How to qualify as an Aborigine
The Australian Law Reform Commission
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.
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’.
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. 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. 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.
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Denkin had to consider the meaning of ‘Aboriginal native’ for the purpose of s 127 of the Constitution (repealed in 1967):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.
Section 127 was concerned with census-taking, a context requiring certainty of definition and as few exceptions as possible. 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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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. 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’.
92. The High Court Adopts the Broader View. The High Court’s decision in Commonwealth v Tasmania 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.
Go to P 2
Pages: 1 2
Posted on March 9, 2023, in aborigines, General, Voice and tagged Australian law reform Commission, Land Councils. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.
YOU QUALIFY AS INDIGENOUS IF YOU HAVE no ‘O’ BLOOD IN YOUR BLOOD TEST!!! Barbara J Gibbs, Dip.Diet& Nut:BA/BSc:Grad.Cert.OSH;TEFL Cert Ganoderma Distributor http://www.online-ganoderma.com/gibbsbj http://online-ganoderma.com/gibbsbj
Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
aborigine /ˌabəˈrɪdʒɪni/ https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=AJOqlzWsgbjSH58lBEaGZGakNkoMnqR7rg:1678403291747&q=how+to+pronounce+aborigine&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozS3w8sc9YSmjSWtOXmPU4eINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLlYglJLcoV4pXi5uJMTMovykzPzEu1YlFiSs3jWcQqlZFfrlCSr1AA1JQP1JWqAFcDAHqx9CpdAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR_vm_-8_9AhUmSWwGHTypCfIQ3eEDegQIDhAK noun noun: aborigine; plural noun: aborigines
a person, animal, or plant that has been in a country or region from earliest times. – an indigenous inhabitant of Australia. noun: Aborigine; plural noun: Aborigines
How does one in a position of “presumed authority” like a judge, a politician or any other “legis-slater” get to become The Authority on the definition of A Word?; Rhetorical question as No Individual can (Lawfully) conjure The meaning of a Word;
The Definition of (a word) has been procured through centuries of endless and timeless English (language) Dictionaries and those very English (language) Dictionaries are (were) the Ultimate Authority of (a words) meaning right up until the time that we stepped out of the Lawful (Constitutional Courts) Realm and into the LEGAL (Corporeal Courts) Realm;
The LEGAL (Corporeal) Dictionary is named The Blacks Law (Dictionary) and it’s use of necromantic “spellings” whereby Meaning can be conjured by the act of investigating “words within definitions” until one (judges, magistrates, lawyers et.al) finds a word that fits the Meaning one (judges, magistrates, lawyers et.al) finds suitable to [T]heir thought process; This is why and how there are so many illogical and nonsensical “decisions” handed “down” by the “bench” of these courts; This is also why there are “arguments” regarding the “definition” of a word when there should rightly be none;
Merriam-Webster aborigine noun https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun ab·orig·i·ne ˌa-bə-ˈrij-(ˌ)nē https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aborigine?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=a&file=aborig02 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aborigine?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=a&file=aborig02 -ˈri-jə- Synonyms of aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine 1 *: *a member of the original people to inhabit an area especially as contrasted with an invading or colonizing people 2 often capitalized *: *a member of any of the indigenous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous peoples of Australia
The continued land grab and welcome ceremony is heavily grating on the average Aussie nerves. Where once we naturally acknowledged the indigenous people of this country as being here first, we have now reached a point where resentment has replaced acceptance. These are my thoughts on this subject having lived the best part of the last century in this country. Firstly, I would like to see some gratitude shown by the Indigenous to their so-called colonial invaders for reaching their shores before the Spanish and the Portuguese. There are no Mayans left in South America to now push for land rights and complain about their invaders.
Secondly, the real Aboriginal people are not the one’s complaining or pushing for land rights, saying Sorry, welcome ceremony and the Yes vote etc. It is the tar brush activists who want their 5 minutes of glory or easy money from the Globalists. We have 11 Aborigines in Parliament who seem to have lost their VOICE and have done nothing to improve the lives of their people but have plenty to say in criticism of one of their own when she speaks the truth. Plenty to say when a Lefty Agenda is on the table and gives THEM exposure and an excuse to fly around the country and pretend, they care about their people living in tragic circumstances.
Finally, and most importantly! The stolen generation, who probably would not be alive now to act as victims and all who claim to be of the Indigenous lineage, who are now educated, dressing, eating and living a colonial life, should be made to denounce that life if they claim to be Indigenous. If they want to live in a Western Society and have the privileges that it gives them; If they choose civilization over their original roots of living off the land, it would be a hate crime and racist for them to attack civilized society. You cannot live as a White and have the privileges of an Indigenous person. The Lefty circus that has been going on, that has been financed by Globalists has to STOP! The reason for Land Rights was exposed decades ago by G. McDonald in: RED OVER BLACK; Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights!
He, spoke of Communism behind the Land Rights, which has now become Globalism. Same thing under a different name. Time to speak the truth and stop this insidious takeover of OUR land where we worked so hard to create this wonderful civilization.
They are welcomed to their original land, without the civilization they are enjoying created by Colonialism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After seeing, reading and posting this definition, it was exactly as Alex Antic tried to uncover in question time as per video I also posted. I do not as Tony Ryan conveys have great knowledge of true aboriginals still somewhat living traditionally. However, I know for a 100% fact there isn’t one in Tasmania I have come across in 51 years. Yet all schools here and Australia wide including Catholic and other private schools get extra funding for every child who identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The federal government allocates 500,000,000 million (half a billion to this as at 2023). See link below. So my kids’ schools get this money and no-one has ever asked for any proof. EVER! The amount is approximately 2,500 for each (I based that on a guess of 200,000 kids identifying). It is possibly way lower, but now you know why all schools push this agenda, they get paid handsomely for it. Meanwhile we still pay school fees and have to thank them everyday for being allowed on THEIR land. My children of Aboriginal heritage get allocated to speak Welcome to Country. Isn’t it their country according to the definition and the WELCOME itself? Shouldn’t it be all the other non aboriginal kids doing the ‘Welcome to Country”? Just asking?
It is all a complete farce and never has there been a less intelligent generation to my mind or more indoctrinated adults/educators of children.
I could certainly add that some from previous generations have allowed this to happen because they not only believed the government, they believed everything they read in a newspaper, watched on TV or were too busy watching AFL or another sport. They forgot the freedoms their ancestors fought for.
See link here to School funding.
XYZ is tracking Lidia Thorpe as the poster girl for the Voice Referendum and by extension Black sovereignty. Here is the take-away
“The point of all of this is that I want Loony Lidia to be front and centre of the national Lying Press for as long as possible because I want Australians to understand that this is what their future looks like.
The so-called “black sovereignty movement” which Lidia represents is on the fringes now but in a decade, every political party, media station and corporation in the country will hold it as a core principle.” David Hiscox
LikeLiked by 1 person
To get an idea of what Black Minority Rule under the ‘Box Ticker’ Aboriginal Industry [a Communist Front] might be like, have a squizz at what Black Majority Rule under the African National Congress [a Communist Front] is like.
From a strong and prosperous First World Nation using its powerhouse economy to advance its populations by demographic on the lands guaranteed them by the state (with the state as an investment partner in their social progress and development under self-rule), from a string of world firsts across all fields of endeavor, political parties openly advocate in the Parliament: ‘Kill the Boere’ as the solution to the crumbling electrical grid that can not be maintained by Black Majority Rule.
SA was once a leader in open heart surgery with some of the best hospitals in the entire world for its multi-racial population – here is an SA hospital today in Kwa Zulu Natal.
Monkeys invade hospital in South Africa
In Marxist Identity politics anyone can identify as an Aborigine or whatever race or ethnicity they want, whatever gender they want – including transitional and creative gender options, even whatever species they want.
The ‘Box Ticker’ Aboriginal Identity industry worth over 33 billion annually is what needs to be in focus. All these assortments identify as Aboriginal and as the good Communists they are they have worked assiduously over the decades to squash the efforts of these communities to bring social order and prosperity to their lives, law and culture.
The Aboriginal Industry [Marxist Whites] is using these communities as a spearhead to bring in Black Minority Rule over Australia.
White Australians should determine right now that whatever numbers in favour of ‘Voice’ the Albo Referendum jiggy-jiggy pulls out of the hat we are not going to be ruled by the Marxist anti-White ‘Abo Box Tickers’ of the Aboriginal Industry that is currently making life un-liveable for the Aboriginal communities. And we should use the jiggy jiggy as an opportunity to make these whorejobs accountable for all their mischief.
Early definitions of Aboriginality were made by people who were profoundly ignorant of universal definitions, focused entirely on skin colour, and supported by people who possessed only the intelligence, outlook, and comprehension of trans-cultural issues, one might expect of a nation that was dedicatedly monolingual, monocultural and mostly poorly educated.
I should add that it was not until the 1970s that some Australians began to realise that issues of administrative service applicability were being applied to cultural differences and disadvantages, not to skin colour per se. (In the US, the vast majority continue to be that ignorant, as are their copyists in Australia who use the word “black”).
Unfortunately, we are still a long way from full comprehension of the endemic cultural divide in Australia, even in the public service. Let me explain this need for relevant services and applicable definitions.
It makes sense to keep education flexible when the children cannot understand the language of the school teacher.
Likewise, in the application of the law, this is predicated on the presumption that every citizen has access to new laws via legal requirements to make these known through Post Office Notice Boards, Government Gazettes, and main newspaper Public Notices columns (hence the maxim that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” because every citizen has the obligation and capacity to read at least one of these).
But commonsense recognises that Aborigines who are illiterate in any language, and who do not speak adequate English, cannot be lawfully acquitted in such conditions.
Moreover, some of the people who are thus disadvantaged can either be very dark-skinned or the colour of pale coffee. Obviously, genetic inheritance becomes irrelevant in this context.
But with the provision of special Aboriginal services and concessions, it has become attractive for people with none of the disadvantages thus addressed, to claim Aboriginality. In the mid-1970s, this was not a massive problem but, very quickly, thousands of faux Aborigines were “becoming accepted as Aborigine” by other faux Aborigines, complying with this component of the new definition. The Aboriginal population rose from 1% to 2.5%.
It got worse. The faux element outnumbered the genuine Aborigines and, being perfectly literate and articulate, dominated Aboriginal development policies, bending these in their own direction and at the expense of those who desperately needed service concessions. One outcome has been hundreds of Aboriginal academics, flourishing PhDs that would never survive audit. These have joined lobby forces with the dozen or so Aboriginal media celebrities.
This has got to the stage that tribal people, who speak only their own languages, and who find western culture utterly incomprehensible, now have no voice at all. If they elect their own candidates to represent their interests, these are identically handicapped and so nothing is achieved.
Enter the ‘Voice’. these “Aboriginal” pseudo-academics and media celebrities, not one of whom speaks an Aboriginal language or possesses Aboriginal culture, want to veto any new legislation for the entire nation until it benefits them. No matter how urgent the legislation they can veto it indefinitely.
This is obviously the total opposite of democracy and it is government by an elitist racial minority. In other words, institutionalised racism and apartheid.
I have been asked by confused Aussies… why would the Albo government introduce such an obviously retrograde piece of legislation, let alone constitutionalise it? All I can say is that this is how Fabian Socialism works. Introduce fascism and tyranny by stealth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Merriam Webster dictionary defines Aboriginal as:
of or relating to the people who have been in a region from the earliest time .
Therefore, as a man of Irish descent stretching back many centuries I am by definition an aboriginal of Ireland. If the Voice or the Constitution do to define the meaning of Aboriginal strictly to refer to Australians, then I have all the rights that the Voice is supposed to confer on any ‘aboriginal’. I like to define myself as Aboriginal on any government document that asks that racist questsion. Why should I treat them with any respect when they are attempting to foist their racism on us?
Pingback: How to qualify as an Aborigine – altnews.org