To The Australian As a graduate of the University of Melbourne, I am outraged that Duncan Maskell, the present vice-chancellor, has wrongfully dishonoured the achievements of the university since its foundation ("Lessons of Garma shape the future", 14/8). His claim that the university's "history pales into insignificance compared with the thousands of years of history and culture" of Aboriginals, put forward without any substantiating evidence, is sentimental and populist rhetoric. The university has a distinguished history of achievement by its scholars since its foundation, including discoveries of worldwide importance. Moreover, its history extends back through the European university tradition to the learning centres of the ancient world, Egyptian, Greek and Roman. I doubt that the Stone Age hunter-and-gatherer culture of the Aboriginals achieved anything remotely comparable in its long occupation of this continent. Maskell shows no awareness of the powerful case that has been brought against Aboriginal constitutional recognition by a number of our leading intellectuals. Has he read Keith Windschuttle's books, for instance?
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian Labor senator Pat Dodson is the latest Aboriginal leader to damage his cause ("Leaders fear loss of 'Anglo imprint'", 10-11/8). Insulting us by claiming erroneously that "Australia has very little to celebrate in its own right" apart from democracy is amazingly foolish. Has Dodson forgotten the heroism of the early explorers, the industry of the pioneers, the Anzac spirit and the proud record of our men and women at war, the dedicated leadership that led to Federation, the planting of churches across the continent, the works of our artists from Elioth Gruner and Norman Lindsay to Wlliam Dargie and John Brack, our literary tradition that runs from Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson to Patrick White and Martin Boyd? He is misleading to complain about "the Anglo-Celtic imprint on this nation". Australia really is an Anglo-Celtic nation. As for his feigned blindness to the reasons for Australians' fear of Aboriginal constitutional recognition, it is as reprehensible as his claim that there has been a longstanding failure of magnanimity towards Aboriginals. The reverse is the truth.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Anthony Albanese is being unrealistic on Aboriginal affairs ("Albanese in Indigenous 'voice' push", 3/8). The "gap" in living conditions between Aboriginals and the rest of us is unlikely to be closed, because of the lower intellectual capacities of Aboriginals as a group. Facing realities of ethnic differences is scientific; not facing them is superstitious and political opportunism. Asserting that "we are all diminished" if the Constitution is not invaded to satisfy selfish demands from "indigenous" leaders is just hot air, as is the belligerence shown towards the Constitution by an Aboriginal leader at the current Garma festival. As for any manufactured "bipartisanship" among the major political parties, that won't alter the resistance by ordinary Australians to a policy of national suicide. Ken Wyatt should go further than warn of problems if a referendum fails. He should admit that this particular campaign is a dead duck with the punters.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian David Hind asks of Australians generally (9/8): "What are we afraid of?" Why the opposition to Aboriginal constitutional recognition? Well, immediately I'm afraid of the damage such a move would do to the Constitution, which currently treats all of us on equal terms. I'm worried about the abandonment of ethical principle involved. Also, I don't welcome the prospect of unelected judges of the High Court being given more power at the expense of parliament, especially when I consider the court's track record from Mabo until its latest damage to free speech. Finally, I fear that foolish change of our political order could lead to a quasi-Marxist tyranny here and/or the setting up of an Aboriginal nation (thanks to the extension of land rights legislation) which might invite China to become its ally. I like the Australia that my ancestors established here and I want to pass it on to my descendants.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Age Anthony Albanese is being unrealistic on Aboriginal affairs ("Albanese in Indigenous 'voice' push", 3/8). The "gap" in living conditions between Aboriginals and the rest of us is unlikely to be closed, because of the lower intellectual capacities of Aboriginals as a group. Facing realities of ethnic differences is scientific; not facing them is superstitious and political opportunism. Asserting that "we are all diminished" if the Constitution is not invaded to satisfy selfish demands from "indigenous" leaders is just hot air, as is the belligerence shown towards the Constitution by an Aboriginal leader at the current Garma festival. As for any manufactured "bipartisanship" among the major political parties, that won't alter the resistance by ordinary Australians to a policy of national suicide. Ken Wyatt should go further than warn of problems if a referendum fails. He should admit that this particular campaign is a dead duck with the punters.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
That’s it; we can see Them really getting down to the democratic spirit off constitutional change, as expressed in the indigenous referendum, the latest gee-whiz thing of our new class elites. Look, let these folks speak for themselves, because, I am what, just a deplorable voter, only deserving to be thrown in the sea:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/fix-it-or-well-throw-constitution-into-sea-galarrwuy-yunupingu/news-story/457098fca760d750c1235dd029ef9964
“One of Australia’s most respected Aboriginal leaders, Galarrwuy -Yunupingu, has made what he ¬describes as a final demand for substantive constitutional reforms, threatening that the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land will throw the nation’s founding document into the sea if change does not come soon. In a strident speech to open the Garma festival on Aboriginal land in the far northeast corner of the Northern Territory late yesterday, Dr Yunupingu issued his warning directly to the face of Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt, who was in the front row of the audience. The two men were facing each other and seated almost knee to knee — Dr Yunupingu in his wheelchair — when the Yolngu leader said, “Enough is enough”. “We are thinking of our Constitution, how we can change it and make it a real law for Yolngu people as well as Balanda (non-¬indigenous) people,” he said. “We are doing that, asking for the rights to be accepted by the commonwealth government and by everybody else.”
The good people of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australian a Media Release Tuesday, 30 July 2019, have put the case that Morrison is set on banning cash, to prevent Australians escaping the bail-in, negative interest rates. I think that they have put their finger on what is clicking over here:
“The fight against “bail-in” is on! The Morrison government has released for consultation a new law that bans cash transactions over $10,000. The pretext for this law is to crack down on money laundering and tax evasion in the “black economy”. This is a shameless lie! The formal recommendation to ban cash comes from “big four” global accounting firm … which is an accomplice of the world’s biggest money launderers and tax evaders. The real purpose for the cash ban is to trap Australians in the banking system, so they cannot escape negative interest rates or having their bank deposits “bailed in”. Scott Morrison first announced this measure in the 2018 budget, originally to come into force this month, but now scheduled for January 2020. It was recommended in the October 2017 Black Economy Taskforce Report by Michael Andrew AO (who died last month) … The report revealed that the strategy is to: “Move people and businesses out of cash and into the banking system, which makes economic activity more visible, auditable and efficient.” (Emphasis added.) It gives the game away by noting that it may benefit “financial stability and the effectiveness of monetary policy”—code for policies like bail-in and negative interest rates. To achieve this it recommended: “Moving to a near cash free economy. A $10,000 economy-wide cash limit should be introduced.” But $10,000 is just the beginning: in June 2018, just after Morrison announced it, … was already lobbying Treasury to lower the limit to $5,000 or even $2,000.
To The Australian Former High Court chief justice Robert French simply ignores the cogent arguments which have been brought up against any kind of amendment to the Constitution favouring the Aborigines ("Voice of reason is not beyond us", 31/7). He states, correctly, that "recognition is a fact". That is true and that is where it should end. However, he adds that recognition in the Constitution "would reflect an existing national growth of respect for our First Peoples." He does not say how or why; and there is reason to suspect that popular affection for the Aborigines is actually waning a little as more and more Australians become aware that "the Aboriginal industry" is engaging in selfish demands at the expense of the rest of us. French concludes that "the creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit." That is dreamtime stuff! Australia is deeply split on this issue and thus any referendum appears doomed.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Labor frontbench MP Linda Burney claims that there is "enormous support" for enshrining a proposed Aboriginal voice in the Constitution ("MPs warn of failure in campaign", 31/7). Is she engaging in wishful thinking? If in any referendum the "No" case is properly financed and supported by the government as well as the "Yes" case, it is most unlikely that the referendum will succeed. There are too many good arguments against which remain unanswered. If Scott Morrison and his colleagues are having second thoughts on this matter, good on them! They will be wise to insist that the interests of all Australians need to be consulted and respected.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
A good article by Steve Sailer on the emerging issue in America, as the build up to civil War II: can American Whites prevent the rising tide of colour, that threatens to demographically displace them, and is doing this racist, and if it is racist, then will the sky fall?
https://www.takimag.com/article/our-new-planet-is-going-to-be-great/
“The fundamental issue of the 2020 presidential campaign is rapidly becoming whether or not America’s whites, as exemplified in the person of Donald Trump, have the right to block the world’s blacks and Muslims, as exemplified in the person of Somalia-born Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), from immigrating en masse to the United States. Or is the entire notion of white citizens democratically voting to keep out nonwhites too racistly triggering for more enlightened entities, such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to allow? The United Nations’ publication last month of its World Population Prospects 2019 adds important perspective to this question. For example, in 1991, when Omar’s family fled Somalia due to their complicity in the genocidal regime of the dictator Siad Barre, the population of Somalia was only 7 million. Today, 28 chaotic years later, Somalia has more than doubled in size to 15 million despite immense outflows of emigrants. The U.N. forecasts that Somalia’s population will reach 35 million in 2050 and 76 million in 2100. Alternatively, millions of Somalis (or, quite possibly, tens of millions of Somalis) might prefer to follow Rep. Omar to the Magic Dirt of the first world. According to a Gallup poll, at present one-third of the population of sub-Saharan African wants to migrate, and it’s unlikely that additional population growth will make Africa more attractive. Here’s my latest update of what I call The Most Important Graph in the World:
I heard about this one from my brother who has a nice house in the leafy Adelaide suburb of Mitcham (near Unley High School, where Julia Gillard apparently went to). Mitcham is south of the city centre, basically divided by Unley Road. It is mainly white Anglo middle class, like my brother. But, political correctness has crept in even there:
“It will be a silent night by Brownhill Creek this Christmas, after Mitcham Council dumped its highly popular carols night. The council decision ends 25 years of the Carols By The Creek event, which regularly attracted more than 5000 people. The seven councillors who voted to abolish the carols cited its cost (about $45,000) and said the event was not inclusive for non-Christians. Hundreds of readers on Advertiser.com.au and our Facebook page have slammed the decision. At 6pm on Thursday the poll further down this story had 90 per cent of respondents calling on the council to reinstate the event. During a narrow 7:5 vote to discontinue the event, Cr Darren Kruse said he was happy to be known as the “Christmas Grinch”. “Council should not be funding what fundamentally is a religious event with no co-contribution from the churches,” Cr Kruse said during an hour-long debate on the issue. “It’s not inclusive because it talks to one major religion … the Christian religion … although it is dominant, that is not our demographic. “If the churches want to run it, they should run it.” Cr Karen Hockley said the carols night ignored those who “might never go to a traditional Christmas event”. She said continuing to run the event supported the “old regime” and that the council needed to be “cleverer than that” and support diversity through other events. But she recognised the decision could cause controversy and be regarded as a “step too far” for the community, particularly in light of the council’s 3.67 per cent rate rise in 2019/20. “We’ve given them (ratepayers) the biggest rate rise in the state and then removed the most-visible use of their rates,” she said. “(This is) a sleight of hand that is not going to be tolerated by the community.” Council staff will prepare a report detailing the options for other groups to hold a “slimmed-down” carols event.”
To The Australian Nick Cater rightly analyses the dangers inherent in that "radical manifesto", the Uluru Statement from the Heart ("Poverty at core of this inequity", 29/7), but his realism deserts him when he adds that, on relevant constitutional reform, "there can be no doubt on which side Scott Morrison's government stands". Alas, contrary to Cater's apparent supposition, it is on the wrong side, as shown by the PM's appointment of a noted Aboriginal industry activist (Ken Wyatt) to a ministry charged with preparing for a referendum to enable some form of Aboriginal recognition within the Constitution. The momentum for disastrous damage to the political order of this nation may not be "unstoppable", but it is intense and most courageous statesmanship will be needed to halt it. Will there be a better moment for reversal of direction than now, when the PM's approval rating is up? Morrison should (1) admit publicly that there is grave concern about our national future in this context, (2) instruct Wyatt to set up a committee to review the whole topic, a committee with significant (majority) Anglo membership, and (3) foreshadow the result by stating that the Government does not see change to the Constitution as necessarily the right way to go for management of Aboriginal issues. Continued temporising plays into the hands of the enemy.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian Henry Ergas, in methodically demolishing some of the latest arguments in favour of Aboriginal constitutional recognition ("This voice would have us shouting over the walls", 26/7), warns that enactment of the proposed "voice to Parliament" could "set off a dynamic whose effects are starkly at odds with its supporters' objectives." Well, yes and no, for while some of the advocates for the cause are good-hearted and well-intentioned, others, as can be seen from their words and actions in recent years, are not. They positively want trouble in order to further their cause of cleaving Australia in two. Ergas foresees unpleasant consequences if the government of the day rejects claims by this putative new body: resentment, fury and a damaging row. That negative behaviour will also manifest if the government finally concedes that the idea of constitutional recognition is unjust (which it is) or fated to lose any referendum. Australians generally must brace themselves with courage to face unpleasantness no matter what course the government adopts.
It would be better to face the music now, before it gets louder!
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
The battle is on, with a leading jurist saying that an indigenous voice to parliament would not undermine the power of parliament:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/gleeson-defends-indigenous-voice-proposal/news-story/d7d0ab0f0968b6395c253cf4ea65bf82?utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=BreakingNews
“Former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson has declared a new indigenous “voice to parliament” could be created through legislation — with only minimal references in the Constitution — without eroding the power of the nation’s politicians. Mr Gleeson, one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal figures, said the proposal for an indigenous voice — set out in the Uluru Statement from the Heart — would succeed if it maintained “parliamentary supremacy”. Rejecting suggestions by opponents that the voice could act as a “third chamber” of parliament, Mr Gleeson said the proposed new advisory body was a “worthwhile objective” to help governments draft policies that affected indigenous people. “It is difficult to see any objection in principle to the creation of a body to advise parliament about proposed laws relating to indigenous affairs,” Mr Gleeson said. Speaking in Sydney last night, Mr Gleeson, who was appointed chief justice by John Howard, said it was possible to give the new body constitutional status as an “appropriate form of indigenous recognition”. He said a successful model should not be constructed as a “one-line bill of rights”, warning that could “diminish the lawmaking power of the parliament”. The Constitution already gave the federal parliament powers to create special laws specifically for indigenous Australians. He said it should not offend anyone that a new representative body be established to advise the parliament on those laws. The proposal for a voice to parliament had the advantage of being “substantive and not merely ornamental”, suggesting it could be “constitutionally entrenched” but “legislatively controlled”. “Only the federal parliament can initiate a referendum. It has shown little appetite for proposals to limit its own power; and rightly so,” Mr Gleeson said. “Parliamentary supremacy is one of the essential safeguards of our liberal democracy. It is unlikely that parliament will propose a change to the Constitution in aid of indigenous recognition if the effect of the change will be to curtail its own legislative power. “That appears to have been well understood by the supporters of the voice. What is proposed is a voice to parliament, not a voice in parliament.”
To The Age Rachel Perkins quotes former chief justice Murray Gleeson's claim that the dispossession of our Aboriginal tribes "underwrote the development of the nation" ("Saluting a Liberal who understands", 25/7). That is a contestable assertion. It can as truly or more truly be affirmed that the Aboriginals' loss was caused by their failure to defend their territory and that the subsequent development of Australia resulted from the knowledge, skills and efforts of the newcomers. She wants "constitutional reforms" to "empower" her people and give them their "rightful place" in "their own country". What this means for other Australians (97%) is changes for the worse giving a very small and ill-defined group unfair advantages that might lead eventually to the establishment of a separate Aboriginal nation. Any "sense of estrangement" really felt by Aboriginals needs to be addressed in a wiser fashion than constitutional change.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Australian Mark Leibler continues a notable furphy in the current debate about Aboriginal constitutional recognition ("Clear voice without the repercussions of a third chamber", 20-21/7). He writes misleadingly that "the intellectual drive behind the constitutional amendment for an advisory voice emanates from constitutional conservatives, including Liberal MP Julian Leeser." That drive comes from other sources too, but the fact is that Mr Leeser is not a conservative on this topic at all. The real conservatives are Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter, John Stone and Andrew Bolt (to name just four). Promoting faux-conservatives as conservatives is a devious trick which should be dropped. Leibler is also less than courteous to opponents of constitutional change when he disparagingly refers to them as "nay-sayers" who, he quite wrongly implies, have been proved wrong with their "dire predictions for native title and the apology to the Stolen Generation." The apology never had a genuine popular mandate and was based on an unreliable document ("Bringing Them Home"); and the ongoing saga of "native title", based on the very questionable High Court decision in Mabo, has become a national scandal, tending towards a dangerous separatism, which needs to be halted.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age It may be true that former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson "delivered a landmark speech making the legal and ethical case for an Aboriginal voice to be enshrined in the Constitution" ("Joyce U-turn on Indigenous voice", 20/7), but how successful was it? His distinction between "a voice to Parliament, not a voice in Parliament" ignores the fact that the voice he recommends would have some of the influential power that the present two chambers possess. Moreover, it could be strengthened by future legislation, as he admitted - perhaps by a Marxist-inspired ALP government. It could also lead to findings by a politicised High Court against the true national interest. Gleeson claimed that the dispossession of the Aborigines "underwrote the development of the nation", but it can be said with more truth that their failure to defend their territory caused their loss and that the development was the result of the knowledge, skills and efforts of the newcomers. In general he failed to answer the cogent case that has been put against constitutional recognition by men of the calibre of John Stone, Keith Windschuttle and Andrew Bolt..
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
It was only a matter of time, but even under the Libs the Aboriginal recognition referendum was certain to emerge. The details, straight from the horse’s mouths, so to speak are here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-10/indigenous-constitutional-recognition-to-go-to-referendum-wyatt/11294478
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/wyatt-presents-road-map-for-recognition/news-story/4c6f799fedfe4f5002a78ba7736c932c
“Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt will lead a historic push for a referendum in this term of parliament to recognise Aborigines in the Constitution, vowing to put forward a “pragmatic” model that will receive broad public support. Australia’s first indigenous cabinet minister yesterday declared he would “walk with people on all sides of politics” to find a consensus model that could achieve the required support of a majority of people in a majority of states for a successful referendum. In his speech to the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, the West Australian MP, who was given the ministry by Scott Morrison after the May 18 election victory, also revealed the government would create an indigenous voice to parliament, which would advise government on Aboriginal issues.
My wife and I were both born in Australia, as were two children and four grandchildren. Our parents were born in Australia as were all of their parents. And some ancestors go back much further in this land. I feel rage every time I have to sit through another patronising “welcome to country” charade, designed to make me feel an intruder in my own land. Indigenous history on this continent is the same as our family story – it just goes back a bit further. The first aboriginals probably walked here over a land bridge and Europeans came later in sailing clippers. All caused displacement of prior inhabitants. They brought dingos which are now “protected” – we brought cattle, sheep, horses and ploughs which are increasingly condemned. They mined ochre, quartzite and basalt, which are now heritage sites – but our coal mines are widely condemned. They brought spears and boomerangs – we brought guns and swords. Racial referenda, indigenous “Welcomes”, talk of Treaties and special land rights for some Australians just create and maintain division. How long before we are one people with the same rights and responsibilities? Two centuries is surely time enough?
To The Australian Paul Kelly's latest discussion of the indigenous constitutional recognition issue is lop-sided ("Indigenous leaders and Coalition now need to talk", 17/7). He states that there are two major conflicts: "between the majority of indigenous leaders and the Morrison government, and between the Morrison government and the Labor Party." Wrong! The major conflict is between all those Australians campaigning for constitutional change and all the other Australians who can see clearly the full folly of the idea and will have none of it. As one of the latter, I reject Kelly's claim that "the idea of constitutional change has gained more traction." Too many Australians are now aware of the fundamental injustice of such change and the obvious fact that the campaigners (both the zealots and the opportunists) will keep asking for more if the nation is stupid enough to concede anything. Kelly says that indigenous leaders should talk to the Coalition. Also wrong! They should desist from a doomed campaign; and Scott Morrison, Ken Wyatt and the Coalition government should heed the will of the great majority by closing the door on the whole business.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
