political elite claim that aboriginals of today, with all their genealogical and mitochondrial dna complexities, be the ‘first Australians’? It is a claim that simply says, a group of people today, who at times have a tenuous link to another group of people who lived 222 years ago, are the first Australians. If that was all one needed to do to be Australian – just turn up and have a genealogical link – then virtually anyone arriving at any of our international airports would qualify. It make very little historical sense and I’ve yet to see an explanation for it.

Hilarious: Greens self-righteous anger

Posted by – 16 March, 2010

It is with welcome relief that Tony Abbott has spoken out against Aboriginal welcome ceremonies. It is an infantile exclusionary paternalistic practice that should be done away with. Wilson Tuckey has also added his two cents:

Mr Abbott ignited debate on the issue when he accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his ministers of engaging in “tokenism” and unnecessary political correctness when they acknowledge traditional owners while speaking at functions.

“I certainly make these acknowledgements at what I think are suitable occasions. But to do it as a matter of course, to do it automatically – it does just look like formalism and tokenism,” he said.

Mr Tuckey went further, saying the acknowledgement of traditional owners was a “farce”.

“I have never thanked anyone for the right to be on the soil that is Australian,” he said.

Of course the Greens being freedom hating mongers are calling for any one that disagrees with the practice to resign.

But Liberal frontbencher Peter Dutton says Mr Tuckey has a right to speak his mind even if people disagree with the comments.

“I don’t have any issue with what Wilson said frankly or his right to say it.”

“There were no stolen generations” continued – update

Posted by – 1 February, 2010

Keith Windschuttle is now accusing one of the chief proponents of the ‘stolen generations’ – Robert Manne – of distorting political history for contemporary political gain. Essentially the issue revolves around an attempt by Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory, Dr Cecil Cook, in the 1930s to institute racist Aboriginal policies across the Commonwealth. The attempts were rejected by the then Lyons government but it appears Manne – who is well known for championing left-wing pet causes – may have deliberately distorted the political record.

On September 19 1933, the Lyons Cabinet considered but failed to approve Cook’s proposal. It recommended an opinion be sought from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. At the time, the Secretary was not J. A. Carrodus, a departmental officer who Manne wrongly elevated in status to bolster his case, but Herbert Brown, who advised his Minister: “My own view is that half-castes who have been given certain rights and enjoy the franchise, should have the same privileges in respect to selecting their husbands or wives, as are enjoyed by other citizens of the Commonwealth.” Perkins agreed and based his August 1934 statement on this advice….

In failing to mention these three critical responses, while pretending the government gave “full endorsement” to the very opposite approach, Manne falsified Australian political history on an issue that he, more than almost any other academic commentator in the country, had the opportunity, the interest and the ability to investigate thoroughly and report honestly. If Manne can get away with behaviour of this kind, it would mean Australian universities no longer demand any standard of truthfulness from their academic staff.

I would think it highly unlikely that an academic inquiry be launched against Manne. It seems that the political left are pretty good at protecting their own, aka the Fabrication of Aboriginal History – Tasmania.


Recent interview on ABC’s Counterpoint.