1 of 26

Aborigines, the Constitution and the Voice

TRIGGER WARNING!!! This paper contains facts and discussion based on facts, much of it
contradicting the popular mantra about Aborigines, their culture, and circumstance. People
who wish or are acting to keep Aborigines apart from the rest of Australian society and to
give them rights and benefits not available to others are likely to be upset by the paper.
Some readers will claim offense because they choose to be offended. If you are likely to
belong to that group of people, do not read this paper. I very much look forward to the day
when all Aborigines decide to leave the past in the past, forsake their supposed 'victim'
status, join with the rest of us in acknowledging the many benefits of modern Australia, and
call themselves Australian. This is unlikely to happen until the facts in my paper are first
recognized and understood.

There is much discussion about Aborigines and their place in Australian society. There are
strong moves towards creating an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, changing the Australian
Constitution and reframing Australian identity, all to highlight Aboriginal culture. Much of the
discussion is based on myth or falsehood. Much is divisive. Most misses the point that
Australians would be better to see themselves as part of one flock, not several distinct
groups of different feather.

In this essay, Aborigine, Aboriginal, and Aboriginality refer to the Australian Aborigine
unless contextually different. The word ‘activist’ is used to represent people who vigorously
and sometimes aggressively pursue the political and social aim of promoting Aboriginality
as the favoured and basic culture within Australia.

The subject will be discussed under the following headings:

a. Geographic Spread of Humans

b. Race
 Morphologic Differentiation
 Genetic Differentiation
 Racial Groups
c. Culture
 Culture Today
d. The Stolen Generation
e. Settlement of Australia by the British in 1788
f. The Mabo Case
g. The Definition of Aboriginality
 The High Court judgement on 11 February 2020
h. The Voice
i. Privileges
j. Summary
 2 of 26

Words have been emboldened for emphasis and italicised where quoted. References
appear at the end of each passage or section.

Geographic Spread of Humans

The timings of population movements mentioned in this section vary between sources,
indicating that timings are indicative only.

“The first dispersal of modern humans probably began soon after the emergence of Homo
sapiens idaltu (an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens who lived in Pleistocene Africa) in
east Africa about 195,000 years ago, with some populations heading west into the tropical
forest of the Congo basin where they intermixed with local archaic elements and evolved
into the Congoid (Negroid) subspecies, others remaining in east Africa where they evolved
into the Capoid or Khoisanid (San-Bushmen) subspecies, and others moving north to the
shores of the Red Sea, where they became the progenitors of the population that
eventually migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world, intermixing with
regional archaic human populations (like Neanderthals and Denisovans) they encountered
in varying degrees, and evolving into the Australoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid subspecies.
By 130,000 years ago there were perhaps 10,000 modern humans living in different
populations in different regions of Africa.

The final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, perhaps numbering only a few
hundred people at the beginning, crossed from northeast Africa to southwest Asia after
(sic) 90,000 years ago, where they engaged in some intermixture with the local archaic
Neanderthal groups. The descendants of this population gradually expanded and
dispersed, with the initial expansion being along the southern coast of Asia. The where and
when of these early human migrations was largely determined by geography, especially
changes in climate and sea level. The first main split or division in the expansion occurred
when some groups continued to move east while others remained in southwest Asia. The
second main branching or division probably occurred after the eastward migrating group
reached southeast Asia and intermixed with local archaic Denisovan elements, with one
branch continuing to move eastward, reaching southern China by 68,000 years ago, where
it experienced additional archaic Denisovan intermixture, and another branch remaining in
the Burma-Thailand region, where it evolved into a proto-Australoid population, then
expanded south through Malaysia and Indonesia, reaching New Guinea by 77,000 years
ago and Australia by 65,000 years ago.”

Reference: http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

As mentioned above, the evolving proto-Australoids intermixed with archaic Denisovans.

“The Denisovans or Denisova hominins are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic
human that ranged across Asia during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic (potentially
surviving as late as 30–14,500 years ago in New Guinea). Denisovans are known from few
remains, and, consequently, most of what is known about them comes from DNA evidence.
Denisovans apparently interbred with modern humans, with about 3–5% of the DNA of
Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6% in Papuans deriving from
Denisovans. Denisovans may have interbred with modern humans in New Guinea as
recently as 15,000 years ago. There is also evidence of interbreeding with the local
Neanderthal population, with about 17% of the Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave
deriving from them. 4% of the Denisovan genome comes from an unknown archaic human
species which diverged from modern humans over one million years ago.”
 3 of 26

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

The following map shows the indicative movements and probable timelines of human
dispersal throughout the world:

Race

Racial classifications and sub-classifications are many. However, there are four main racial
classifications into which modern Homo sapiens can be classified, the Australoids,
Mongoloids, Negroids and Caucasoids. All have measureable and usually obvious physical
characteristics, often involving the structure of the modern skull (see: Morphologic
Differentiation). The genetic origins of these modern races are different, with each having
interbred at various times with different archaic humans, including especially the
Neanderthals between about 65 to 47 thousand years ago (kya) and the Denisovans about
54 to 44 kya.

The Aborigine is of, or is descended from, the Australoid race.

Much of modern thinking shies away from the concept of race because of discrimination
against particular races in the past. The preferred view of activists is that Aboriginality is
defined by ethnicity, not race. Ethnicity is based on the social and cultural groups to which
a person belongs. Hence, anyone living according to Aboriginal tradition and culture is an
Aborigine. Aboriginal descent seems irrelevant to many activists (see: Aboriginality). Note
that a person can have more than one ethnicity but only one race, even if it is "mixed race".

Activists deny race by claiming that “no single gene has been discovered that defines
race”. They ignore that genetic differences overall are relevant and support the case for
race (see: Genetic Differentiation).

Such activism denies reality. People of different races do have different physical
characteristics. Activists seem fixated on continuing to conflate the physical and genetic
differences of race with social inequality. Equality and inequality are social constructs, not
inherent in race.
 4 of 26

Morphologic Differentiation

Forensic anthropologists can determine aspects of geographic ancestry (i.e. Asian, African,
or European) from skeletal remains with a high degree of accuracy by analyzing skeletal
measurements. According to some studies, with over 80% accuracy.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human genetic variation #History and geographic

distribution

Modern humanity is becoming somewhat less readily so categorised because of

interbreeding. Interbreeding naturally affects physical characteristics. Consequently, many
Aborigines who have interbred over two or more generations with people from other races
will likely have lost all Australoid physical characteristics, often being indistinguishable from
the race into which they have interbred. If through interbreeding with Caucasoids, say, an
Aboriginal descendant has lost all Australoid characteristics and now shows marked
Caucasoid characteristics, then that person would more properly be classified as a
Caucasoid.

Hence, while Aborigines will always have Australoid lineage, they may well develop the
characteristics of the race into which they have interbred, or to the point where
categorisation becomes meaningless. Only while the physical racial characteristics remain
measurable can a people be properly categorised by race.

Genetic Differentiation

There are genetic differences between races.

There are an estimated 15 million SNP (Single-nucleotide polymorphism) sites from among
which ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) may potentially be selected. The SNPs that
relate to ancestry are often traced to the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA because
both of these areas are inherited from one parent, eradicating complexities that come with
parental gene recombination. SNP mutations are rare, so sequences with SNPs tend to be
passed down through generations rather than altered each generation.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry-informative_marker

All European populations are genetically close to one another except the Lapps, whereas
many African, Oceanian, and Amer-indian tribes show large extents of genetic
differentiation. The Polynesians, Micronesians, and Indonesians are more closely related to
the Asian Mongoloids than to the Australoids in Australia and New Guinea.

Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193

Racial Groups

As described above, there are four basic racial groups into which all humans can be
assigned. These are as follows:
 5 of 26

a. Caucasoid
b. Negroid
c. Mongoloid
d. Australoid

a. Caucasoid

Caucasoids have Neanderthal genes but no Denisovan genes. The Caucasoid

phenotype, in general, has, Colour of the skin shows a wide range of variation—white,
olive, different shades of brown and sometimes dark brown. Hair form is variable, from
flat wavy to different degrees of curliness. Its colour is generally lighter in shades, rarely
jet black. Hair texture ranges from medium to fine; rarely is it course. Quantity of body
and facial hair is usually moderate or abundant. Form of head is variable, ranging from
dolichocephalic (long skulled) to brachycephalic (a relatively broad, short skull).
Forehead is high, lips are thin and chin is pronounced. Cheek bones are not at all
prominent and facial prognathism (protruding jaws) is totally absent. Form of nose
varies between leptorrhine (a long narrow nose) to Mesorrhine (a nose of moderate
size) but platyrrhine (having nostrils that are far apart and directed forwards or
sideways) is never found. Nasal bridge is generally high. Colour of the eyes is not
black. They show lighter shades. Stature is usually tall.

Reference: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/biology-essay/major-racial-groups-
classification-of-caucasoid-groups/41834

b. Negroid

Native to the African Continent, the Negroid Phenotype probably retain most of the
earliest human phenotypes compared to the other phenotypes, supporting the
argument that humans came from Africa.

The Negroid type is best represented by the negro of S.Africa (including Madagascar),
between the Sahara and the region of the Cape. He is of fair stature; his body and limbs
are well made; his skin is black, with shades of brown; his eyes, brown or black; his hair
is black, short, and crisp; his beard and body-hair scanty. He is doliocephalic (long
skulled). Like the Australoid, there is generally prognathism (protruding jaws). The nasal
 6 of 26

bones are depressed, giving a characteristic flat nose. The lips are coarse and
projecting. Some in the S. and E. approach the Australoid in large brow-ridges and
otherwise (e.g., Tasmania, New Caledonia, New Guinea, and Torres Straits).

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid

c. Mongoloid

The Mongoloid Phenotype migrated from Africa to Southeast Asia and then split into
two groups. One group migrated north and the other south. The ones who migrated to
the north had to endure the cold. As the result, they developed a distinctive feature
called epicanthic fold. The fold makes their eyes almond-shaped, which functions to
protect their vision from strong wind. As for the ones who migrated to the south, they
have wider nose, thicker lips, and bigger eyes than do their northern counterparts.

Generally, “the Mongoloid peoples include the greater part of the people
of central, northern, and eastern Asia — a short and squat race, with yellowish-brown
skin, black eyes and hair, the latter straight and coarse, short skulls (round-headed),
with prominent brows, oblique eyes, and nose flat and small.
The Chinese and Japanese differ from these in being long-headed.
The Dyaks and Malays, the Polynesians, and the native Americans fall under the same
classification, though with minor differences. In the Polynesians the straightness of the
hair and obliquity of the eyes disappear.”

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
 7 of 26

d. Australoids

The Australoid race includes the Aboriginal people of Australia, Melanesia, and parts
of Southeast Asia. Australoids have both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes. Some
Australian Aborigines have Negrito genes.

“Northern Queensland contains remnants of a Negritoid people, as shown by their short

stature and curly to woolly hair. They were recognized as more or less mixed with
the Australian Aborigines, though still preserving some characteristics of the
Tasmanians, who are universally classed with the Negritos of South-Eastern
Asia.

Normally, the Australians (apart from Negrito mixture) may be regarded as (having hair)
ranging from slightly wavy to loosely curly, while in the Tasmanians (Negrito) the hair
was woolly or closely curly. … the frizzy type may be a more recent importation from
Papua.”

Reference: Racial elements in the Aborigines of Queensland, Australia, by

H. Ruggles Gates, Cambridge (Massachusetts)

“The Australoid peoples have a chocolate-brown skin, dark brown or black eyes, black
hair, usually wavy, narrow skull (long-headed), strongly-developed brow-ridges,
projecting jaw, large teeth, thick lips, and broad nose. …

The males are of fair stature, with well-developed torso and arms, but relatively and
absolutely slender legs. Fine silky hair, usually raven black, never woolly, but wavy and
tolerably long. The Australians are doliocephalic (long-skulled). Brow-ridges strong and
prominent, teeth large, and fangs strong.”

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid

“From the earliest anthropological accounts of the Australian Aborigines one

finds references to different racial types on the continent of Australia. Others
have been unimpressed by the diversity and some (e.g. Abbie 1951) still insist
that the Aborigines are an essentially homogeneous race. The diversity of type is
too great to assume uniformity. The only question that remains is whether the
diverse elements are so uniformly mixed that no differences can be discerned in
the Aboriginal population from different parts of Australia. It seems clear that
such differences do exist and that they must have taken their origin from sources
outside the continent.”

Reference: Racial elements in the Aborigines of Queensland, Australia, by H.

Ruggles Gates, Cambridge (Massachusetts)

However, Prof. Abbie admits that he is not a geneticist, yet he throws doubt on
genetical methods of racial study, even suggesting that nearly three months in Australia
was insufficient time for me to obtain reliable results. He is unwilling to recognize that
anatomy can only make comparisons between racial types, while genetical methods of
family study in crosses give an analysis of racial differences and are thus of far greater
significance. His thesis appears to be that the aboriginal population of the whole
continent is a unit, and that all the evidence which shows the presence of mixed
elements must be resisted or denied.
 8 of 26

Reference: Australian Aborigines and Genetics, by R. Ruggles Gates, 1961

“The definite evidence of Negritoid genes in Northern Queensland, as adduced by

Tindale and Birdsell (1941) and in this paper, does show a persisting Negritoid element
in that area, some of whose genes will have spread into other parts of Australia.”

Tindale and Birdsell state, “Our studies demonstrate that in the eastern coastal and
mountain region near Cairns is an area where exist several small tribes of a
people characterized by a high incidence of relatively and absolutely small
stature, crisp curly hair, and a tendency toward yellowish-brown skin colour. They
were recognized as more or less mixed with the Australian Aborigines, though
still preserving some characteristics of the Tasmanians, who are universally
classed with the Negritos of South-Eastern Asia. At this time, Tindale and Birdsell
found three ethnic elements in the Australian aborigines, which they called
Southern, Northern and Tasmanoid. Later,the first two were renamed Murrayan
and Carpentarian, and the last, Berrineans.”

The Tasmanoids were found to be segregated mainly on Mission and Govern-

ment Settlements at Yarrabah, Monamcna and Palm Island, the latter off the
coast of N. Queensland, near Townsville. The burial customs of these
Tasmanoid tribes were found to resemble those of the extinct Tasmanians.

Given that the Tasmanian Aborigines (now extinct) were Berrineans, it is probable
that they may have been the first inhabitants of Australia.

“If the Murrayans later entered Australia through York Peninsula they would have
driven the Negritoids (now mixed with Murrayans) southwards over the partly
submerged peninsula (now Bass Strait) into Tasmania, perhaps at a time when the
sea-level was already rising, at the end of the last glaciation. Even a short gap would
have prevented the dingo from reaching Tasmania, as the Tasmanians had only very
frail bark rafts. Negritoids who remained behind in Australia would be exterminated
by the Murrayans unless they found refuge. These Berrineans of North Queensland
appear to be a remnant of such a Negritoid people. The alternative hypothesis, that
the Tasmanians, without boats, reached Tasmania from remote New Caledonia,
seems scarcely worthy of consideration.”

Reference: Compiled from: Racial elements in the Aborigines of Queensland,

Australia, by H. Ruggles Gates, Cambridge (Massachusetts)

Not all anthropologists agreed with Tindale and Birdsell. “In the late 1930s Norman
Tindale and Joseph Birdsell identified the inhabitants of the North Queensland
rainforests as a distinct race of Indigenous Australians. This classification was a
keystone of their attempted reconstruction of the deep past of Australia. According to
their narrative, the Aboriginal inhabitants of the rainforests were relicts of the first
human occupants of Australia, refugees from later waves of Aboriginal invaders who
seized all but the most inhospitable parts of the continent. From the outset, Tindale and
Birdsell's argument was burdened with serious problems, both in the qualities they
attributed to rainforest people and in their representation of the rainforest environment
as a 'refuge'. While Tindale and Birdsell's racial theorising and historical speculations
drew some supporters, they failed to win general academic acclamation and by the
1970s were quite thoroughly discredited. Yet the category 'rainforest Aboriginal'
survived, disengaged from the reconstruction of Australia's past that had inspired it and
 9 of 26

anchored instead to the distinctive economy of rainforest subsistence, instantiated in a

unique material culture.”

Reference: McGregor, Russell (2016) Making the Rainforest Aboriginal: Tindale and
Birdsell's foray into deep time. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, Cultural Heritage
Series, 10. pp. 9-21.

Unfortunately, studies of Aborigines are mired in ‘political correctness’. Tindale and

Birdsell reported what they saw and measured. By the 1960s, however, the subject
had become heavily affected by guilt felt in some influential sections of the Australian
community. This guilt was based on a perceived wrong in the way Australia was settled
by the British in 1788 (but, see the section in this paper, “Settlement of Australia by
the British in 1788”). This guilt led to a view that Aborigines must be considered to be
descended from one stock who had ‘owned’ Australia uniquely for millennia before the
white man arrived and displaced the Aborigine for the first time.

Accepting that the British might have been the fourth wave of displacement, as Tindale
and Birdsell’s theory suggests, would tend to remove the belief that the Aborigine was
in some way entitled to ownership of Australia because of a special relationship. It
would place the Aborigine together with most other peoples across the World who,
historically, have been replaced or subsumed by others, in some cases many times.

Today, many differentiating studies of Aboriginal genetics, morphology, languages,

religions, tools, and other matters have been made inaccessible to most researchers
and interested parties. This has been done because involved authorities have decreed
such studies would be likely to violate Aboriginal sensitivities.

All photos are sourced from https://www.quora.com/How-many-human-races-are-in-the-

world.

Culture

Many other cultures come from origins equally as old as that of the Aborigine, but have
progressed and changed during that time such that their roots are not as obvious today.

Aboriginal technology was, and remains, primitive, consisting essentially of the ability to
make fire, digging sticks, the spear and woomera, the boomerang, various basic stone
implements, fish traps, painting with ochres, and the hand plaiting and weaving of plant
fibres. Aborigines did not build large stone monuments, did not farm animals and did not
cultivate the soil for crops, notwithstanding the embellishments and misinterpretations of
 10 of 26

Bruce Pascoe in his book “Dark Emu”. Aborigines never developed an "iron age", "bronze
age", or pottery. Neither did they invent the wheel. Aboriginal culture essentially remained
unchanged throughout the past 60,000 years, producing none of the advances made by
most other human groups during the same period.

Aboriginal cultural practises, languages, and laws varied widely between the 600-odd,
separate, Aboriginal groups dispersed across Australia. There has never been an
Aboriginal nation. Indeed, there was never Aboriginal sovereignty over the land now called
Australia because there was never a sovereign controlling the country until settlement by
the British in the 1700s.

Traditional Aboriginal culture in its many variations and adaptations enabled Aborigines to
live successfully and sustainably in a wide variety of climatic and environmental conditions.
They lived a ‘nomadic’ lifestyle in which they relocated from place to place within their
respective clan territories. These relocations varied from frequent and of short duration to
infrequent and stays of several months. The relocations were necessary to prevent
depletion of food and other resources within a particular location and to move to a location
where such resources were known to be more abundant at the particular time.

Many traditional cultural practises are considered by modern Australians to be abhorrent.

These include infanticide, cannibalism, and the sexual and physical exploitation of women.
Literature suggests infanticide may have occurred reasonably commonly among
Indigenous Australians in all areas of Australia prior to European settlement. An 1866 issue
of ‘The Australian News for Home Readers’ informed that, "the crime of infanticide is so
prevalent amongst the natives that it is rare to see an infant".

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Australia

William Buckley, an escaped English convict, lived for thirty or so years amongst many
different groups of Aborigines. His story, published by Morgan in 1852, includes, “Violence,
treachery, and killings were common, almost everyday occurrences in many groups among
whom Buckley lived. In a very high fraction of the cases the conflicts began over women,
sexual jealousy, and abduction of women who, according to Buckley, were the ‘source of
almost all the mischief in which the men engaged.’ ... His account makes it clear that
Aboriginal men actively competed to acquire them and took many of them by force from
weaker neighbours whenever possible.”

References: Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes by Napoleon A.

Chagnon, and The Life and Adventures of William Buckley by John Morgan

There remain many sources to prove that cannibalism was common even though many
sources held by libraries and museums have been removed from public view because of
‘political correctness’.

Transcripts from government files are instructive. I quote from an extract of a police report
from the State Records Office in Western Australia (SROWA Cons 527 1888/1411, at
Roebourne on 1 May 1888) that relates to an Aboriginal man (Joe) killing an Aboriginal boy
(Tim) with the deliberate intention of eating him. “Joe then called in another native named
“Dan” and together carried the boy a couple of miles or so to the bank of a river, where
they dug a big hole, lit a fire in it and therein roasted the body.” Then, “another native
named Dugal was invited to the diabolical feast and, between the three, they eat the
greater part of the body”. There are many similar reports contained in early police records
and newspapers about cannibalism throughout Australia.
 11 of 26

Another of many similar reports is in the Hobart Town Courier, Friday 4 November 1836,
“SOME ACCOUNT OF THE ABORIGINES OF PORT PHILLIP”. That account included the
following: “These people are, we regret to say decided cannibals. They do not however,
indulge in this horrible propensity, except in two cases, the one in consuming the bodies of
hostile tribes killed in battle, and the other, we shudder to relate it, on their own offspring.
The women are accustomed to nurse and suckle their children until three or four years old,
and in order to get rid of the trouble and the inconvenience of finding sustenance for two
should a second be born, before the eldest is weaned, they destroy the youngest
immediately after its birth. There are some mothers among them who destroy their
offspring from mere wantonness, and one female the wife of Nullumbord was pointed out
as having destroyed ten out eleven of her children.” (sic)

Traditional violence against women continues today. This is discussed in the following
section “Culture Today”.

Culture Today

Today, many of the more remote Aboriginal groups live in conditions that most non-
Aborigines would describe as unsatisfactory, if not appalling. These townships are notable
for decent housing and infrastructure provided by the Government. However, with some
exceptions, there is obvious social disadvantage and disintegration. Often the townships
are polluted extensively by rubbish, and have mobs of dogs roaming unchecked, some with
scabies (mange) or broken legs. The much publicised medical condition experienced by
Aborigines in remote communities, blinding trachoma, is an infection transmitted by direct
or indirect transfer of eye and nose discharges of infected people, particularly young
children who harbour the principal reservoir of infection. These discharges can be spread
also by particular species of flies.

Inhabitants of these communities usually have no work because they insist on living in
places where there is no work, they are often sick (as above) because they live in self-
generated unhygienic conditions, they and their children are under-educated because they
have not gone and their children do not go to school, drug and alcohol addiction is rife, and
physical and sexual violence seems in many places to be endemic.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an Aboriginal woman, is the daughter of Warlpiri woman and
politician Bess Price and an Anglo-Celtic father. She says,

“TRADITIONAL desert culture accepts violence against women and must change
and Australia should no longer shy away from discussing disproportionate rates of
violence in Aboriginal families and communities.

In my culture men are hardly seen as being capable of doing anything wrong — and
women are the ones to blame if they should.

This was and still is the norm for Aboriginal women whose cultures are intact, whose
cultures have been maintained, whose cultures are steeped in tradition … and
maintain the rights for men to control them.

Aboriginal culture is a culture that accepts violence and in many ways desensitises
those living the culture to violence.”
 12 of 26

Reference: https://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/traditional-culture-accepts-violence/news-
story/4a3823224ffcd46534e175c485182133

The crippling nature and corrupting influence of kinship obligations, combined with its
corollary, demand sharing, has been well documented across Australia. Professor Peter
Sutton provided this simple example from an Aboriginal community in Queensland:

“The role of demand pressures from relatives was often central to the theft of store goods
and cash. … Under pressure which he (the Aboriginal store keeper) described, he felt
obliged to supply goods at no cost to certain people, especially in-laws.”

Reference: Professor Peter Sutton, 2009, p81. The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous
Australia and the end of the liberal consensus. Melbourne University Press.

This cultural imperative of demand sharing, that is the right to take one’s share, is the
reason why throughout Australia in the remote Aboriginal communities the managers of
Aboriginal stores are ‘white’. When asked why was this so, the answer always was, “If an
Aborigine were manager, the culture of taking would mean the manager would have no
power to stop, indeed would have an obligation to allow, clan members and kin to take
from the store whatever they deemed to be theirs”. This cultural attitude is what leads to
the overcrowding of houses in remote settlements when kin decide to come from other
parts to live in the town. They have the right to share accommodation with their town
dwelling kin.

Generally, Aborigines in remote areas seem content to live as they do because it takes
little effort and the Australian taxpayer funds their life-style. When asked why they seem
not to have any ambition to improve their living conditions and life-style, they respond
essentially, "The government looks after us and while things might not be great, they’re
OK." This has been the response when asked of individual Aborigines in friendly
conversations, not when put to the politically motivated.

The idea is absurd that Aboriginal culture has much to offer modern Australia, its
Constitution, or its National identity.

The Stolen Generation

By the 1800's, the British were concerned about the welfare of mixed race children born to
Aboriginal women. The worries were three-fold:

a. One, if the children were left to be absorbed into Aboriginal culture, to be declared
Aborigines, then the Aboriginal population would expand at a high rate and would need
ever increasing special treatment. This was in the context that at the time Aborigines
were thought to be dying out. Their number had reduced from about 700,000 at the time
of settlement to about 75,000 largely because of disease. It was also in the time when a
homogeneous racial society was considered best; that is, at the time of the White
Australia Policy.

b. Two, the Aboriginal lifestyle was considered, rightly or wrongly, as impoverished

and undesirable in the eyes of the British. Given that half-caste children were half white,
the decision was made to save the children by removing them to institutions that would
care for them better.
 13 of 26

c. Three, many Aboriginal groups killed babies, often girls, when the baby was sickly
or malformed, when food was scarce, and for other reasons related to survival of the
group (see pages 10 and 11). Half-castes were killed too within some groups. A half-
caste baby meant that the mother had broken customary law by mating outside the
permitted relationships.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Australia and Pages 10 and 11 of

this paper.

Including for these reasons, the British adopted a policy of removing children, especially
half-caste children, from what was seen as appalling circumstances and placing them in
mission or other institutions.

Settlement of Australia by the British in 1788

The British claimed Australia under the international conventions prevailing at the time. The
claim was legal and absolute.

They did not declare Australia to be Terra Nullius. The British never used the term Terra
Nullius at the time they settled Australia. The term did not become formalized before the
end of the 19th century, well after Settlement.

The British were fully aware that the Great Southern Land might have inhabitants. The
British Admiralty instructions to Lt James Cook in 1768 included, “You are likewise to
observe the Genius, Temper, Disposition and Number of the Natives, if there be any and
endeavour by all proper means to cultivate a Friendship and Alliance with them, making
them presents of such Trifles as they may Value inviting them to Traffick, and Shewing
them every kind of Civility and Regard; taking Care however not to suffer yourself to be
surprized by them, but to be always upon your guard against any Accidents.”

Reference: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw1 doc 1768.pdf

By the mid-eighteenth century, an International convention had been adopted concerning

the taking of foreign lands. It stated, “Effective occupation is the control of free newly
discovered territory exercised by a power with no sovereign title to the land, whether in
defiance or absence of a proper sovereign.”

Several cases in international law have dealt with what ‘effective occupation’ entails. In the
words of the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration Award:

“The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally
requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by
the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis.”

Reference: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/517 Chapter VII, page 71 and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty#Effective_occupation

“In 1971, in the controversial case of Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, popularly known as the
Gove land rights case, Justice Richard Blackburn ruled that Australia had been considered
"desert and uncultivated" (a term which included territory in which resided "uncivilized
inhabitants in a primitive state of society") before European settlement, and therefore, by
 14 of 26

the law that applied at the time, open to be claimed by right of occupancy, and that there
was no such thing as native title in Australian law.”

Reference: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2000/3.html and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra nullius

The Arbitrator of the Clipperton Island Case (France v Mexico) in 1932 stated, “It is beyond
doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi,
the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is a necessary condition of
occupation. This taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the
occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to
exercise exclusive authority there.”

Reference: https://nexusnotes-media.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/edd/2015/03/LAWS1023-Public-International-Law200315-copy7.pdf, page
17, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition of sovereignty

The Mabo Case

Activist judges have created a discrimination problem. Based on ‘Progressive’ ideas rather
than applying the law as it was at the time the British settled Australia, the High Court has
created new interpretations of past laws that discriminate in favour of Aborigines. Further,
they have extrapolated judgements made in particular cases to cases that are only vaguely
related, and they are continuing to make judgements that discriminate between Australians
(see: Aboriginality).

On 3 June 1992, the High Court of Australia recognised that a group of Torres Strait
Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island). In acknowledging the
traditional rights of the Meriam people to their land in that particular case, the Court also
held that native title existed for all Indigenous people.

An article in the University of Western Sydney Law Review entitled, “The High Court and
Recognition of Native Title” contains revelations about the Mabo case given in 2006 by Sir
Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. These revelations
include the following:

“Pre-Mabo, therefore, it was the combination of the universal acceptance of the feudal
doctrine of tenure and the application of the recognition doctrine in Australia that precluded
any recognition of non-feudal rights in land, such as native title.”

“In Mabo, it was conceded by all parties and accepted by the Court that the Crown had
acquired sovereignty of Australia by occupancy under international law; the international
law doctrine of terra nullius was, therefore, not an issue in Mabo. Indeed, ‘terra nullius’ was
not mentioned in any of the plaintiffs’ submissions, and was not referred to at all during the
four days of substantive argument before the High Court of Australia. Furthermore, all
members of the High Court concluded that, irrespective of the original presence of the
Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common
law, Australia was a territory acquired by settlement.”

“Moreover, since the reception of English law into the settled colony of Australia was
justified on the ground that it was ‘legally uninhabited’, the enforceability of any pre-
 15 of 26

existing rights depended on some different rule which necessarily contradicted the
‘legally uninhabited’ rule.”

That is, under international law at the time of settlement the Aborigine had no title rights to
land. If some form of title were to be given, then the High Court determined that the law
had to be given an interpretation not intended when the law was written.

During the Mabo case, the High Court became activist. Instead of determining Settlement
through the prism of the law in the 1700’s, it applied the ‘progressive’ thought of the 1900’s.
“By accepting that Australia was not, in fact, terra nullius in 1788, yet legally uninhabited for
the purpose of acquisition of sovereignty, the Mabo High Court acknowledged that
sovereignty was acquired over Australia under the enlarged doctrine of terra nullius.
Despite this conclusion, however, the majority of the High Court expressly
disapproved of the application of the concept of terra nullius to an inhabited country
and recognised that the notion that inhabited land may be classed as terra nullius no
longer commanded general support in international law.”

Reference: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2007/1.html

This landmark decision gave rise to important native title legislation, The Native Title Act
1993. This legislation guides decisions about Aboriginal title claims. Presently, Claims have
been agreed, or are in process, that when added to previous titles given under State rights,
will likely result in various forms of Aboriginal title over about 74 per cent of the Australian
landmass. In many cases, the public is, and will be, excluded from most of these areas
unless invited in by Aboriginal title-holders, usually only for the purposes of ceremony.

The Definition of Aboriginality

The definition of Aboriginality is a problem. It is so loose as to be almost meaningless.

Aboriginality is defined usually as:

a. being of Aboriginal descent,

b. identifying as an Aboriginal person, and

c. being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly

lived.

All three criteria must apply for accessing Aboriginal-specific services or programs such as:

 grants (like Indigenous housing loans, research and study grants)

 university courses (with specific positions for Indigenous students)

 Centrelink and housing assistance (Indigenous-specific)

 employment (Indigenous identified positions)

 school programs for Indigenous students.

 16 of 26

Reference: https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/finding-your-family/before-you-start/proof-
aboriginality

Courts use various definitions depending on circumstances. Some judgements have

declared that, “Aboriginal descent alone is sufficient,… that once it is established that a
person is ‘non-trivially’ of Aboriginal descent, then that person is Aboriginal within the
ordinary meaning of that word. Neither self-identification nor community recognition is
necessary.”

“The courts, in interpreting statutory definitions in federal legislation, have emphasised

the importance of descent in establishing Aboriginal identity, but have recognised that
self-identification and community recognition may be relevant to establishing descent,
and hence Aboriginal identity, for the purposes of specific legislation.”

Reference: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-
genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-of-
Aboriginality/, Clauses 36.21, 36.22, and 36.28.

However, “where Aboriginal descent is uncertain, or where the extent of Aboriginal

descent might be considered insignificant, self-recognition or recognition by other
Aboriginal persons may have an evidentiary value in resolving the question”.

Reference: Australian Law Reform Commission, Legal definitions of Aboriginality |

ALRC.

Australian Censuses collect information about Aboriginality through self-identification

questions. There is no requirement to prove descent or acceptance, merely self-
identification. This very loose definition of Aboriginality is why the number of “Aborigines” is
so high. Almost anyone who sees benefit can claim Aboriginality without penalty. Anybody
who can prove descent can claim Aboriginality, no matter how small the fraction of “blood’.
Government benefits are meant for Aborigines who pass the three-part test.

No other people in Australia can claim such special identification. All Australians are
descended from various races or ethnic groups, but none is entitled to the discriminatory
benefits available to the Aborigine because of race or ethnicity.

In contrast, many Indian tribes in the United States of America have strict blood quantum
rules for defining membership. Some require the Indian blood quantum to be one half,
others one quarter, one eighth, or one sixteenth. Similar rules apply in various other
countries.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood quantum laws#Tribes

The definition of Aboriginality must be redefined

Aboriginality must be defined scientifically and the definition must pass the ‘pub test’. So,
who is an Aborigine? Who will be declared able to participate in the Voice as an Aborigine?
Who are to be the beneficiaries of the Voice because they are defined to be Aborigines?
The Government has said the standard three-part test mentioned on the previous page is
to remain the preferred model.
 17 of 26

That model is nonsense. Being of Aboriginal descent means that a person has Australoid
genes, one of the four main racial classifications into which modern Homo sapiens can be
classified; the Mongoloids, Negroids, Caucasoids, and Australoids. The three-part test
dictates that a person can choose to identify as belonging to one particular race to the
exclusion of all other races even when only having a minority fraction of genes from that
particular race. For example, a person can claim to be an Aborigine under these criteria
when having 5 percent Aboriginal genes and 95 percent Caucasian genes, if he wishes to
identify as such and if others agree with him.

Racial identification must be based only on a scientific genetic test. Genetic testing can
determine if someone has Australoid descent and, in fact, the inference is that from a DNA
sample one could estimate the percentage of aboriginal descent, and even which tribe
people are from [by comparison, the Finns can tell which valley people come from].

To be classified as an Aborigine, a reasonable test would be to show that the genetic

make-up of the person contains a majority of Australoid markers, or at least 50 percent of
those markers. The ‘blood’ of a half-caste Aborigine contains 50 percent Aboriginal
markers and 50 percent markers from another race or races. This should permit that
person to claim Aboriginality if he wishes.

The High Court judgement on 11 February 2020

The High Court judgement on 11 February 2020 has compounded the issue of
Aboriginality. It has essentially ruled that wherever born or of whichever other country they
are a legal citizen, a person able to prove Aboriginal descent has an inalienable right to
stay in Australia and cannot be declared an alien in accordance with the Constitution. No
other person can claim this privilege.

The Voice

Presently, each and every Australian, including all Aborigines, has a voice to Government
through their elected representatives. Notwithstanding, there are many activists, both
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who seemingly wish to keep Aborigines as a separate
species. They demand that Aborigines have a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the
Australian Constitution, and that the Australian national identity be reframed, based on
Aboriginal culture.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was endorsed by a gathering of 250 Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander leaders on May 26, 2017, following a four-day First Nations National
Constitutional Convention held at Uluru. It proposes three key elements for sequential
reform: "Voice, Treaty, Truth".

The proposal for an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament is to include in Australia’s founding

document, its Constitution, a mandate that Parliament give special consideration and
treatment to Australian Aborigines, consideration and treatment that will not be available to
non-Aborigines. The fundamental reason for some Aborigines wanting a Voice to
Parliament in the Constitution is that they believe they should have privileges unavailable
to people not of their race and the misguided belief that differences in their lives and living
 18 of 26

conditions compared with that of other Australians can be closed by mandating in the
Constitution that Aborigines be given a special Voice based on their race.

The Australian Human Rights Commission defines racism to be the process by which
systems and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes
for people based on race. The Cambridge dictionary includes the following definition of the
word 'racist': "relating to policies, behaviors (sic), rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair
advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race".

Any provision that one section of the Australian community must be given a Voice that is
not available to any other Australian is racist. It is the proponents for the Voice who are the
racists. The Constitutional Voice must not happen.

The nub of the issue about the Aboriginal VOICE is that nobody in Australia must have
power, treatment, or consideration that is different from anyone else. Aborigines may wish
to claim a special place and demand special treatment but this wish does not create an
imperative. All people may properly claim lineal descent from ancestors and be proud to do
so, but Australian citizens claiming racial or cultural definition other than ‘Australian’ is
nonsense, divisive, and power seeking.

A particular concern is that the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia covers especially
the Constitution. The inclusion of an Aboriginal Voice in the Constitution would create a
continuing role for the High Court in interpreting any and all matters relating to the Voice for
which it was asked to rule. This would be a serpent in the garden of democracy that would
forever endanger the cohesion of Australian society. Nothing in the Constitution must allow
or facilitate division within our community.

Presently, in 2022, Aborigines already have a Voice to Parliament. The have the same
voice as all other Australians, they vote like all other Australians. Importantly, today,
Aborigines are proportionately over-represented in Parliament. There are 11 Aboriginal
politicians, being 4.8 percent of all politicians while Aborigines are only 3.3 percent of the
Australian population.

Australian governments have tried for many years to improve the lives of Aborigines,
particularly those living in remote communities where problems abound. Huge amounts of
money have been spent of the problem. Aboriginal corporations have been formed,
empowered and funded. Little has changed.

As stated under the heading, ‘Culture Today’, on page 11, Aborigines living in remote
communities usually have no work because they insist on living in places where there is no
work, they are often sick because they live in self-generated unhygienic conditions, they
and their children are under-educated because they have not gone and their children do
not go to school, drug and alcohol addiction is rife, and physical and sexual violence seems
in many places to be endemic. Their excuses, including ‘inter-generational trauma’, are
without real bases. Inter-generational trauma persists only while those involved continue to
dwell in the past and deliberately propagate negative emotions, adult to children and so on.
There is no accepted medical condition called intergenerational trauma other than as an
emotional condition. Governments are complicit in perpetuating Aboriginal disadvantage by
kowtowing to activists who would keep Aborigines in their minds eye as ‘noble savages’.

The condition of Aborigines will improve only when they themselves decide to move from
adherence to traditional cultural beliefs and practices, to largely adopt Australian culture.
 19 of 26

Nothing governments or anyone else alone can do will succeed. Aborigines must decide
for themselves to improve their situation and act accordingly.

____________________________________

Importantly, Jacinta Price, the Aboriginal Senator for the NT in our Parliament wrote on 21
October 2022:

"It’s the biggest myth proponents of the Voice want you to believe, that Aboriginal
Australians all think the same.
It’s disgusting, harmful, and manifestly untrue.
The architects of the Uluru Statement claim it was the largest consensus of
Aboriginal people to support a proposal in our history. Maybe it was, but it’s both
laughable and deeply insulting to suggest this as a justified representation of
Aboriginal Australians.
Aboriginal Australians make up 3.2 per cent of the entire Australian population. So
that’s 250 signatures out of a total Aboriginal population of 812,728.
It DOES NOT represent a large consensus.
Even when 1000 Aboriginal people were consulted through the process, that’s only
a tiny fraction of the total population and NOT EVERYONE agreed with the process
or outcome.
Australians of European heritage make up 57.2 per cent of the Australian population
– that’s 14,809,522 people. Using Uluru Statement logic, that’s like 4442 unelected
representatives signing a proposal on behalf of the entire population of nearly 15
MILLION AUSTRALIANS.
No one would accept that as legitimate representation.
We do not treat any other race of Australians in this manner, so why then are we as
people of Aboriginal heritage being subjected to blatantly racist segregation in this
way?
The woke left wants to guilt Australians in to supporting a move that would enshrine
racial segregation into the Australian Constitution, and they’re using the Uluru
Statement to do it.
The Uluru Statement DOES NOT represent all Aboriginal Australians by any stretch
of the imagination.
EVERY VOICE IS A VOICE!
Like every other Australian, Indigenous Australians have their OWN VOICE and
they’re capable of using it!
Keep your patronising, woke virtue signalling to yourself, keep racial segregation
OUT of the constitution, and get on with the REAL solutions to the REAL problems!
Yours for REAL solutions,
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory"
____________________________________

The Voice is top of the Aboriginal list of demands. The Voice would constitute an advisory
body of First Nations traditional owners to advise Parliament on policy affecting Aboriginal
 20 of 26

people. The Voice would offer a way to include Indigenous Australians' cultural authority in
matters of law that affect them, and constitutionally guarantee them a say in their own
affairs. Realistically, such a Voice would impact on every policy of Government because
every policy affects every Australian in some way or other. Such a Voice would complicate
all Government policy.

Then would come a Treaty. The Treaty would be a formal agreement between the
Government and Aboriginal people that would have legal outcomes. It would likely include
binding ‘rights’, and agreements on specific issues like health and education. A Treaty
would likely create ongoing legal turmoil.

Following a Treaty, Aboriginal sovereignty and self-determination have been stated by

Aboriginal activists and their followers to be necessary. Sovereignty, be it sovereignty over
all Aborigines or many sovereignties over many different Aboriginal groups, would give the
power to Aborigines to determine their own form of government and the power to interpret
their own laws and ordinances. The Uluru Statement from the Heart addresses sovereignty
in these words:

“This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’,
and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain
attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link
is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded
or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.”

Spiritual notions of belonging to a place, no matter how strongly felt, have no relationship to
sovereignty in any legal sense. Farmers and most people who have lived in one location
for a long time have a sense of belonging but this has never given them sovereignty to that
place.

The essence of the Uluru Statement, clearly, is to separate Aborigines forever from other
Australians.

Privileges

The Aborigine has been compensated many times over for the settlement of his lands. He
has been given the opportunity of leaving behind his traditional, subsistence, life-style to
enjoy the many benefits of modern Australia. Few Aborigines would wish to return to the
lifestyle that existed before colonisation. No Aborigine lives today as did his traditional
ancestors. Even in the most remote Aboriginal groups, western goods abound in the form
of food, clothing, cars, electricity, and housing, for example.

Aborigines get significant and special treatment, yet say they want more. Governments
give Aborigines vast sums of money to improve their lot. Over the last decade, the
Productivity Commission’s Indigenous Expenditure Reports (IER) have consistently shown
that total Commonwealth, state and territory government per capita expenditure on
Aboriginal people is approximately double the per capita expenditure on non-Indigenous
Australians. Additionally, many Aboriginal groups get huge royalty payments from mining
and other companies forced to pay to access “Aboriginal” land.

As at 2017, Aborigines had been granted Native Title over 34% of the Australian landmass
(exclusive and non-exclusive), and would have Native Title over 62% if all present claims
 21 of 26

are agreed. Added to this are the lands and reserves subject to State based Land Rights
granted prior to the Native Title Act 1993. In aggregate, in 2017, there was Aboriginal
freehold ownership, Native Title, land rights and reserves, and pending determinations of
native title over 74% of the Australian landmass. In most of these areas, the public have
little if any right of access. The maps following were taken from official sources and
amended to include lands given to Aborigines as Land Rights and Reserves prior to the
Native Title Act 1993.

Compare this with the situation at 01 January 2023, shown in the next map.
 22 of 26

Note the increased areas of Aboriginal involvement shown on the 2023 map compared with
the 2017 map. Some claimed areas have been denied while others now have native title.
As at 01 January 2023, Aborigines now have freehold ownership, Native Title, land rights
and reserves, and pending determinations of native title over 75.8% of the Australian
landmass. A comparison of the two maps shows the changes that have occurred during
the last five years.

Overlaying the Native Title, State Rights, and Claim map above is the map of Indigenous
Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). These ILUAs, as at 01 January 2023, are shown in the
next map.
 23 of 26

ILUAs can be settled between Aboriginal groups and State Governments and Local
Councils as they see fit. There is no requirement that Native Title exists in areas where
ILUAs can be made. That is why the area around Perth has ILUAs although no Native Title
exists in that area. This particular area comprises several different ILUAs. The larger part
has six different ILUAs as detail at South West Native Title Settlement (www.wa.gov.au)
and outlined here:
The South West Native Title Settlement (Settlement) is a long-term investment in
the Noongar people and the shared success of Western Australia.
The Settlement, in the form of six Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) was
negotiated between the Noongar people and the WA Government. The Settlement
commenced on 25 February 2021.
On 29 March 2021, the initial Noongar Boodja Trust (NBT) was established to
manage and hold all assets from the Settlement, and the first historic payment was
made by the WA government to the NBT:
 $50 million to the Future Fund; and
 $10 million to the Operations Fund.
In June 2022 the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council was appointed as
the Settlement’s Central Services Corporation. Across October and November 2022,
six new Noongar Regional Corporations were appointed to represent the ILUA
groups.
The Noongar peoples’ strong relationship to their boodja (Noongar land) is reflected
through the many components of the Settlement package, including the creation of
the Noongar Land Estate and the recognition, in statute, of the Noongar peoples as
the Traditional Owners of the south west region.
 24 of 26

The Settlement package provides the Noongar people with sustainable assets and
options for developing Noongar interests, including opportunities for the WA
Government to work in partnership with the Noongar people to elevate economic,
social and community outcomes.
 Noongar Recognition through an Act of Parliament
 Noongar Boodja Trust
 Noongar Land Estate
 Noongar Regional Corporations and Central Services Corporation
 Noongar Land Fund
 Access to Crown Land
 Co-operative and joint management of the Conservation Estate
 Noongar Housing Program
 Economic Participation
 Capital Works Program – Noongar cultural centre and office accommodation
 Community Development
 Noongar Standard Heritage Agreement
 Noongar Heritage Partnership Agreements

The result is that little of Australia remains unencumbered by Aboriginal interests. The map
following shows the areas of Australia remaining that have no Aboriginal rights or interest
as at 01 January 2023, as best as can be determined from the preceding maps.
 25 of 26

Privileges include the given right to charge fees to access many areas and to exclude non-
aborigines from many areas. Examples are:

The public must apply for Aboriginal permits to drive on many roads throughout Australia
that pass through Aboriginal lands. One example is the Great Central Road, a mostly
unsealed Australian outback highway that runs 1,126 km from Laverton in Western
Australia to Yulara in the Northern Territory (near Uluru/Ayers Rock). While such permits
are often free, they limit public access typically to a narrow corridor along the road,
sometimes no wider than 30 metres each side of the road. Importantly, these are roads
funded by the taxpayer. However, they are essentially private roads because the
governments that agreed to the Aboriginal claims over the land did not excise the roads
from the areas claimed.

Aboriginal groups charge fees to allow non-Aborigines to travel along some roads, and to
gain access to, and to camp at many places of interest throughout Australia. An example is
access to the Mitchell Plateau, called the Ngauwudu Road Zone pass. A five day pass in
2022 cost $50 per person. Every passenger of a vehicle needs to buy a pass. In this
example, the Ngauwudu Road Zone pass is additional to the National Parks pass that
everyone needs to access a National Park in Australia.

Many Aboriginal communities can be visited only by first obtaining a permit to visit. Many
can be accessed only to buy fuel and food, with driving through the settlement forbidden.
Indeed, there are many Aboriginal communities that are completely off-limits to non-
Aborigines. This privilege allows Aborigines to isolate themselves from modern influences.

Then there are increasing Aboriginal claims over coastal waters to which governments are
agreeing. Many of these grants prevent non-Aborigines from readily accessing these
coastal waters.

As at April 2023, the Federal Government has stated with respect to surface water in
Australia that the Commonwealth will spend $9.2 million to "consult and design an enduring
arrangement for First Nations peoples to own, access and manage water in Australia".

The model will be developed in collaboration with the Committee on Aboriginal Water
Interests, the Coalition of Peaks, the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and other
stakeholders.

While the Commonwealth cannot legislate water rights for Indigenous Australians because
it falls under state powers, it can bring state and territory governments together to establish
a nationally consistent framework for water governance.

The benefits available to Aborigines are vastly disproportionate to those available to any
other Australian.

Summary

After colonisation by a technologically superior people, the British, Australian society

changed and continues to change. Most people would argue the change has been for the
better. Many Aboriginal representatives are attempting to perpetuate divisions within the
Australian community by trying to set the Aborigine apart, both within the Constitution and
 26 of 26

otherwise. Australia is what it is today because of settlement by the British in 1788, not
because of the Aborigine.

Aborigines today have land rights and claim in various forms to about 78.6 percent of the
Australian mainland. Additionally, Aborigines are increasing their claims and rights to
coastal and surface waters. They receive funding from governments, mining royalties,
access agreements, and other benefactors that are disproportionately massive when
compared with that available to other people.

No attempt must be allowed that would divide Australian society into separate classes by
race, religion or by anything else. This applies especially to the Australian Constitution and
the laws deriving from it.

Activist judges have made rulings about Aborigines and Aboriginality based on
‘Progressive’ ideas. For example, instead of making judgements based strictly on the laws
existing at the time of British settlement, they have reinterpreted that law in the light of the
activist concepts of today. Judges have extrapolated judgements made in particular cases
to cases that are only vaguely related. These new laws discriminate in favour of Aborigines
and between Australians.

Each, and every, Australian has an equal voice to Government through their elected
representatives. There is no need or justification for any group within Australia to have
special, legal, privileges over and above those available to all.

The definition of Aboriginality is far too loose. People who are able to identify as Aborigines
today want to retain and build upon their already special and privileged treatment. They
want a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament that would advise Government on all
policies affecting Aborigines; that is, all policies because all Australians are affected to
some extent by all policies. Aboriginal activists state that the Voice would be followed by
moves towards a treaty, sovereignty and self-determination.

Such outcomes would destroy the unity of Australia, forever pitting Aborigines against all
other Australians.

The condition of Aborigines will improve only when they themselves decide to move from
adherence to traditional cultural beliefs and practices, to adopt Australian culture. Nothing
governments or anyone else alone can do will succeed. Aborigines must decide for
themselves to improve their situation and act accordingly, albeit with government
assistance.

We can act as intelligent beings, or suffer forever the consequences of our blinkered folly.

Lindsay Hackett
16 Cotton Tree Avenue Original: 02 March 2020
Macleay Island Qld 4184 Amendment 29: 29 April 2023