This article appeared in a September issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to post it here.
On Monday morning (16 September), voting began to elect the new ‘First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria‘. This ‘voice for Aboriginal communities’ seeks to represent all ‘self-identifying’ Victorian aboriginals in a process which will establish a ‘treaty or treaties’ with the Victorian State Government.
The election will decide 21 of 32 ‘gender-balanced’ seats on the new Assembly, with the remaining 11 set aside for a kind of aboriginal House of Lords, appointed (or ‘self-determined’) by a network of ‘Traditional Owner Groups’ or ‘Aboriginal Corporations‘.
The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) has produced a video about a First Persons Assembly (as in Victoria) and a separate representative body for Australians of Aboriginal Ancestry written into the constitution. The IPA must be commended for injecting some sanity into the political discourse about people of Aboriginal Ancestry and their needs.
From time out of mind groups of people have been everywhere on the move. Groups settled and sometimes merged with other groups to form a new independent people or nation which endured as long as the people had the cultural confidence and strength to do so. So has been the case of with Australia. The arrival of the First Fleet heralded the origination of a new independent country into which the Aboriginals (the British name for the many sparse nomadic tribes) would naturally merged. The new incorporation of people, whatever their background, is now known as Australia – Australia as distinct from a mass of land between geographical coordinates. It exists under one form of government, law and justice that is applicable to all. The rights and duties of citizenship extend to all whatever their background. There is no other system, however one wants to conceive it. One people under one flag as a symbol.
The High Court Mabo Judgement which recognised the ownership of the Murray Islands by the Meriam people was an example of judicial activism driven by a political purpose. The dissenting High Court judge Justice Dawson explained in his judgement why the Mabo Judgement was not based on or followed the established law. The Meriam people’s ownership of the Murray Islands, for which there was a strong commonsense case, could have been established without recourse to the High Court of Australia. Even if the judgement’s reasoning established that the Meriam people owned their islands, there was no logical or analogical or substantial basis for applying the same reasoning to the continent of Australia. None, except the political motivation, and the political objective. The politics wound up to fever pitch by the interested parties rammed the Native Title Act through parliament. Another powerful front for the subversion of Australia had been opened up.
The Native Title Act is the foundation of a far advanced plan to establish a system of apartheid in Australia – an apartheid that sets up a minority superior class to whom great expanses of the continent will be given and who will be the pensioners on the soldier ants who do all the work and produce all the wealth.
Political prudence aims at ‘combining the principles of original justice with the infinite variety of human concerns.’