IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ABORIGINAL "ULURU STATEMENT" WILL SHATTER THE AUSTRALIA THAT THE OTHER 97 PERCENT OF US LOVE

This treatment has to be a "Work in Progress" because Aboriginal demands for changes to the Australian Constitution, including ownership of the whole of Australia, are contantly being clarified.

Is Scott "Hawaii" Morrison recklessly leading Australia into a second Battle for Australia over Aboriginal demands for ownership of the whole of Australia?

It was a very peaceful "invasion" when British Captain Arthur Phillip landed at Port Jackson on 26 January 1788 with a cargo of convicts, guards, and settlers; and no Aborigines were threatened or hurt.

WHAT ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE DEMANDING FROM THE OTHER 97 PERCENT OF AUSTRALIANS

Malcolm Turnbull established a Referendum Council in 2015. Composed of fourteen Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members, it was given a responsibility to advise the Australian government on how best to recognise Aboriginal Australians in the Australian Constitution. In 2017 the Council sponsored an Aboriginal "First Nations National Constitutional Convention" at Uluru in Central Australia. After six months of discussions at taxpayers' expense, 250 Aboriginal delegates gathered at Uluru to consider whether the Referendum Council's discussion paper on constitutional changes could satisfy Aboriginal expectations. This meeting of Aboriginal delegates at Uluru led to release of an "Uluru Statement from the Heart. SEE TEXT OF ULURU STATEMENT.

THE ULURU STATEMENT DEMANDS CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE THAT WILL PRODUCE ABORIGINAL OWNERSHIP OF THE HOMES AND BUSINESSES OF THE OTHER 97 PERCENT OF AUSTRALIANS

The Aboriginal delegates at Uluru firmly rejected any change to the Australian Constitution that only involved recognition that Aborigines had been present in Australia for as long as sixty thousand years before the British First Fleet landed convicts and settlers at Sydney Cove in 1788. In the "Uluru Statement", Aboriginal delegates demanded "structural change" to Australia and "substantive constitutional change" which recognised that "ancient sovereignty" exercised by many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes* over the whole of Australia had not been extinguished by British settlement in 1788 and still persisted over the whole of Australia. "Sovereignty" in this demand equates to Aboriginal ownership of the whole of Australia, including land that the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and States had alienated as freehold to the other 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry. It follows irresistibly that implementation of this Aboriginal demand for constitutional change would strip ownership of the land on which their homes and businesses are built from the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestors and place that ownership in the hands of Australian Aborigines. * Those tribes are now described in the Uluru Statement as "First Nations".

Implementation of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement of 2017, as expanded and significantly refined by the Referendun Council in its Final Report, would produce change or changes to the Australian Constitution that would result in disintegration of Australia into hundreds of sovereign Aboriginal "First Nation" enclaves, and could raise serious issues of property ownership for the 97 percent of Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry. My detailed comments on proposals for constitutional change in the Referendum Council Final Report can be viewed below.

The Uluru Statement actually suggests that proposed recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty over the whole of Australia would be qualified by it co-existing with the Crown; but the Crown has alienated its ownership of the freehold property on which millions of Australian homes and businesses are located. So implementation of Aboriginal sovereignty over the whole of Australia by constitutional change, as demanded by the Uluru Statement, would mean that hundreds of Aboriginal "First Nations" would become sole owners of all freehold land across Australia including the homes and businesses built on that freehold land.

Thoughtful Australians need to ask themselves what the High Court of Australia, which turned Australian property law on its head by inventing the concept of Aboriginal Native Title in Mabo v. Queensland (1992), would make of these constitutional changes demanded by Australian Aborigines in both the Uluru Statement and the Final Report of the Referendum Council. The six majority judges in Mabo v. Queensland (1992) threw the legal book out of the window and invented a concept of Aboriginal Native Title that was unknown to the common law. Two of the judges (Deane and Gaudron JJ.) admitted that their judgments were influenced by "a national legacy of utterable shame" at the dispossession of Australian Aborigines by British settlement in 1788. This invention by judges totally changed the law in relation to ownership of land in Australia as well as the Torres Strait islands. As a result of this judgment, over one third of Australia, including large areas of the Australian coast and national parks, have been converted from Crown land to Aboriginal ownership. If any part of the Uluru Statement and the FInal Report of the Referendum Council were to be implemented in the Australian Constitution, no matter how apparently innocent the language might appear, it is frightening to think what activist judges might do to ownership of property by Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry.

Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison (above) has acceded to the demand from Aboriginal Australians to recognise the many hundreds of tribes inhabiting Terra Australis (now Australia) in 1788 as being "First Nations" that retained sovereignty over vast areas of Australia. This recognition of Aboriginal "First Nations" is viewed in the Uluru Statement as the first step towards granting hundreds of Aboriginal "First Nations" ownership of much of Australia. So Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is leading a charge that threatens the livestyles and property ownership of the 97 percent of Australians who do not have Aboriginal ancestry.

So a crucial first step in this massive change to the lifestyles of the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry is recognition by the Australian government that the many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia when the First Fleet landed at Port Jackson in 1788 were not actually Aboriginal tribes but "First Nations". Scott "Hawaii" Morrison generously acceded to this Aboriginal demand in his broadcast to Australia on New Year's Day 2021. After telling Australians that he had changed their National Anthem without first consulting them, the prime minister went on to acknowledge his government's recognition that the hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia in 1788 were no longer to be called "First People" or "First Australians, but henceforth would be accepted by his government as having the status of Aboriginal "First Nations".

Australians who are familiar with the terms of the Uluru Statement could reasonably draw a conclusion from Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's acknowledgment of Aboriginal "First Nations" that he was foreshadowing implementation of part or all of the very controversial Aboriginal Uluru Statement.

The demand for Aboriginal sovereignty over the whole of Australia appears to have been too much of a hot potato for the Referendum Council to mention in its Final Report; but it did not need to mention it. Having invented Aboriginal Native Title in Mabo, I cannot see the High Court having any problem with drawing on any proposed changes to the Australian Constitution demanded by Australian Aborigines as justification for it affirming Aboriginal sovereignty over land held by the 97 percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry.

The Referendum Council expands and refines Aboriginal demands in the Uluru Statement

Expanding upon the slightly less controversial Aboriginal demands contained in the "Uluru Statement", the Referendum Council raised three significant and very controversial proposals for consideration by the Australian people and parliament in its Final Report:

1. "A constitutionally entrenched (Aboriginal) 'Voice to Parliament' was a strongly supported option...as a way by which the right to self-determination could be achieved."

Minister for Indigenous Affairs Ken Wyatt MP wearing traditional Aboriginal animal cloak already performs the role of an Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament".

A "constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament" was a strongly supported option at Uluru. It was proposed that the Voice's representation "be drawn from a (new) Assembly of First Nations*, which could be established through a series of treaties among (First) Nations". The Voice to Parliament should be designed to "support and promote a treaty-making process" between Australian governments and Aboriginal "First Nations"; and this would also promote the achievement of (Aboriginal) self-determination (at page 30). The Voice to Parliament could also represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples internationally (page 31);* Another new massively expensive body for the Australian taxpayer to fund.

No one appears to have told the Aboriginal Uluru delegates that treaties recognised by international law are only possible between countries such as those that are members of the United Nations. The Australian and State governments cannot enter into treaties with their own citizens that are recognised by international law. Agreements betwen First Nation groups are possible, but they will not be treaties recognised by international law.

The proposed Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament" and the associated "Assembly of First Nations" are unjustified, massively expensive, and outrageous burdens to be placed on long-suffering Australian Taxpayers. Aborigines who are demanding a "Voice to Parliament" already have a voice to parliament in Minister for Indigenous Affairs Ken Wyatt MP and the four other Federal MPs who claim Aboriginal ancestry.

The proposed Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament" effectively replaces ATSIC which was abolished by the Howard government. Wikipedia attributes the abolition to serious scandals, corruption, and embezzlement of funds intended for Aboriginal communities. The" Voice" will offer Aboriginal Australians thousands of well-paid, easy jobs, with massive opportunities to take tax-payer funded overseas junkets if the demand for the "Voice" to "represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples internationally" is implemented by the Australian government. Apart from the totally unnecessary cost burden to Australian taxpayers,this proposal would create an intolerable situation of Australia speaking to the world with not one voice but two: the Australian Government voice and the Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament".

Entrenchment of the "The Voice to Parliament" in the Australian Constitution appears to be intended to prevent Federal Parliement abolishing "The Voice" in the same way that ATSIC was abolished as serious scandals and corruption were exposed.

The proposal for such a "Voice to Parliament” clearly has the potential to massively lengthen consideration of many issues by the Australian Parliament. The Morrison government is aware of all these issues including the massive cost to taxpayers of this unnecessary and indulgent "Voice", but has given cabinet approval for a "Voice" that government and parliament would be obliged to consult.

2. "Treaties" between Aboriginal "First Nations" (actually the present-day descendants of Aboriginal tribes that inhabited Australia in 1788) and Federal and State governments.

It is proposed that an Aboriginal "Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process" between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples who view themselves as "First Nations" and the Australian government. The pursuit of a "national framework" Treaty together with "regional and local treaties" with Aboriginal clans was strongly supported at Uluru. "Treaty was seen as a pathway to recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty (over Australia) and for achieving future meaningful reform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve Aboriginal self-determination, autonomy, and self-government" (at pages 30-31); and

The time is long overdue for cowardly politicians to tell deluded Aboriginal Australians that the time for genuine treaties between present-day descendants of Aboriginal tribes that inhabited Terra Australis (now Australia) and the Federal government is long past. It probably died for Aboriginal Australians living in an area of Australia that became a British colony between 1788 and 1900; but the time for treaties certainly died with Federation in 1901 when every Aborigine and every person of Aboriginal descent became a citizen of Australia. Perhaps drawing on the Waitangi Treaty 1840 in New Zealand and the twenty-nine treaties entered into between the United States government and American Indian tribes between 1778 (Delawares) and 1868 (Treaty with the Sioux Confederation at Fort Laramie), Aboriginal citizens of Australia appear to believe that it is possible for them to enter into internationally recognised treaties with their own Australian Federal government. It cannot happen either at Federal or State level because the government of a country cannot enter into a treaty recognised by international law with an identifiable group of its own citizens. Even less possible is such a treaty between a state or provincial government with its own citizens.

The treaty positions in New Zealand and the United States were totally different to the Aboriginal position in Australia today. The Maori and American Indians were not citizens of New Zealand or the United States when their chiefs signed treaties. The Waitangi Treaty was an attempt to halt warfare between British colonists and Maori chiefs defending their own sovereign homelands. The Maori chiefs agreed in the Waitangi Treaty to become citizens living under the British Crown. The American Indian chiefs agreed to halt warfare with the United States and to their people becoming citizens of the United States when each of those twenty-nine treaties was signed. Aboriginal Australians are already citizens of Australia, and consequently, no Australian government at Federal or State level can enter into treaties with them that are recognised by international law.

In 1988, Prime Minister Bob Hawke attended the taxpayer-funded annual Barunga Aboriginal Festival in the Northern Territory. Aboriginal representatives at Barunga presented Hawke with the Barunga Statement which demanded a treaty between Aboriginal Australians and the Australian Federal government. Prime Minister Hawke signed the Barunga Statement and promised "a treaty within the life of this parliament". When he returned to Canberra, Bob Hawke discovered that he could not deliver on his pledge made at Barunga because international law does not recognise as treaties agreements between the government of a country and any group of its own citizens. Hawke was told that international law only recognises as treaties formal documents drawn up between sovereign countries. A formal treaty with Aboriginal Australians would have required dividing Australia by creating a new country inside Australia, perhaps the Northern Territory, and giving this new Aboriginal country sovereign status under international law. It would have destroyed the Australia loved by the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry. It would also have destroyed the Hawke government.

Bob Hawke compromised by creating the elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1990, but ATSIC was stricken with allegations of scandal, embezzlement, and corruption and was finally abolished by Prime Minister John Howard in 2004.

In a bizarre development in 2019, the Victorian Andrews Government announced that it would set up a First People's Assembly to prepare for "treaty" negotiations with Aboriginal sovereign "First Nations" in the State of Victoria. One can only assume that "sovereign First Nations" are another way to describe citizens of Victorian who are descendants of Aboriginal tribes that inhabited Terra Australis in 1788. It appears to have escaped the attention of Victoria's clown prince of bumblers Daniel Andrews that an Australian State has no power to enter into a treaty of the kind recognised by international law. States or provinces of a country cannot enter into treaties, only countries eligible for membership of the United Nations can enter into treaties recognised by international law. If Andrews knows this, then he should apologise to Victorian Aboriginal citizens for deceiving them into thinking his government can enter into bona fide treaties with them. Andrews can enter into agreements with Aboriginal citizens of Victoria, but not treaties recognised by international law.

JKB note: The Referendum Council mentioned "recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty" without defining the extent of that claim; but those of us who have read the Uluru Statement know that the claim was for Aboriginal sovereignty over Australia i.e. ownership of the whole of Australia.

3. Establishment of a "Truth-telling Commission" suggests it will be a witch-hunt intended to implant consciousness of suggested white guilt and justify massive monetary reparations

"The need for the truth to be told as part of the process of reform" emerged at Uluru. "The true history of (the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal people) must be told: the genocides, the massacres, the wars and the ongoing injustices and discrimination" (at page 32).

"A Truth Commission could be established as part of any reform, for example, prior to constitutional reform or as part of a Treaty negotiation and reparations to Aboriginal people" (at pages 31 and 32).

Words and phrases such as "invasion" *, dispossession, genocide, massacre, stolen land, oppression, and discrimination have been weaponised and heavily exaggerated by Aboriginal activists to instil guilt in the 97 percent of Australian who have no Aboriginal ancestry and to condition them to accept the destruction of the Australia that they love if the Aboriginal demands set out in and arising from the Uluru Statement are implemented. Impressionable children in the classroom are especially targeted for instilling guilt if they are not Aboriginal. Suicide rates in Australia are constantly rising, especially among young people**, and teachers do not appear to be concerned that instilling guilt could predispose children with other anxieties towards suicide.

* "Invasion" refers to the peaceful British landing at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 - see painting below; ** See: 'Causes of Death’, 27 Sep 2017, Australian Bureau of Statistics, http://www.abs.gov.au/Causes-of-Death.

Use of the word "genocide" is totally unprincipled rhetoric because there is no evidence that any colonial government ever waged war on Aboriginal people or sought to eliminate them. In fact, all colonial governments in Australia were forbidden by the British Colonial Office to engage in warlike actions against Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal Professor Michael Dodson has warned the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry that reconciliation will be costly.

Aboriginal Professor Michael Dodson AM warns Australians that reconciliation will come at a cost.

Australian taxpayers already contribute over 30,000,000,000 dollars every year at Federal and State levels solely to support and enhance the well-being of Australian Aborigines. This massive sum is in addition to the welfare benefits that every Australian already enjoys, including Aborigines. Aboriginal Australians are now demanding massive financial compensation when the Uluru Statement is implemented.

In an address to the Australian Catholic University on 24 February 2021, Northern Territory treaty commissioner Professor Michael Dodson appeared to be making it very clear to the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry that the minimum figure of $30,000,000,000 sourced from Australian taxpayers and allocated every year by Federal and State governments solely for the well-being of Aboriginal Australians is not enough to achieve reconciliation. British colonisation of Australia “injured and harmed” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies he said “and just recompense is owed” by the 97 percent of Australian taxpayers who lack any Aboriginal ancestry. He did not acknowledge that over 30 percent of Australia had already been transferred to Aboriginal ownership following the invention of the concept of Native Title by the High Court in Mabo v. Queensland (1992).

Professor Dodson also went on to say: “there has to be a recognition and acceptance by governments of the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Peoples and the distinctive rights and special status based on prior occupation that flow from that”.

In other words, Professor Dodson is pointing out that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were already living in Australia at the time of British settlement in 1788, and consequently, must be granted a special higher status in Australia than the 97 percent who have no Aboriginal ancestors.

Professor Dodson called for a national treaty to achieve these Aboriginal demands of the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry.

Implementation of the Referendum Council's final verson of Uluru demands by the Australian government would produce disintegration of Australia into many hundreds of Aboriginal "First Nations" enclaves, and is likely to produce massive racial hostilities as millions of Australians fight back to defend their homes and businesses from unearned Aboriginal acquisition. These outrageous claims raised in the Uluru Statement, and expanded and refined by Malcolm Turnbull's Referendum Council, rest for their success on the fostering of a sense of guilt in the 97 percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry for the displacement of Aborigines from their hunting grounds by peaceful British settlers landing at Sydney in 1788.

Why is this happening almost two hundred and fifty years after those British settlers landed peacefully on the shore of Port Jackson in 1788?

A large part of the answer appears to be the existence of an Aboriginal industry that employs thousands of Australians, many of them non-Aboriginal, and whose comfortable and well paid jobs depend upon maintaining Aboriginal disadvantage indefinitely. If we had a prime minister with any sense he would be calling on highly respected Aboriginal woman Jacinta Price (see image below) for answers to continuing Aboriginal disadvantage, and I suspect that she would tell him that one crucial answer would be ensuring that all Australian Aborigines who want education and paid work receive it, instead of allowing Aboriginal dependence on welfare to continue indefinitely. As a qualified criminologist, as well as a lawyer and historian, I can assert with confidence that paid work produces a tie to community and reduces crime and social problems. Welfare payments do not produce any such tie.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is deputy mayor of Alice Springs and a Warlpiri/Celtic woman.

Immediately following the prime minister's announcement that he had unilaterally changed the wording of Australia's national anthem, an Aboriginal academic announced on television that the changed wording of the National Anthem, and the prime minister's recognition that the many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes living in Australia in 1788 were "First Nations", was "a first step" towards national implementation of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement.

Our weak excuse for a prime minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is dodging acknowledgment that these measures demanded in the Uluru Statement will hurt the 97 percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry.

Australians should be very cautious about any proposals from politicians that they should accept changes to the Australian Constitution that would grant Aboriginal Australians special status or rights that would not be available to the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry. Any such changes would divide Australians into two classes and that appears to be one purpose of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement. Even apparently harmless changes to the Australian Constitution could provide activist judges with grounds to reduce the status of non-Aboriginal Australians to second class citizens in their own country.

Although very little real history is taught in many schools today, thanks to the successful promotion by UNESCO of the fluffy Study of Society and the Environment (SOSE) as a replacement for traditional history and geography studies, these extrordinary Aboriginal demands need to be viewed in the historical context of what really happened when and after the First Fleet landed at Sydney Cove in 1788.

THE FOUNDING OF AUSTRALIA IN 1788

Days have passed and this so-called "invasion" has produced no hostility between British settlers and Aborigines. The only hostility will occur when an Aborigine wounds Captain Phillip with a thrown spear. Phillip reponded by ordering no retaliation against the Aborigine who wounded him.

ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ENJOY ALL THE BENEFITS OPEN TO EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA - AND THOSE BENEFITS DRAW MIGRANTS FROM EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD.

In 1787 the British government decided to establish a colony on the eastern coast of the great southern continent described on many European maps as Terra Australis (Latin for "South Land") which had been claimed for Britain by Captain Cook in 1770. The British Secretary of State, Lord Sydney, accepted Captain Cook's recommendation of Botany Bay as the site for the new British settlement and chose Captain Arthur Phillip of the Royal Navy to lead what is now called the "First Fleet" which comprised two Royal Navy ships, three store ships, and six convict transports.  When the settlement was established at Botany Bay, Captain Phillip would be the first governor of the new colony. The presence of women and children in the First Fleet indicates very clearly that a need for military action at Botany Bay was not contemplated by the British government.

Prior to his departure for Botany Bay in 1787, Phillip received his Instructions (composed by Lord Sydney) from King George III. The Instructions included Phillip's Commission as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the new colony to be called New South Wales. The Instructions advised Phillip about managing the convicts, granting and cultivating the land, and exploring Terra Australis. The Aborigines' lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged:

"You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations. It is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence."

There can be no doubt that many Aborigines suffered serious hardships from contact with British settlement in 1788. They lost access to their tribal hunting and food gathering lands. As British settlement extended further from Port Jackson, friction often developed between white settlers and Aborigines. From time to time, acts of serious violence occurred which were totally unsanctioned by the Colonial government in Sydney. Those governments in Sydney permitted no warfare against Aboriginal people of the kind that marred the history of relations between United States governments and American Indians.

To acknowledge historical reality, we must acknowledge that Terra Australis (now Australia) would have fallen under French or German colonial rule if the British had not established the first European settlement in 1788. Australian Aborigines would almost certainly have lived under French rule if Admiral Jean-François de Galaup, comte de Laperouse (1741–88) had arrived with his two ships at Botany Bay one week earlier. Laperouse landed on the northern shore of Botany Bay west of Bare Island on 26 January 1788. Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet had arrived in Botany Bay a few days earlier. Laperouse did not meet Captain Phillip who had gone north in small boats to explore the suitability of what we know as Sydney Harbour for the first British settlement. Laperouse was under instructions from King Louis XVI that included establishing French bases in the Pacific, and Terra Australis (now Australia) was to be investigated for possible establishment of French bases. Finding the British already established at Botany Bay, Laperouse sailed on north. His two ships disappeared off the coast of New Guinea, never to be seen again, so we will never know whether he would have wanted to claim any part of Australia north of Botany Bay for French settlement.

LEFT: Admiral Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de Laperouse (1741–88) receives his instructions from King Louis XVI of France to carry out exploration of the South Pacific. Those instructions included searching for suitable locations for French military bases in the South Pacific, and in particular, Terra Australis (now Australia); RIGHT: Admiral Compte de Laperouse.

One year after the visit by Laperouse, the French Revolution occurred and any French settlements in Australia would have had the gulilotine established for efficient execution of troublemakers during the terror that engulfed France during the course of the revolution. The French Revolution was followed in France by Napoleon Bonaparte who encouraged his troops to murder, rape, and pillage in every new country invaded by France. If the British or French had not been first to establish colonies in Australia, the Germans would almost certainly have done so. The German colonies in Africa were notorious for cruel and genocidal treatment of the native peoples. Fortunately, for Australian Aborigines, the Germans did not get closer to Australia than establishing the colony of German New Guinea.

French and Germans colonists did not have explicit instructions from their governments to treat native people in their colonies with kindness, whereas Captain Phillip had explicit instructions from Britain to treat the native people in the newly founded colony of New South Wales with kindness. When wounded by a thrown Aboriginal spear on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour, Phillip ordered that there be no retaliation against the Aborigine who threw the spear.

White settlers found on their arrival in Australia a largely nomadic people numbering somewhere between 350,000 and perhaps one million. They found no Aboriginal towns or villages; no buildings or fences; no roads; no knowledge of agriculture; no knowledge of writing; and no ability to create clothes, to build a proper house for shelter, or create a bow and arrow to hunt for food. Over 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupation of what was then called on European maps "Terra Australis", Aboriginal technology had not developed past the use of Stone Age tools such as stone axes and knives. See image below. There was no form of government of Aboriginal tribes in the sense that English-speaking countries know it. Older initiated men who were held in high esteem provided advice and leadership in tribal matters.

The image depicts a typical crudely-fashioned stone knife of the type in use by Aborigines at the time of British settlemnt in 1788.

It was not unusual for Australians educated in the 1940s and 1950s to be told that life in Aboriginal tribes was often harsh, especially for women and young girls. Political correctness now permits only Aboriginal women to mention these matters.

British settlement brought to Terra Australis parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and equality before the law. Every Australian enjoys access to education, health care, and welfare support from the cradle to the grave. All of these things are enjoyed by every Australian including Aborigines and those with Aboriginal ancestry. British settlement also brought to Australia all the advantages of one of the world's great civilisations, including science, medicine, technology, art, literature, music, animal husbandry, and agriculture.

Australian Aborigines and those with Aboriginal ancestry can enjoy not only these benefits of Western civilisation, but also special privileges not available to the ninety-seven percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry. Those privileges included preferment in public service employment, large private companies, and education, especially tertiary education. In addition to the benefits enjoyed by all Australians, governments at Federal and State levels spend more than 30 billion dollars each year solely to advance the well-being of Aboriginal Australians. There can be no doubt that Australians with Aboriginal ancestry have won extraordinary benefits from British settlement in 1788.

Hatred of British settlement in 1788 and Australians who are not Aboriginal is a poor foundation for Australia's future

The hatred proclaimed by so many Aborigines and people of Aboriginal descent for Australia, white Australians, and British settlement in 1788, must seem strange to the millions of people in other parts of the world who long to migrate to Australia. Whether living in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, or South America, they reject the ridiculous claims by some Aborigional activists that Australians are racist. Speak to migrants from those countries and they will almost certainly tell you that they cannot understand the hatred to be seen on the faces of some Aboriginal Australians who march on so-called"'Invasion" days, and call out "F..k Australia" and demand that Australia be "burnt to the ground". The never-ending allegations of racism directed at Australia and white Australians by Aboriginal activists and their leftist supporters, with very little or no proof to support these allegations, are clear evidence that claims of racism have been weaponised to bully the other 97 percent of Australians into submitting to Aboriginal demands for unearned benefits and privileges available only to them. The effectiveness of this appalling tactic can be seen in the subjecting of Collingwood football club president Eddie McGuire to a ridiculous racism witch-hunt that eventually compelled him to resign after decades of service to that club and his community

To take a more objective viewpoint regarding present-day Australia, we can turn to the prestigious Fraser Institute's annual report called the "Human Freedom Index" which in 2020 listed Australia at number 5 for its "Global measurement of personal, civil, and economic freedom". To take another objective viewpoint, we could turn to the distinguished British historian and social analyst Paul Johnson who, after his visit to Australia in the 1990s, concluded: 

"The development of Australia rates as one of mankind's great achievements. With five years to go before the double century, one of the most advanced and prosperous societies on earth has been created. It is an achievement with few parallels in the history of human adventure. In the sixties the phrase "the lucky country" was coined. In fact there was little luck. Nothing but hard sweat and peril - in the process whereby, for instance, poor men pushed broad-wheeled barrows hundreds of miles along a burning coastline to open up the Australian goldfields. There are far more tales of heroism and sacrifices in the penetration of the Australian outback than in the whole history of the American Far West".

The so-called Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (see below) include in their fancied claims of unjust treatment of Aboriginal Australians that Aboriginal wealth was stolen by British settlement in 1788. How wealth could possibly be stolen from nomadic hunter-gathers is convenienty ignored when preaching hatred. One could almost guarantee that many of these haters of present-day Australia benefit from taxpayer-funded welfare payments and free health care.

These so-called "Warriors" appear to want wealth that did not exist in 1788 handed over to them so that they do not have to work themselves in the way that migrants worked who came with little in their pockets from war-ravaged Europe after 1945. The five Australians of Aboriginal descent in the Australian Parliament did not have these high offices simply handed to them. They worked to achieve high office in ways that would probably be impossible for the "Warriors" to understand or match.

These so-called "Warriors" ignore the fact that since the High Court invented the concept of Aboriginal Native Title in Mabo v. Queensland (1992), more than one third of the Australian land mass and large sections of Australia's coastline have been transferred to Aboriginal Native Title owners.Those transfers have included vast areas of land rich in mineral wealth. The Uluru Statement now demands transfer of the rest of Australia to Aboriginal sovereignty, i.e. ownership.

IRRATIONAL VOICES OF HATRED FOR AUSTRALIA

We are entitled to ponder how many of the protesters seen below live off generous welfare benefits provided by Australians who actually work.

LEFT: So-called "Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance" declare war on the Australians who provide them with their welfare benefits; CENTRE: This is what the Uluru Statement is all about, namely, the Aboriginal demand for ownership of the whole of the Australian land mass; RIGHT: Aboriginal protesters sit down across a major Melbourne city intersection to block people who actually work returning to their homes at the end of the day.

From whence did this concept of Aboriginal "First Nations" come?

Many Aboriginal Australians appear to demand acceptance of "First Nations", rather than "First People" or "First Australians", as a description of the many hundreds of widely scattered Aboriginal tribes that inhabited Terra Australis (now Australia) when the First Fleet landed at Sydney Cove in Port Jackson on 26 January 1788. As mentioned above, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison acceded to that Aboriginal demand on New Year's Day 2021 and so encouraged Aboriginal expectations that his government would implement all Aboriginal demands in the Uluru Statement, including recognition of Aboriginal ownership of the whole of Australia.

It is believed that the Aboriginal population of Australia at the time of first British settlement in January 1788 may have numbered anywhere between 350,000 and 750,000, and that number is estimated to have been divided into at least 500 separate tribes without any central government or common language. We are told that the first British settlers found no Aboriginal towns or villages; no houses, buildings, or fenced animal enclosures; no roads or constructed paths; no knowledge of agriculture; no knowledge of writing; and no ability to create clothes, to build a proper house for shelter, or create a bow and arrow to hunt for food. There was no form of government of tribes in the sense that English-speaking countries know it. Aboriginal tribes did not have chiefs to lead them. Older initiated men who were held in high esteem provided advice and leadership in tribal matters.

Although some Australians might find it difficult to view the Aboriginal people shown in the images below as members of a "First Nation", there is no technical reason for this description to be denied to them. However, it needs to be made very clear that despite describing themselves as "First Nations", Aboriginal tribes that existed in 1788 and their identifiable descendants do not have the status of sovereign states or countries that would be eligible to join the United Nations.

Representative images of members of Aboriginal "First Nations" as they would probably have appeared to members of the First Fleet in 1788.

LEFT: Aboriginal man prepares to throw spear; MIDDLE LEFT: Aboriginal men presented as appearing in traditional ceremonial attire; the dancers would normally wear no clothes; MIDDLE RIGHT: Stone axe probably represents the peak of Aboriginal technology in 1788; RIGHT: Aboriginal communal living as it would probably have appeared to white settlers in 1788; FAR RIGHT: Over 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupancy of Australia, making fire was achieved by rubbing sticks together to create friction. The Australian Aborigines did not have cities, towns, or traditional villages. The addition of items of clothing in two photographs above may be a concession to present-day sensibilities. It appears that at the time of British settlement in 1788 Aboriginal men wore only a girdle from which items such as axes and boomerangs could be hung.

The adoption of the term "First Nations" in the Uluru Statement to describe the many hundreds of widely scattered and largely nomadic Aboriginal tribes that inhabited Australia when the First Fleet landed at Port Jackson in 1788 appears to be an attempt by those who produced the Uluru Statement to apply the very different situation of the Indian tribes of North America to Australia as it was in 1788.

Between 1778 (Treaty with the Delaware Nation) and 1868 (Treaty with the Sioux Nation), the government of the United States entered into twenty-nine treaties with American Indian nations to end "all war between the parties" to the treaties. By these treaties, the Indian nations agreed to cease warfare and become part of the United States of America. The 1868 Fort Laramie Sioux Nation Treaty ended a state of war between the Sioux Nation and the US government. In the nineteenth Century, the Sioux Nation numbered as many as 150,000 and spread from Canada to South Dakota.

The situation with Australian Aborigines at the time of the First Fleet in 1788 is totally different. The colonial governments in Australia were expressly forbidden by Brtain's Colonial Office to make war on the Aboriginal peoples. For their part, the Aboriginal people of Australia did not initiate any wars against the Colonial governments of Australia. This rule could not prevent friction breaking out between white settlers and Aboriginal people on the frontiers, but that friction was not condoned by Colonial governments. The murder of Aborigines at Myall Creek in outback New South Wales in 1838 by a group of white stockmen led to the Colonial government charging and hanging seven of the white stockmen involved.

As explained above, it is not possible for an Australian Federal or State government to enter into a treaty recognised by international law with a group of Aboriginal citizens of Australia even if they choose to describe themselves as a "First Nation".

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison cannot be allowed to introduce any changes to the Australian Constitution that may threaten the lifestyles and property of Australians who do not have Aboriginal ancestry

The first Battle for Australia ended following the defeat of Japanese invaders on the Kokoda Track in 1942 and the expulsion of Japanese troops from Australia's Territory of Papua in 1943. We never thought that we would experience another Battle for Australia in our liftimes; but we were wrong. Another Battle for Australia is looming for Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry, and Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison appears to be leading a charge that threatens the livestyles and property of Australians who do not have Aboriginal ancestry.

It is absoutely crucial for Australians without any Aboriginal ancestry to read both the original Uluru Statement and expanded proposals from that Statement in the Referendum Council's Final Report to learn their possible future under a Scott "Hawaii" Morrison government that implements any part of these Aboriginal demands by means of changes to the Australian Constitution. Aboriginal demands for changes to the Australian Constitution may appear superficially non-threatening, but Australians should always remember that activist judges of Australia's High Court invented the concept of Native Title in the Mabo case and that has already transferred over 30 percent of Australia to Aboriginal ownership.

 

 

BACK