Letter to the Editor
Public land access denied to and taken from the people in the Grampians VIC, Ayres Rock, NT and Mt Warning NSW — the test sites to see if they can get away with it without too much public protest — If you the people, do not object NOW — then accept the ‘fait accompli’ of your disinterest as more land lock-outs will occur as the other already planned removals from public access will be implemented — you have been warned.
The purpose of The Voice Referendum, is force acceptance of false aboriginal ownership across all crown land and national park areas, where you will be locked out of recreation areas, mountain climbing, hiking, bushwalking, family picnic, swimming, boating and fishing. Aboriginals have land claims to 62.7% of Australia.
The federal Attorney-General Dreyfus, stated on ABC TV ‘there were other elements of aboriginal requirements of truth telling and treaty, but they come next, they come after ‘The Voice’ is put into our constitution’, to this we could safely add many more concocted restrictions and transfer of the people’s land, resources and millions of our funds to aboriginals — that we need for health and education for our families.
The Uluru Statement is the government policy, a constitutionally entrenched voice to parliament, a national treaty, a truth telling commissions and formation of sovereign states — where they will charge everyone for access where all roads across sovereign land will carry a toll fee from all uses —ruthlessly enforced by special police.
Then will come the billions of land transfers and public monies. A ‘Truth Telling Commission’, when already massive lies and distortions of history are rampant, the old traditions and history are ignored, removed and distorted by the ‘new understanding’, where everything appears now based on greed by the infusion of European genetics.
Sincerely
G J May
Forestdale, Queensland
On the QT, the Labor Weasels have changed the wording of the proposed Amendment to the Australian Constitution on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
This is the real story is that again, the CoVID Regime, has changed the story.
What is here being proposed and taken to Referendum is FLUID. They will start where-ever they have to start to get the wedge of Black Minority governance into the Constitution.
The gov’t saw their original version was not going to fly and that Australians are not going to vote for an Aboriginal ‘executive governance’ (as in the original version) no matter how racist they say we are. We still don’t know the final wording. [And we may never know ] Like the CoVID Narrative it is going to morph.
It is enough to know that such an Amendment will potentially impact every aspect of our governance. “They do not want you to see the truth about how the Voice is going to Impact us all until it is too late.” Cory Bernardi
Indigenous Voice to Parliament Quietly Removed ‘Executive Government’ From Wording
Sky News Host Cory Bernardi
“I THINK, therefore I am”… It’s the latest principle in self identification and absolute certainty.
The ‘powers that be’ say you can be black or white or pink or green, man, woman, mineral or vegetable… Whatever you like to THINK, as long as YOU fit in with their brainwashing gaslight agenda.
Their official support of your fantasy makes it the absolute, follow the $science reality and truth.
Alex Antic asking the same questions.
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/03/your-government-trying-in-vain-to-define-the-voices-aboriginals.html
They called him rascist. But guessing he like me understood this:
To qualify you need these three things as they discussed, descent (ancestry) which does not appear to have to be proven, the need to identify (as), and the acceptance (as).
This can clearly be used to advantage.. if you get my drift.
Definition of aborigine: 18.08.2010
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/recognition-of-aboriginal-customary-laws-alrc-report-31/7-the-scope-of-the-report/the-definition-of-aborigine/
The Definition of ‘Aborigine’
“88. Who is an Aborigine? The Terms of Reference refer to ‘the Aboriginal people of Australia’, to ‘Aborigines’, to ‘members of the Aboriginal race’, to ‘Aborigines … living in tribal conditions’ and to ‘Aboriginal communities’. Questions of the definition of these terms, and in particular of ‘Aborigine’, arise both generally and in relation to s 51(26) of the Constitution, which is the main source of Commonwealth legislative power for this purpose.[5]
It is possible that the ordinary definition and the constitutional definition may diverge. In addition, alternative definitions are still in use by some State government departments, and existing Commonwealth and State legislation contains a variety of formulations of ‘Aborigine’ or ‘Aboriginal’.[6]
89.
Early Attempts at Definition. Early attempts at definition tended to concentrate on descent, without referring to other elements of ‘Aboriginality’. This is not surprising, given that few (if any) persons of Aboriginal descent were not Aboriginal in this other sense. Problems of definition did however arise in deciding whether descendants of unions between Aborigines and settlers were to be regarded as Aboriginal for the purposes of various restrictive or discriminatory laws (eg disentitling Aborigines from voting or enrolling to vote).
In applying such restrictive laws it was necessary to identify who was Aboriginal, and tests based on ‘quantum of blood’ were commonly applied.[7] The notion that Aboriginality was exclusively a matter of descent, and that ‘preponderance of [non-Aboriginal] blood’ meant that one was not Aboriginal, became and remained influential, and were sometimes applied by courts with total disregard for context.[8] However the term ‘Aborigine’ in ordinary use has increasingly been taken to mean a person of Aboriginal descent identifying as an Aborigine and recognised as such. Definitions based on ‘quantum of blood’ have correspondingly been rejected as unsatisfactory, indeed discriminatory.
90.
The Constitutional Question. Until recently, however, it has not been clear whether the meaning of ‘Aborigine’ for constitutional purposes was similarly wide. The problem arose as early as 1901 when Attorney-General Denkin had to consider the meaning of ‘Aboriginal native’ for the purpose of s 127 of the Constitution (repealed in 1967):
Section 127 of the Constitution makes a particular exception that in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or a State, ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. The rule as to the construction of such exceptions, where, as in this case, they are not remedial, is that they should be construed strictly. I am of the opinion that half-castes are not ‘Aboriginal natives’ within the meaning of this section, and should be included in reckoning the population.[9]
Section 127 was concerned with census-taking, a context requiring certainty of definition and as few exceptions as possible.[10] It was therefore an open question whether the exclusion of ‘the Aboriginal race in any State’ from the power to make special laws for the people of any race, conferred by s 51(26) of the Constitution, was to be interpreted in the same way. However a similar view was taken to the power as to the prohibition though it was never directly tested in the courts. In 1961, the Solicitor-General, Sir Kenneth Bailey, sought to define the words ‘Aboriginal race’ as then contained in s 51(26). He advised the House of Representatives Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aboriginals that:
it has been the consistent view of this Department … that certain persons of mixed blood properly belong to the constitutional category of aboriginal natives. The test, metaphorically rather than scientifically stated, is whether the aboriginal blood preponderates. Thus a half-caste. strictly so called, eg the offspring of one parent of pure aboriginal and another of pure European descent would not answer the description of a person of ‘aboriginal race’. Persons of the half-blood. strictly so called, ‘cannot be regarded as persons of any race’, as the then Solicitor-General Sir Robert Garran, put it in an opinion given in 1921. But a person, for example. three of whose grandparents were full-blood Aboriginals would I think answer the description of a person of ‘Aboriginal race’. The question therefore is basically one of descent.[11]
The 1967 Referendum deleted the exclusionary provisions for Aborigines in s 51(26) and 127. and thus significantly changed the issue of interpretation. It is one thing to interpret a reference to the ‘Aboriginal race’ as an exclusion of power, and quite another to interpret a power to legislate for the people of any race (including Aborigines). Yet earlier opinions continued, at least for a time, to be influential. In 1968 the then Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department discussed s 51(26) in the following terms:
the definition of race is a matter of law, for this purpose no working definition can extend the area of power … I agree with the view put by Sir Kenneth [Bailey].
I think myself that the view can confidently be held that a person who is predominantly of Aboriginal descent is a person of the Aboriginal race for the purposes of s 51(xxvi). There may be a case for seeking to include in the scope of legislation enacted in pursuance of s 51(xxvi) some persons who cannot be said to be predominantly of Aboriginal descent, but … the Constitutional problems in relation to s 51(xxvi) could be finally determined only in the context of proposals for specific legislation and the particular circumstances to which the legislation would apply.[12]
In 1974, the Department referred to its previous advice that, ‘in the absence of a High Court decision, no assurance could be given that the expression “the people of any race” would include descendants in any degree’, and advised that s 51(26) ‘would not support the application of any law, regardless of its content, to persons in any degree descended from people of the Aboriginal race’.[13]
91. The Impact of a Broader Definition. By this time the Commonwealth had developed an administrative definition of ‘Aborigines’ which was considerably broader than the old ‘preponderance of blood’ or ‘substantial descent’ tests:
It was realised very early in the development of Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal affairs that definitions of Aboriginality based on an interpretation of the constitution and relying on assessments of an individual’s ‘preponderance of blood’ were not satisfactory for administrative purposes. Assessments of degree of descent were generally considered unreliable and capable of giving offence. Such definitions also failed to take sufficient account of concepts of self-identification and community acceptance central to the rationale for Commonwealth Aboriginal advancement programs and the remediation of Aboriginal’s state of disadvantage.[14]
The current form of that definition states that:
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he lives.[15]
Of course, the primary purpose of the definition is administrative, given its use to determine eligibility for various entitlements or programs. For constitutional purposes, the question is a broader one: it is whether the particular law is one ‘with respect to’ the people of any race for whom special laws are deemed necessary. It is not a requirement for the validity of a law passed for Aboriginal people that the subjects or objects of the law should all be ‘Aborigines’ according to some definition.[16] Nonetheless whether a law meets the description contained in s 51(26) depends in part on the identification of the ‘Aboriginal race’, or its members as in some sense the beneficiary or object of the law. The question is whether the definition of ‘Aboriginal race’ for this purpose excludes persons who are, for example, ‘half-caste’ or who do not have ‘predominant Aboriginal blood’.[17]
92. The High Court Adopts the Broader View. The High Court’s decision in Commonwealth v Tasmania[18] makes it clear that this is not the case, and that the broader definition applies for the purpose of the constitutional power. None of the justices (including the three dissentients) was prepared to hold that Tasmanian Aborigines are not members of the ‘Aboriginal race’ for the purposes of s 51(26). Those who addressed the question made it clear that those people are Aborigines for this purpose.[19]
In particular Justice Brennan stated that:
Though the biological element is … an essential element of membership of a race, it does not ordinarily exhaust the characteristics of a racial group. Physical similarities, and a common history, a common religion or spiritual beliefs and a common culture are factors that tend to create a sense of identity among members of a race and to which others have regard in identifying people as members of a race. As the people of a group identify themselves and are identified by others as a race by reference to their common history, religion, spiritual beliefs or culture as well as by reference to their biological origins and physical similarities, an indication is given of the scope and purpose of the power granted by para (xxvi). The kinds of benefits that laws might properly confer upon people as members of a race are benefits which tend to protect or foster their common intangible heritage or their common sense of identity. Their genetic inheritance is fixed at birth; the historic, religious, spiritual and cultural heritage are acquired and are susceptible to influences for which a law may provide. The advancement of the people of any race in any of these aspects of their group life falls within the power.[20]
Similarly Justice Deane said:
It is unnecessary, for the purposes of the present case, to consider the meaning to be given to the phrase ‘people of any race’ in s 51(xxvi). Plainly, the words have a wide and non-technical meaning … The phrase is, in my view, apposite to refer to all Australian Aboriginals collectively. Any doubt, which might otherwise exist in that regard, is removed by reference to the wording of para(xxvi) in its original form. The phrase is also apposite to refer to any identifiable racial sub-group among Australian Aboriginals. By ‘Australian Aboriginal’ I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as Aboriginal.[21]
It seems clear, therefore, that the broader ‘administrative’ definition does not diverge from the scope of constitutional power under s 51(26).[22]
93. State Definitions. At State level, the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ has varied quite considerably in the past.[23] In recent years most States have moved to a definition in terms of descent, although there is still a good deal of variation even within the legislation of a single State.[24] Some State Acts have adopted the Department of Aboriginal Affairs working definition involving descent, self-identification and community acceptance.[25]
94. Practice under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Section 3(1)(g) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) defines an ‘Aboriginal’ as a person who is ‘a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia’. There is no attempt to define the expression ‘Aboriginal race’.[26] The Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Toohey, discussed this section in his Report on the Finniss River Land Claim:
the definition of the Act is ‘genetic rather than social’ … The dictionary definitions are framed in such a way that people having mixed racial origins are not excluded from a race with which they are genetically linked. Despite submissions made to the contrary there is nothing in the Act to compel the view that a person who is descended from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestors cannot be considered an Aboriginal. References to Aboriginal tradition and sacred sites and the elements of traditional Aboriginal ownership do not operate to narrow the scope of the definition. They are directed at the beliefs, roles and responsibilities of Aboriginal people, not at who is an Aboriginal. Membership of a race is something which is determined at birth and cannot, in a sense, be relinquished, nor can it be entered into by someone lacking the necessary racial origin. It is unnecessary and unwise to lay down rigid criteria in advance. As situations arise in which the Aboriginality of claimants is put in issue, those situations can be looked at. In saying this I adopt the comments of Mr Justice Woodward in his Second Report on Land Rights.
Differences between Aborigines should be allowed for, but any artificial barriers, in particular those based on degrees of Aboriginal blood, must be avoided (para 62). This is not to say that persons whose predecessors were predominantly non-Aboriginal will necessarily qualify as Aboriginals within the Act.[27]
Although this passage does not refer to the elements of community identification or self-identification in the working definition, the experience under the 1976 Act is significant in its acceptance of a broad definition of ‘Aborigine’, and in showing how that definition has been applied in practice in a closely related context.
95. The Commission’s View. Experience under Commonwealth and State legislation suggests that it is not necessary to spell out a detailed definition of who is an Aborigine, and that there are distinct advantages in leaving the application of the definition to be worked out, so far as is necessary, on a case by case basis.[28]
Constitutionally this presents no difficulties, as the High Court’s decision is Commonwealth v Tasmania show.[29]
On the other hand, it has sometimes been suggested that a special and more restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’ should be adopted for the purposes of this Report and its implementation.[30] There are several reasons why such a special definition is both unnecessary and undesirable. Restrictive definitions of this kind have not been adopted in other related contexts.[31] Experience so far does not suggest a need for more stringent definitions.[32] The application of the Commission’s recommendations in appropriate cases is to be achieved by the substantive requirements of the provision in question, and by related evidentiary requirements. Indeed, there may be cases where it is appropriate that provisions for the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws should apply to persons who are not Aborigines. These questions have to be considered on their merits, and cannot be resolved through the adoption of any more-or-less restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’.
So definition of aborigine is ???
post was moderated so next post apologies if appears twice
Definition of aborigine: 18.08.2010
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/recognition-of-aboriginal-customary-laws-alrc-report-31/7-the-scope-of-the-report/the-definition-of-aborigine/
The Definition of ‘Aborigine’
“88. Who is an Aborigine? The Terms of Reference refer to ‘the Aboriginal people of Australia’, to ‘Aborigines’, to ‘members of the Aboriginal race’, to ‘Aborigines … living in tribal conditions’ and to ‘Aboriginal communities’. Questions of the definition of these terms, and in particular of ‘Aborigine’, arise both generally and in relation to s 51(26) of the Constitution, which is the main source of Commonwealth legislative power for this purpose.[5]
It is possible that the ordinary definition and the constitutional definition may diverge. In addition, alternative definitions are still in use by some State government departments, and existing Commonwealth and State legislation contains a variety of formulations of ‘Aborigine’ or ‘Aboriginal’.[6]
89.
Early Attempts at Definition. Early attempts at definition tended to concentrate on descent, without referring to other elements of ‘Aboriginality’. This is not surprising, given that few (if any) persons of Aboriginal descent were not Aboriginal in this other sense. Problems of definition did however arise in deciding whether descendants of unions between Aborigines and settlers were to be regarded as Aboriginal for the purposes of various restrictive or discriminatory laws (eg disentitling Aborigines from voting or enrolling to vote).
In applying such restrictive laws it was necessary to identify who was Aboriginal, and tests based on ‘quantum of blood’ were commonly applied.[7] The notion that Aboriginality was exclusively a matter of descent, and that ‘preponderance of [non-Aboriginal] blood’ meant that one was not Aboriginal, became and remained influential, and were sometimes applied by courts with total disregard for context.[8] However the term ‘Aborigine’ in ordinary use has increasingly been taken to mean a person of Aboriginal descent identifying as an Aborigine and recognised as such. Definitions based on ‘quantum of blood’ have correspondingly been rejected as unsatisfactory, indeed discriminatory.
90.
The Constitutional Question. Until recently, however, it has not been clear whether the meaning of ‘Aborigine’ for constitutional purposes was similarly wide. The problem arose as early as 1901 when Attorney-General Denkin had to consider the meaning of ‘Aboriginal native’ for the purpose of s 127 of the Constitution (repealed in 1967):
Section 127 of the Constitution makes a particular exception that in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or a State, ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. The rule as to the construction of such exceptions, where, as in this case, they are not remedial, is that they should be construed strictly. I am of the opinion that half-castes are not ‘Aboriginal natives’ within the meaning of this section, and should be included in reckoning the population.[9]
Section 127 was concerned with census-taking, a context requiring certainty of definition and as few exceptions as possible.[10] It was therefore an open question whether the exclusion of ‘the Aboriginal race in any State’ from the power to make special laws for the people of any race, conferred by s 51(26) of the Constitution, was to be interpreted in the same way. However a similar view was taken to the power as to the prohibition though it was never directly tested in the courts. In 1961, the Solicitor-General, Sir Kenneth Bailey, sought to define the words ‘Aboriginal race’ as then contained in s 51(26). He advised the House of Representatives Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aboriginals that:
it has been the consistent view of this Department … that certain persons of mixed blood properly belong to the constitutional category of aboriginal natives. The test, metaphorically rather than scientifically stated, is whether the aboriginal blood preponderates. Thus a half-caste. strictly so called, eg the offspring of one parent of pure aboriginal and another of pure European descent would not answer the description of a person of ‘aboriginal race’. Persons of the half-blood. strictly so called, ‘cannot be regarded as persons of any race’, as the then Solicitor-General Sir Robert Garran, put it in an opinion given in 1921. But a person, for example. three of whose grandparents were full-blood Aboriginals would I think answer the description of a person of ‘Aboriginal race’. The question therefore is basically one of descent.[11]
The 1967 Referendum deleted the exclusionary provisions for Aborigines in s 51(26) and 127. and thus significantly changed the issue of interpretation. It is one thing to interpret a reference to the ‘Aboriginal race’ as an exclusion of power, and quite another to interpret a power to legislate for the people of any race (including Aborigines). Yet earlier opinions continued, at least for a time, to be influential. In 1968 the then Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department discussed s 51(26) in the following terms:
the definition of race is a matter of law, for this purpose no working definition can extend the area of power … I agree with the view put by Sir Kenneth [Bailey].
I think myself that the view can confidently be held that a person who is predominantly of Aboriginal descent is a person of the Aboriginal race for the purposes of s 51(xxvi). There may be a case for seeking to include in the scope of legislation enacted in pursuance of s 51(xxvi) some persons who cannot be said to be predominantly of Aboriginal descent, but … the Constitutional problems in relation to s 51(xxvi) could be finally determined only in the context of proposals for specific legislation and the particular circumstances to which the legislation would apply.[12]
In 1974, the Department referred to its previous advice that, ‘in the absence of a High Court decision, no assurance could be given that the expression “the people of any race” would include descendants in any degree’, and advised that s 51(26) ‘would not support the application of any law, regardless of its content, to persons in any degree descended from people of the Aboriginal race’.[13]
91. The Impact of a Broader Definition. By this time the Commonwealth had developed an administrative definition of ‘Aborigines’ which was considerably broader than the old ‘preponderance of blood’ or ‘substantial descent’ tests:
It was realised very early in the development of Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal affairs that definitions of Aboriginality based on an interpretation of the constitution and relying on assessments of an individual’s ‘preponderance of blood’ were not satisfactory for administrative purposes. Assessments of degree of descent were generally considered unreliable and capable of giving offence. Such definitions also failed to take sufficient account of concepts of self-identification and community acceptance central to the rationale for Commonwealth Aboriginal advancement programs and the remediation of Aboriginal’s state of disadvantage.[14]
The current form of that definition states that:
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he lives.[15]
Of course, the primary purpose of the definition is administrative, given its use to determine eligibility for various entitlements or programs. For constitutional purposes, the question is a broader one: it is whether the particular law is one ‘with respect to’ the people of any race for whom special laws are deemed necessary. It is not a requirement for the validity of a law passed for Aboriginal people that the subjects or objects of the law should all be ‘Aborigines’ according to some definition.[16] Nonetheless whether a law meets the description contained in s 51(26) depends in part on the identification of the ‘Aboriginal race’, or its members as in some sense the beneficiary or object of the law. The question is whether the definition of ‘Aboriginal race’ for this purpose excludes persons who are, for example, ‘half-caste’ or who do not have ‘predominant Aboriginal blood’.[17]
92. The High Court Adopts the Broader View. The High Court’s decision in Commonwealth v Tasmania[18] makes it clear that this is not the case, and that the broader definition applies for the purpose of the constitutional power. None of the justices (including the three dissentients) was prepared to hold that Tasmanian Aborigines are not members of the ‘Aboriginal race’ for the purposes of s 51(26). Those who addressed the question made it clear that those people are Aborigines for this purpose.[19]
In particular Justice Brennan stated that:
Though the biological element is … an essential element of membership of a race, it does not ordinarily exhaust the characteristics of a racial group. Physical similarities, and a common history, a common religion or spiritual beliefs and a common culture are factors that tend to create a sense of identity among members of a race and to which others have regard in identifying people as members of a race. As the people of a group identify themselves and are identified by others as a race by reference to their common history, religion, spiritual beliefs or culture as well as by reference to their biological origins and physical similarities, an indication is given of the scope and purpose of the power granted by para (xxvi). The kinds of benefits that laws might properly confer upon people as members of a race are benefits which tend to protect or foster their common intangible heritage or their common sense of identity. Their genetic inheritance is fixed at birth; the historic, religious, spiritual and cultural heritage are acquired and are susceptible to influences for which a law may provide. The advancement of the people of any race in any of these aspects of their group life falls within the power.[20]
Similarly Justice Deane said:
It is unnecessary, for the purposes of the present case, to consider the meaning to be given to the phrase ‘people of any race’ in s 51(xxvi). Plainly, the words have a wide and non-technical meaning … The phrase is, in my view, apposite to refer to all Australian Aboriginals collectively. Any doubt, which might otherwise exist in that regard, is removed by reference to the wording of para(xxvi) in its original form. The phrase is also apposite to refer to any identifiable racial sub-group among Australian Aboriginals. By ‘Australian Aboriginal’ I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as Aboriginal.[21]
It seems clear, therefore, that the broader ‘administrative’ definition does not diverge from the scope of constitutional power under s 51(26).[22]
93. State Definitions. At State level, the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ has varied quite considerably in the past.[23] In recent years most States have moved to a definition in terms of descent, although there is still a good deal of variation even within the legislation of a single State.[24] Some State Acts have adopted the Department of Aboriginal Affairs working definition involving descent, self-identification and community acceptance.[25]
94. Practice under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Section 3(1)(g) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) defines an ‘Aboriginal’ as a person who is ‘a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia’. There is no attempt to define the expression ‘Aboriginal race’.[26] The Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Toohey, discussed this section in his Report on the Finniss River Land Claim:
the definition of the Act is ‘genetic rather than social’ … The dictionary definitions are framed in such a way that people having mixed racial origins are not excluded from a race with which they are genetically linked. Despite submissions made to the contrary there is nothing in the Act to compel the view that a person who is descended from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestors cannot be considered an Aboriginal. References to Aboriginal tradition and sacred sites and the elements of traditional Aboriginal ownership do not operate to narrow the scope of the definition. They are directed at the beliefs, roles and responsibilities of Aboriginal people, not at who is an Aboriginal. Membership of a race is something which is determined at birth and cannot, in a sense, be relinquished, nor can it be entered into by someone lacking the necessary racial origin. It is unnecessary and unwise to lay down rigid criteria in advance. As situations arise in which the Aboriginality of claimants is put in issue, those situations can be looked at. In saying this I adopt the comments of Mr Justice Woodward in his Second Report on Land Rights.
Differences between Aborigines should be allowed for, but any artificial barriers, in particular those based on degrees of Aboriginal blood, must be avoided (para 62). This is not to say that persons whose predecessors were predominantly non-Aboriginal will necessarily qualify as Aboriginals within the Act.[27]
Although this passage does not refer to the elements of community identification or self-identification in the working definition, the experience under the 1976 Act is significant in its acceptance of a broad definition of ‘Aborigine’, and in showing how that definition has been applied in practice in a closely related context.
95. The Commission’s View. Experience under Commonwealth and State legislation suggests that it is not necessary to spell out a detailed definition of who is an Aborigine, and that there are distinct advantages in leaving the application of the definition to be worked out, so far as is necessary, on a case by case basis.[28]
Constitutionally this presents no difficulties, as the High Court’s decision is Commonwealth v Tasmania show.[29]
On the other hand, it has sometimes been suggested that a special and more restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’ should be adopted for the purposes of this Report and its implementation.[30] There are several reasons why such a special definition is both unnecessary and undesirable. Restrictive definitions of this kind have not been adopted in other related contexts.[31] Experience so far does not suggest a need for more stringent definitions.[32] The application of the Commission’s recommendations in appropriate cases is to be achieved by the substantive requirements of the provision in question, and by related evidentiary requirements. Indeed, there may be cases where it is appropriate that provisions for the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws should apply to persons who are not Aborigines. These questions have to be considered on their merits, and cannot be resolved through the adoption of any more-or-less restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’.
So definition of aborigine is ???
Here is Alex Antic asking the same question re the VOICE:
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/03/your-government-trying-in-vain-to-define-the-voices-aboriginals.html
What is positive about this is there appears to be no definition. This could be a positive for us. Clearly we only need to show descent (ancestry), identify as and be accepted amongst the same.
Total joke, they called him rascist!!!
Dee: “All Australians are equal and have the same rights and recognition under our Constitution. ”
Amen! But the pushers of the “Voice” reckon that has to change. (Follow the money!) They insidiously insist on their Orwellian fiction that some must become more equal than others.
Anybody who doesn’t understand that principle is either on drugs, brainwashed into stupidity or simply simple.
Who in their right mind wants to become less equal?
Most aborigines are as much white as black so they should apologise to themselves for any action by their white ancestors or the British. Ancestors of most current Aussies were either dumped here by the British or immigrated later from numerous other countries. Agree with Slauwkoo comments above. Corrupt government and racist SBS is attempting to inflame racism in our egalitarian former lucky country for their own evil agendas. All Australians are equal and have the same rights and recognition under our Constitution. Our illegitmate Government installed by corrupt elections and controlled by the WEF are trying to give land grants to so called aboriginal organisations so resources/rights can then be leased to CCP. Corrupt pollies and puppets need to go.
During the United [Communist] Nations global pandemic hoax – which saw influenza rebranded as the dreaded ‘SARS nouvelle cov-2 Corona Virus’, the Aus CoVID Regime has been instrumental in the destruction of livelihood, health and supply chains across this country. It is just the last straw that they are pushing this Voice Referendum sorry business.
Sorry for what?
The poor Aborigines with their intractable social problems and crime flow-on (as if poverty were the source of crime). There is a Minister just for Indigenous Affairs. Well WTFrack. A ‘voice’ in Parliament one would think by any other name would speak on their behalf. The Australian tax payer foots the bill for for an Aboriginal Industry worth 33 billion a year for 3.2 % of the population [and that is counting the anti-White ‘Abo Box Ticker’ Whites who identify as Aboriginal and work for the Aboriginal Industry]. With zero result for anyone – the population the rest of us would like to see assisted by every index of social progress and the population funding the Aboriginal Industry.
Under the Australian Constitution (51.26) the government can make specific laws for any demographic in this country by race. The Aboriginals have an entire Industry to advocate for them and a Minister to forward their agenda.
Check out the fashion photo shoots of Aboriginal aristocrats like Linda and Lidia. Nobody is oppressing them or preventing them for being a voice and influence for their people [whoever that might be] in the Parliament.
So what ‘voice’ in Parliament do Australians have – Australians thrown out of work and livelihood due to mandated injection with a bioweapon? None. What voice in Parliament does the disability support worker have – the one who now suffers a de-myelinating disease because he had to have 3 Pfizers to keep his job and roof over his head?
Elected by jiggy jiggy , the Aust government is totally unresponsive to the Australian people. It is running a depop operation and enables Black Entitlement to Crime. And it is massively importing unassimilable populations to enjoy that Entitlement. The first people who will be most adversely affected by this will be the Aboriginals whose entitlement to crime will be challenged by other Black gangs and their population bases. The CoVID Regime coppers who throw old people on the ground over covid correctness bullshit take a knee to Black Entitlement to Crime across the board. They aren’t going to differentiate between a Sudanese car jacker and an Aboriginal car jacker, but the rival Blacks will sort out the hierarchy for all the crimes they are entitled to.
The proven sistema of the Marxist state is: crime, chaos and corruption.
The Voice Referendum and its success will strengthen the sistema against all Australians. And yes the Inidigenous people as well because it will strengthen the Aboriginal Industry which serves them about as well the Australian government serves the Australians [inclusive of all citizens].
Now here is a Thank You from Country we can all relate to:
Pauline Hansen’s Please Explain – Aussie Pensioners
The key words are:-
Autonomy – Sovereign – Treaty – Stolen land – Stolen children – Rent – Senior partners – Voice in the Constitution.
Put all these words together and the picture is complete.
The Aborigines do not see or accept themselves as Australians but a Sovereign with the Autonomy to make their own laws independent of our Parliament but our Parliament will be subject to Aboriginal Laws. As Aboriginals claim that all Australian land was stolen then it will be their right to reclaim what is theirs and then claim that their land has been used for X amount of time and thus entitled to compensation and more compensation for stealing their children.
All mining will be determined by Aboriginals who are the Senior Partners. All tourism will be charged a levy to pay to Aboriginals. All built property will pay a special levy to their Local Government (Council) disguised as rent on a quarterly basis. All businesses must first accept any application from Aboriginals before employing anyone.
Comment
If the Aboriginal elders want to control our Parliament and the Australian society, the question begs – how come they cannot control their people like Aboriginal children in the NT and their own people who live and act like pigs?
I caught part of The Drum discussion on the Voice to Parliament referendum (V2PR) the other night. On the panel were Warren Mundine (NO) and Ken Wyatt (YES). Mundine pointed out what is being proposed has been tried before and failed.
Mundine’s recent op-ed (‘Warren Mundine: Indigenous Australia cannot be spoken for by a single Voice’ The West Australian 06 Sept 2022) is worth considering: “No other Western constitution provides for an Indigenous “Voice”. Canada’s Constitution includes a simple statement that “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed”. In New Zealand, Maori peoples are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but the Treaty of Waitangi Act binds the Crown and gave the Treaty of Waitangi recognition in New Zealand law. Treaties are how indigenous peoples have always engaged with colonising powers.”
From what I can see the V2PR is designed to net 24 members (with gender balance structurally guaranteed by Team Albo). That group of 24 tables formal advice to a parliamentary committee to consider. Just as our so-called democracy works now, requests from the public will fall on deaf ears unless it is what the political parasites want to hear. Let the bribing begin.
Why not engage the public in a debate leading to a referendum on the framework of a Treaty firstly? Because debate would include the broader public, and in these days of dictatorial edits public opinion is as good as taboo.
This is the most divisive Idiotic Crap put forward by a virtue signaling, professional politician, who has never had a real job in his miserable life and couldn’t lie straight in bed! How the Hell could people elect such an imbecile?
Perhaps the Celts in Great Britain should call for a voice, they at least had some sort permanent structures and farmed their lands, before the Roman’s, Saxon’s, Angle’s, Jutes, Viking’s, Norman’s etc took over?
VOTE NO! NO! NO!
Terrasands: “So our Pollies have another agenda relating to the Aborigines – we just haven’t worked out their plan to later grab the land from the Aborigines at some stage down the track.”
Voice… Native Title… Multinational Corporations. Join the dots. If anyone thinks it’s going to be good for Australia they haven’t done their homework.
I often wonder why the pollies are going down this track of encouraging the Aborigines to “land grab”. The fact of the matter is that the Creator did not sell any land to any nation so we are free to travel wherever we want. Could it be that Australia does not exist except on Norfolk, Christmas and other islands. As this land was inhabited when the explorers from Europe and UK arrived they were unable to take possession and instead claimed Norfolk Is and offered administration of Australia. To this day there is an administrator on Norfolk Island. In addition many Aborginal groups have been persuaded to become corporations. This enables the pollies to contract with them as opposed to being a living man or woman and therefore they cannot contract with you as a man or woman. So our Pollies have another agenda relating to the Aborigines – we just haven’t worked out their plan to later grab the land from the Aborigines at some stage down the track.
Lin A living woman Linda of the family Welch
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
The Anglo-Celtic majority demographic of the Australian population (and that is all of us who identify as Australian citizens of our nation, honour its heritage/s, laws and social norms) should determine right now that we will not be ruled by a Black minority government backed by Big Jew and their United [Communist] Nations.
Black Rule, Chinese CCP overseers, UN – all under the International Judenstaat is not going to work for us anymore than Black Majority Rule, Chinese CCP and Russian (Eurasia) overseers, UN – all under the Oppenheimer Franchise of the Judenstaat – works in South Africa.
Their Chinese built infrastructure (kind of like the Three Gorges Dam) is crumbling, Black Economic Empowerment policies are not going to provide power and light, ‘Kill the Boere’ songs and rants in the SA Parliament is not going to produce the food or get water to the major cities.
And we talking here about a nation and its state that did the first open heart surgeries, that built (wait for it) ‘hanging’ buildings, produced a string of world firsts. And they fought the Russians as the Russians in the armed aggression of the Communist Revolution and handed their ass to them. As a powerhouse first world nation, SA was unstoppable and had to be capitulated by their Fifth Column in a jiggy jiggy in the way that the Communists manifestly took power in the US 2020.
Now they have monkeys climbing into hospital windows and peeing on the patients.
https://xyz.net.au/2023/03/the-rainbow-nation-faces-revolution/
WTF! Used to be once upon a time in Australia that the governments feared their voters. Nowadays the voters fear their governments.
Who flipped the switch while we were “mistracted” watching the races, sipping lattes, going to the hairdresser and debating if our boys are girls or our girls are boys?
The New World Orderlies of the Queensland Government have been setting up this land grab : ‘you will own nothing’ state of affairs for years.
Former Queensland Senator Len Harris has made it his post CoVID mission to tour the Big Q and inform mortgage holders and home owners that they have no documentation to prove that the property they are paying for / have paid for is theirs. Even when the property or home is paid off there is no documentation guaranteeing ownership – as one might expect under a Communist slave system.
The Land, Explosives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 has taken away people’s right to actually have certificate of title or documentation of title.
Revealed: What Every Queensland Homeowner needs to know in 2021
look up the makarrata treaty or commission and Aborigines and the Age of Atonement on JSTOR. they want everything as well as rule over the shipping channels. this will be the complete surrender of australia and ill bet that the abo machine will get foreign troops in to enforce this.
The voice of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a voice for her people and for Australians who would like to assist her people to assist the communities in what she calls the Town Camps. These camps are virtually for the poster communities for Labor’s ‘Voice’ Referendum. Do they suffer from lack of representation in Parliament? The Senator’s voice is also a voice against Labor’s Voice Referendum as a false, divisive and above all ineffective solution to the issues and problems that real Aboriginal communities identify and that Senator Nampijinpa Price identifies.
The government is spending a lot of money; it must be spent in such a way as to get this right and deliver real outcomes.
Jacinta Nampifinpa Price says we don’t need Voice we need Ears
They want to grab a land for free.
I find it rather weird that a projected 60%+ of the population would vote for themselves(and 97%) of the population to be relegated to second class citizens and pay reparations i.e. large amounts of your tax plus rent in perpetuety even on your so called freehold property, to 3% of the population, as well as the existing $35 Billion already spent on this 3%—-when will enough be enough? Hint, it starts with N and finishes with R.
Some predictions, Crime up, Taxes up, cost of living up, Sovereign risk up, interest rates up Education standards, down even more, Major investement, down, Australia’s AAA debt rating, way down,business collapse in epidemic proportion, all this is predictable and will happen in months–NOT YEARS with a YES vote, it all adds up to a collapse in living standards—so if this is what you want VOTE YES.
Greedier than the cabal, the Queensland Jewish premier, the Governors and governor general, British “royalty” .
It always comes back to 762, it’s just a question of where to point it.
In Zambia you can buy and sell land but cannot get the title until you pay a ransom to the ‘chief’. The last three blocks we bought cost around 12% of the purchase price. Without the title the chief still has control over what you do with the land, including to resell it to someone else
ruthlessly enforced by special police ay ? well see about that
The earth was created by GOD and belongs to only GOD. The only land that GOD set aside was Israel for the Jews and no one else Your abbies are nothing but money and power hungry self centered bigots. If it wasn’t for white people coming with technology to build the country into what it is today the abbies would still be living in their shit holes and eating rats. If anything they should be the ones paying rent. S.