20150417-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Funding Recognise Campaign and Others

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
17-4-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:
10
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Frank Chung frank.chung@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Ref; 20150417-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re funding recognise campaign and others
15
20
25
Tony,
for some Les has indicated to me that he is the first Lore officer regarding Aboriginals.
I view it appropriate to quote my earlier to Les 17-4-2015 email to you.
.
I havent as yet had any reply from you to fund MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL also
$6 million, as you did reportedly for the Recognise campaign.
As I understand it you had an issue when previously for the proposed recognition of
municipal/shire council the then Federal government was funding a lot more for the yes vote
then for the No vote campaign. Are you not now being hypocritical to do the same?
.
Consider that I promote the true meaning and application of the constitution, a lot more than
others are doing!
.
QUOTE 17-4-2015 email a Les
30
MY RESPONSE Re RECOGNISE-COMPETION-ETC-Re: Your

opinion appreciated
People
Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
35
Today at 10:43 PM
Les McDonald
To
Hide
CC
Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
40
Les,
I can answer as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and/or my personal views. I will do both.
p1
17-4-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
First let me quote your email:
QUOTE 14-4-2015 EMAIL
Your opinion appreciated
People
Les McDonald
Apr 14 at 7:13 PM
To
10
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Hide
Noel only speaks for his mob people .
The AGE Melbourne 14 April 2015
15
Noel Pearson calls for a national competition to recognise Indigenous Australians

Australians would be given the chance to draft a declaration recognising the place of Aborigines and Torres
Strait Islanders in the nation's history and culture under a bold plan backed by Noel Pearson.
20
25
30
35
Under the proposal by two constitutional conservatives, Damien Freeman and Julian Leeser, the words of the
declaration would be chosen through a national competition, voted on by all Australians in a referendum and
used at national, civic and religious events.
The day the declaration was adopted - potentially in 2017 - could then become a public holiday and an annual
commemoration and celebration of Australia's Indigenous peoples, but the declaration would sit outside the
Constitution and have no legal force.
Mr Pearson has supported the plan as a "breakthrough idea", warning that the current plan for constitutional
recognition is a "recipe for a conflagration between conservatives and other Australians".
But the Indigenous leader and lawyer has stressed that it is not a solution by itself and should be linked to
constitutional changes, including a provision to give Indigenous Australia a voice to government.
He has called for a series of Indigenous conventions across the country to debate his preferred model for
change and the model he helped craft as a member of the expert panel established by the Gillard government
in 2010.
Indigenous leaders have reacted cautiously, saying more than five years of consultations have been predicated
on recognition being within the nation's founding document, which some have dubbed "the birth certificate of
the nation".
40
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, Mick Gooda, said it was a "big ask" to now
be promoting a declaration of recognition outside the Constitution. There is also strong support from
Indigenous leaders for the expert panel's call for a prohibition on racial discrimination to be inserted into the
Constitution.
45
Prime Minister Tony Abbott welcomed Mr Pearson's intervention, but stressed the importance of securing
bipartisan support for a model and working with Indigenous Australians is fundamental. "Unless we are
together on this, we will fail," he said. Labor leader Bill Shorten, agreed and renewed his call for Mr Abbott
to convene a meeting of Indigenous leaders to discuss the issue.
50
Mr Pearson says it is clear that constitutional conservatives will ensure the defeat of any racial discrimination
prohibition on the grounds that it would diminish the power of the Parliament.
55
He is also convinced that the concern that recognition within the Constitution would be subjected to
interpretation by the High Court would result in a set of "mealy-mouthed, miserable and minimalist" words.
The architects of the new plan agree, saying a declaration outside the Constitution would have "greater
capacity for rhetorical flourishes, sweeping statements and soaring poetry".
p2
17-4-2015
3
"The constitutional conservatives have the power to hold the country's future to ransom," Mr Pearson told
Fairfax Media. "What I'm interested in is to convince constitutional conservatives that there is a way they can
uphold the Constitution and recognise indigenous Australians at the same time.
5
"The second group that could kill this are those who rightfully insist that racial discrimination has been a
defining feature of our relationship to the national Parliament and that recognition must in a substantive way
address that."
10
He believes his proposal for a Constitutional amendment requiring the Parliament to consult with, and
consider advice from, an Indigenous body is the better way to address this concern.
"I just think the important thing now is to make sure constitutional conservatives don't foreclose on this and
advocates of an expert panel don't blindly insist on a position that is very obviously going to result in
trenchant opposition."
15
Under the plan drafted by Mr Freeman and Mr Leeser, the process to formulate a declaration would draw on
the public competition approach employed to choose the Australian national flag more than a century ago.
"In order to ensure popular participation, the government should ask Australians, through a national
competition, to compose a potential Australian Declaration of Recognition of no more than 300 words," they
say.
20
A committee would then select a shortlist of five versions to be put to a referendum, with a preferential
voting system deciding the most popular.
25
The text of the declaration could then be carved into the fabric of Parliament House "in the same way that the
Declaration of Independence is carved into the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC".
END QUOTE 14-04-2015 EMAIL
.
30
Split opens in recognition push the Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium
&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/split-opens-in-indigenous-recognitionpush/story-fn9hm1pm-1227302608688&memtype=registered
35
1.
40
Split opens in indigenous recognition push

The Australian - 7 hours ago
As reported in The Australian today, the damaging split has emerged among indigenous ...
1.
2.
Privacy Principles and how we will deal with a complaint of that nature.
3.
Split opens in indigenous recognition push - The Australian ...

www.hotheadlines.com.au News Google
19 hours ago - Split opens in recognition push. A damaging split has emerged among indigenous
leaders over constitutional recognition for Aboriginal ...
45
4.
Split opens in recognition push, 2015-04-13 | NewsWits.com

www.newswits.com/2015/04/.../split-opens-in-recognition-push-ltsrrsr.ht...
20 hours ago - Split opens in recognition push on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0200. ... Most Read
News of The Australian: Uni heads taking home millions
50
5.
Marie McInerney (@mariemcinerney) | Twitter

https://twitter.com/mariemcinerney
Marie McInerney retweeted. Ian Anderson @lurupana 9h 9 hours ago. Have a look at this article
from The Australian. Split opens in recognition push.
55
6.
Split opens in recognition push | dailynewsleaks
dailynewsleaks.com/news/split-opens-in-recognition-push
p3
17-4-2015
4
Published By: theaustralian - Today. New In Last 20 minutes; Split opens in indigenous recognition
push - The Australian google news australia (Today) - The ...
7.
Split opens in recognition push | Amazon Herald - Breaking ...

www.amazonherald.com/news/split-opens-in-recognition-push
Split opens in recognition push ... Published By: The Australian - Today ... run alongside any
amendments to the Australian Constitution to recognise Indigenous.
8.
10
Shorten blames PM for recognition split | Amazon Herald ...

www.amazonherald.com/news/shorten-blames-pm-for-recognition-split
Older News; Split opens in recognition push The Australian (Today) - A damaging split has
emerged among indigenous leaders over constitutional recognition ...
9.
PM blamed for recognition split | Amazon Herald - Breaking ...
15
www.amazonherald.com/news/pm-blamed-for-recognition-split
Older News; Split opens in recognition push The Australian (Today) - A damaging split has
emerged among indigenous leaders over constitutional recognition ...
20
When one talks about Aboriginals then one has to ask: Which Aboriginals are you talking about?
As shown in the quotations below, Northern Territory Aboriginals basically are a different race
then say the Aboriginals from Tasmania (when they existed, that is), at least the scientist claims
this based upon DNA research.
I have as yet not found a single Aboriginal who could prove that all persons claiming to be
aboriginals actually had a united flag, united language, united customs, united DNA structure, etc
throughout what is now known as Australia.
If a person were to claim to be a Caucasian, then this doesnt mean the person is belonging to one
race using the same flag, the same language, the same customs, etc. it is simply that races have
interbred and even Caucasians are divided in different groupings, different customs, different
languages, etc.
As such, no use for a German to claim ownership of what is now Germany, as it may very well
be that my forefathers were in that area now called Germany but simply that was before the
present Germany was isolated from other parts of Europe.
Australia was divided in to different colonies and while the East was under Captain Cooks claim
it was a different story with the west, which had Dutch people setting there long before then.
As such we had Aboriginals who were part of the various colonies.
We then have to consider the following:
25
30
35
40
45
50
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
As the Federation is a POLITICAL UNION then how on earth can you claim that
Aboriginals are the first of this POLITICAL UNION?
p4
17-4-2015
10
5
A POLITICAL UNION is not a country and as such claiming to be the first of a
POLITICAL UNION to me seems to be sheer and utter nonsense. And again, which
Aboriginal raced was first in the landmass Australia?
How on earth can you recognize Aboriginals as the first people if different Aboriginal races
existed?
As such let first try to come to some agreement which Aboriginal race was the first in what is the
land mass Australia?
I invite you to check out my 20150407-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY
ABBOTT PM-Re The fraudulent republican issue-Recognise-etc correspondence!
You will find a copy on my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
.
It also contained the following
15
QUOTE 20150407-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The fraudulent republican
issue-Recognise-etc correspondence!
For example consider the issue of Recognise versus what I quote below and to note the
gross deception upon the general community with the Recognise campaign.
20

I sent this to Senators, Cheers Gil
Gil
Mar 28 (2015)
To
25
me
Hide
Photos
clip_image002.png
Download All
30
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: Constitution recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: fait accompli: No
opposing views permitted or considered.
35
40
Some time ago I sent a submission to >jscatsi@aph.gov.au< Joint Select Committee on Constitutional
Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, objecting to this proposal on archeological and
historical grounds where evidentiary material clearly shows the current races are not the original people and
are unlikely to even be of close relationship. The evidence cannot be ignored while the committee simply
goes on its merry way making recommendations without any consideration whatsoever of historical and
archeological evidence, but this is exactly what is occurring, the committee is fait accompli as it has no
authority to examine or consider any evidence to the contrary, this is total nonsense and insulting to the
Australian people and an abuse of the democratic process.
The terms of reference are based on:- What steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful
referendum on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition. There is no provisions for any consideration to the
contrarythat being so, my submission was rejected as it had presented factual evidence to the contrary.
45
This inquiry cannot therefore honestly be considered a serious or genuine Inquiry, it is just a forced opinion
upon the people with the inquiry to justify another seriously erroneous action.
This is another flawed opinion of the PM where he is pushing his preferred options without permitting or
accepting any evidence to the contraryit is not a genuine inquiry as it refuses to consider factual evidentiary
material. We heard the PM promising how he would consult with the people and colleagues, yet here we
p5
17-4-2015
6
have him on morning ABC TV (11/2/15) pushing ahead with this totally biased and unjustified action to put
an oddity into our constitution. Is this another broken promise where he fails to consult and consider facts
and opinion?
Who were the first indigenous people?
10
They have been extinct for thousands of yearswake up. This appears beyond the PMs understanding of
archaeological evidence, ample evidence exists of numerous populations prior to and concurrent with each
other going back thousands of years. There were races of giant people here similar to the giant Java-Man,
where huge footprints in stone and huge tools have been well documented. Hundreds of skeletons of Mungo
Man lived 50,000 year ago, a very modern type skeletal structure, whose mitochondrial DNA is totally
different to any known people, and others. 900-year-old African Kilwa and Dutch coins were found in
remote Australia, along with Chines artifacts; British archaeologists stated a mummy from the Jordan Valley
was preserved with Eucalyptus resin from Australia, there is massive evidence. The general population
shook their heads in disbelief at his nonsense.
Historical Fact
15
20
25
30
35
40
When the English settled Australiait was discovered hundreds of year before them by Dutch, Portuguese,
Chinese and Phoeniciansthey found a very stone-age people who had the ability to survive in this
inhospitable arid land where no European could ever survive. In school we were taught about the worlds last
remaining stoneage people the unique Aborigine and they featured in National Geographic magazine, they
had no permanent homes, gardens or domestic food animals. They used fire to burn the land with massive
uncontrolled bushfires that eventually wiped out all the megafauna, the time-frame proven by archaeology
and science.
Rex Giroy wrote about findings at Kow Swamp in northern Victoria in his Australia The Cradle of
Civilisation; In 1967 ancient burial sites between 9,000 & 15,000 years old were excavated by
archaeologists, where skeletal remains displayed notable anatomical differences to modern Aboriginals,
bigger, heavier built, huge jaws and teeth, up to three times the size of modern man. Like the giant Java-Man
who may have also live here. Other archaeological finds of very ancient skeletons and huge stone tools of
such size they could only have been used by huge powerful people.
At Cowra, NSW they found two half intact footprints in mudstone measuring one meter long and 45
centimetres wide, local aborigines say they were made by a giant man who stood 7.6 metres tall. At Penrith
NSW there are six, 61 cm long by 46 cm wide human like fossil footprints. Similar finds were reportedly
made in the Townsville-Rockhampton area and Bathurst NSW, also in numerous other locations. At Roper
River NT, there are rock carvings of giant footprints 38 cm long.
In Lake Mungo, south-western NSW, the skeletal remains about 50,000 years old displayed finer modern
features similar to modern humans, but their DNA is different from any know humans, where did they come
from? Who killed them? These people co-existed. Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of
ancient and modern Aborigines has indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines. Theses
skeletal remains were subject to detailed investigation due their unusual modern characteristics. The results
indicated that Mungo Man was an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor
of contemporary humans. These results, if correct, may support the multiregional origin of modern humans
hypothesis.
The current aboriginal was preceded by numerous other races and it is possible the original inhabitants of
Australia migrated-out-of-Australia to colonise other lands with Australia being the Cradle of Civilisation?
Pygmies
45
Manning Clarkes History of Australia records these people, so does John Mulvaneys and Johan
Kammingas Prehistory of Australia, as does Josephine Floods Archaeology of the Dreamtime, points
out Pleistocene human remains lie outside the range of present-day Australian skeletal form ,
However evidence suggests that another group of people were here, perhaps 100,000 years ago (The
Australian 15-5-92).
(Picture not included)
50
Pygmy aboriginal encampment in the rainforest behind Cairns, 1890.

p6
17-4-2015
7
This is the photograph (attributed to A. Atkinson) found by Norman Tindale in 1938. Norman Tindale wrote
about these little people with photographs in his book The little people of the Rainforest last century. These
people were negritos with frizzy hair as were the Tasmanian aborigines.
Thousands of years ago sea levels were about 150 m lower linking Papua-New Guinea and other
Islands with narrow channels separating Indonesian Islands from Australia allowing easy migration of
unrelated races to Australia and all islands.
It was published the ancient Phoenicians had a gold and copper mine near Gympie, the remnants are still
there. Chinese and Egyptian artefacts were reportedly discoverer in central Queensland. Chinese records
show about 4,500 years ago the emperor had Kangaroos in his zoo. British archaeologists stated a mummy
from the Jordan Valley was preserved with Eucalyptus resin from Australia.
10
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported
"evidence of substantial gene flow (migration) between Indian populations and Australia about 4,000 years
ago". That they brought the Dingo with them. (If the Dingo was a native animal it would be a marsupial not a
placental mammal).
15
History shows that Capt Cook was not the first to discover Terra Australis, 900-year-old African Kilwa
coins and Dutch coins were found in remote Australia along with aboriginal rock art depicting numerous
different types of ships. (Australian Press 2013). Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon landed here in 1606, they
explored the west and southern coast calling it New Holland; many years before Janszoon arrived,
Portuguese sailors landed (circa 1521) and even mapped parts of Australia (Terra Java).
20
In the rock-art area of the Kimberley Ranges is another valley where the paintings are totally different to that
of the Aboriginals, they are very similar to cave paintings in Europe. When asked who painted these, the
tribal elder (SBS TV) replied They were painted by the people before our time began, an admission of prior
occupation, these are totally different from local rock-art. The Bradfields nearby are different art from all
others. Who were the artisans?
25
PM Abbot wants to recognise the original owners in the constitution preamble, Why? For what
benefit. They have been dead thousands of years. They were not related to the current mixed race
aborigines.
This referendum proposal is pathetically nave, understand the facts, and stop making a fool of Australia.
Sincerely
30
G J May
1 Kirklees Place
Forestdale 4118
11/2/15
35
Gil
QUOTE 28-3-2015 RESPONSE
Re: I sent this to Senators, Cheers Gil
People
40
me
Mar 28 (2015)
To
Gil
Hide
CC
45
me
Gil,
p7
17-4-2015
8
I thank you for your email, which I will spread around, in the format you provided it.
I too made a submission to the inquiry and expressed my concerns that it was limited to only submissions in
favour of the Recognise kind of promotion. My submission to my understanding was also not considered for
that I pointed out constitutional issues.
10
As like in a political election where there is only one candidate as any opponent is denied to stand as a
candidate and then it is claimed there was 100^% vote for the one candidate, likewise the same is with the
Aboriginal issue which is hijacked. In the last few weeks I even requested the Tony Abbott to provide MAY
JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL also with $6 million as it did with the Recognise campaign to expose the
real constitutional issues involved. What we have is Abo (Aboriginal) lovers for the sake of buying their
votes and they are willing to destroy our federal compact for this, and in fact harm Aboriginals in the process.
but as with the 1967 ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum Aboriginals and others are too much brainwashed to
realise they are so to say digging their own grave.
15
We had Kevin Rudd's apology that Aboriginals demanded from John Howard but never got, ass to finally end
the division. Well it never did. We had the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum which actually robbed Aboriginals of
equality and delegated them equally to "inferior foreign coloured races".
I recall, some decades ago Aboriginals in the Grampians wanted to get rid of the Aboriginal names of
previous Aboriginals who had died out and replace it with their own names. As such proving that they
themselves couldn't care less about Aboriginals that lived before them.
20
25
I am a constitutionalist and not an "archeological and historical" trained person but safe to say what you
alluded to in your email is what I understood from numerous other writings to be the history of what is now
called the Commonwealth of Australia. As such your writings are much to confirm my general perceptions in
that regard.
Even if, not that I seek to indicate it will, the referendum was to be succeeding then it means nothing more
but that any Aboriginals, even those residing in Canada, somehow are recognised as the original in habitants.
Again, Tony Abbott seems to be set to forge ahead with a kind of one candidate election in the Recognise
issue.
30
35
40
45
50
Mind you he claims to be the (self-appointed) Prime Minister for Aboriginal affairs, while having a minister
for Indigenous Affairs to the cabinet. Constitutionally there is no such thing as a Minister to Cabinet. One can
only have a Minister responsible for a Department. Only one person can be the responsible Minister and as
such you cannot have (that is constitutionally) 2 persons being responsible.
You cannot have a Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs as it can only be a Minister for Indigenous
Affairs. The meaning of Prime Minister is being the first Minister (Some colonies used the term Prime
Minister prior to federation)
Aboriginals simply do not realise they are being conned by Tony Abbott and other politicians.
There is a lot more to this, as unless legislation is properly published in the gazette and be given Royal Assent
there is no legislation.
A fact is that the Attorney-General basically now approves legislation rather than the Governor-General to
give royal ascent on behalf of the Monarch, and so the purported legislation is ultra vires.
Therefore Aboriginals may seek to explore this to what they deem their benefit to have a pretended
referendum but reality is that you only need one person to come to power and address it all and all the
purported treaties, legislation an d other land right legislative provisions will be proven to be null and void.
What may eventuate is a backlash against Aboriginals as those having been conned for so long and seen their
taxes drained towards Aboriginals may then mount a campaign to disown everything Aboriginals own to pay
back the unconstitutional monies that were paid to them.
.
In my view, Aboriginals, that is the real Aboriginals and not the fake ones would do better to ensure that any
campaign they are involved in will be soundly based so that no later backlash will eventuate.
55
I received the 1-3-2015 dated response fromTania Rishniw, Assistant Secretary. (See attachment)
END QUOTE 28-3-29015 RESPONSE
p8
17-4-2015
9
You do not bulldozer as republican issue or for that a Recognise issue through. You need to
have an open debate ironing out what really are or can be the legal consequences of any
amendment of the constitution, and if not with as republic the current constitution will be no
more.
Why indeed should politicians have the say what a new constitution should be and not the
electors themselves?
.
10
15
20
The 1967 con-job referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) didnt resolve anything rather created
more problems. There was as I understand it this hype about giving aboriginals citizenship,
this even so on a federal basis they had where they had been granted this by the colony/state.
As such nothing in that regard with the referendum changed as you cannot give something
that they already had.
END QUOTE 20150407-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re The fraudulent
republican issue-Recognise-etc correspondence!
.
Let us be clear about it that there are no written records as to what happened when, etc. tens of
thousands of years ago and scientist constantly are making claims and then changing it all
pending new discoveries.
It is claimed that Aboriginals interbred with Davisonians (Russian area) but who is to say that the
Devisonians were not first in what is now known as Australia and Aboriginals later came along
and interbred with them, as allegedly did happen with Aboriginals in the Northern Territory with
other races.
25
30
35
40
45
50
As The Netherlands, Germany, r

Fancy and countless other countries created the POLITICAL UNION the European Union
would this then somehow give me the right to claim that my people should be acknowledged in
all those countries part of the European Union constitution that we are the first people?
They will ask; Who on earth do you think you are? Some Idiot. They likely will say: So what
if your ancestors resided in some part of Europe this doesnt mean that then the POLITICAL
UNION being the European Union in its constitution has to acknowledge your ancestors.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not some land based country but a POLITICAL UNION
that may or may not expand in time. Why on earth include to recognize some race or a mixture of
races all going by Aboriginals when there are other natives who may lay claim on different
areas?
New Guinea in fact once part of the Commonwealth of Australia could never become
independent. It is like the mafia. Once you are in you are forever chained to them. Where indeed
was the POLITICAL UNION of Aboriginals in past centuries? So far I am aware of they
were battling each other to the death, wiping out some tribe s in the process.
Suppressing the truth of the massacres that eventuated in the thousands of years before Captain
Cooks landing isnt going to give due recognition to the first people (whomever they were) being
in the land mass Australia!
We can con each other and pretend that Aboriginals were the first but again Aboriginals never
were one race or one tribe and so the question is; Will the real descendants of the original first
people that lived in the landmass Australia please stand up?
As I understand it the Maoris in New Zealand went on a killing spree murdering out those who
lived there before them. New Zealand was originally attending the Constitution convention
debates as a possible colony to join in. Would if they did then the constitution have to recognise
the Maoris as the original people? If not why not if they did the same as some Aboriginals
tribes/races did?
p9
17-4-2015
10
15
20
25
10
.
Let the archeologist continue their digging and in time they may discover more races that resided
here. After all if they already discovered bones of giants in what is now known as the land mass
Australia, then they likely may have lived her before the various Aboriginals tribes/races.
Any person can be proud of being the descendants of a race, and sol its rich history. But you are
not going so to say shove it down the throat of everyone that they have to honour you. If we have
to honour every tribe/race that ever existed we be on old age pension just doing that.
If Aboriginals were travelling from Africa via Asia, as some scientist claim, then why are
Aboriginals not claiming in all Asian countries their constitutional should be amended to
recognize Aboriginals?
.
What the politicians are doing is for the sake of trying to get more votes they are so to say falling
over each other as to con the aboriginals (whomever they are) as to what may suit them for an
election. Is this the kind of level of intelligence or the lack thereof that Aboriginals desire to
display, as they did with the 1967 con-job referendum?
Have Aboriginals not learned than the 19677 con-job referendum nearly 50 years ago really
didnt resolve matters as the Northern Territory Intervention Act is a clear example of this?
So, even if you were to succeed, not that I seek to indicate it will, to get the constitution amended
then what the hell will this benefit the Aboriginals suffering under the Northern Territory
Intervention Act?
Is it really all a kind of ego trip for Aboriginals to claim to be the first people, regardless if
afterwards it is found they were not and the constitution may then be amended again, as being
more important than to care about fellow Aboriginals suffering under the unconstitutional
Northern Territory Intervention Act?
.
This Adam Goodes bloke was previously made Australian of the Year, as it appears to me for no
other reason but being an Aboriginal. What on earth did he do over the decades about the
constitution and about the unconstitutional; Northern Territory Intervention Act?
30
35
40
45
Let us be clear about it ss51(xxvi) was specifically included as to provide for racist laws against
foreign inferior coloured races. They specifically kept Aboriginals out of this to protect them
from racism laws. But the UN supported the push for Aboriginals to be made equal to being like
a foreign inferior coloured race and then what on earth are the Aboriginals on about? They
wanted to be considered like a foreign inferior coloured race and they got it. If you dont like
the end result then that teaches you to be more careful in future. But no, Aboriginals are on it
again, as nearly 50 years still hasnt been enough. Dont you get it, when politicians are all in
favour of something then they are not telling you what their real intentions are, and well the
Northern Territory Intervention Act just ought to be kept in mind that more of the same or worse
is to come!
We are constantly flooded about everything about Aboriginals that it really is so to say sickening.
If an Aboriginal is starting to play footy then wellbeing an Aboriginal must be added to it. Not
about his competence or the lack thereof of playing footy. After all to claim he is no good in
playing footy would be racist as such you can only make complimentary comments. That
somehow is not racist.
To refer to an Aboriginal as Black fellow is racist but for an aboriginal to refer to a NonAboriginal person as a While Fellow or White Australian somehow is not racist. This even
so many non-Aboriginals are non-Caucasians.
p10
17-4-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
And on and on its goes, such as when a person achieves something then if he/she is Aboriginal it
is an important issue to mention but if it is a person of a non-Aboriginal race, say from Asia then
his race is irrelevant.
I understand from many they are so to say sick to death this Aboriginal issue to be rubbed in
time and time again. It appears that Aboriginals do not desire equality but to get rid of racism (as
it appears to them), and yet desire racism only as long as it is in their own benefits.
Many wonder which Aboriginals is being referred to and how can anyone dictate who shall be
deemed to be an Aboriginal merely because somewhere long ago in history it is claimed an
ancestor was of an Aboriginal race, even if very remote and perhaps not of Australia but of Asia!
To my knowledge and understanding there is no DNA test that can resolve which person was
born within what is now known as Australia or in what is now known as Indonesia, China, etc.
As such, what you have is would be (so to say Australian Aboriginals) who actually settled
perhaps only in recent decades and have no long term history with Australia at all.
If you plan therefore to amend the constitution are you going to name specific Aboriginal tribes
that existed long ago in Australia as the word Aboriginal is too general for this.
If you had an ancestor some centuries ago who was say Irish would you claim then to be Irish?
If you had an ancestor some centuries ago who was Dutch would you then claim to be Dutch?
After all what is now known as Western Australia had Dutch sailors way back in 1600s settling
there and many Aboriginals may have DNA tracing back to the Dutch.
So, are we dealing with a Dutchman or an aboriginal or both? And what if one of the ancestors
was German? Are we then dealing with an Australian Dutch German Aboriginal? What if also
one of the ancestors was Italian and another French? Are we then dealing with an Australian
Dutch-Irish-Italian-French Aboriginal?
And we can go on and on like that.
Is this Australian-Dutch-Irish-Italian-French Aboriginal now going to go to all those countries to
demand recognition in their respective constitutions as being the original inhabitants?
Why indeed is it so important to make known a person is Aboriginal when achieving a goal in
footy? Is it to make clear that Aboriginal are ordinary not competent in footy and so better
highlight this? After all generally speaking people can see if a person is Aboriginal and the
commentator may in fact be totally wrong in his assertion the person is an (Australian)
Aboriginal merely because the person may claim and/or look like it.
So we can now attract any aboriginal from all over the world and they can stake their claim on
being an Aboriginal and are by this recognized in the constitution (that is if an amendment for it
was approved by referendum- This I doubt) and then you will have Aboriginal against Aboriginal
and you not just havent resolved anything but rather caused more conflict. I never forget ab out
the names in the Grampians, where Aboriginals wanted the Aboriginal names of those before
them changed to their own. As such even recent Aboriginals couldnt care less about the original
Aboriginals. Yet, expect now that the White Australians (including other non-Aboriginal
races) somehow will acknowledge Aboriginals because of the history, but they themselves
couldnt care less.
.
What was the issue to demand an apology when now it is about recognition? And what is
next?
I rec all that when there was this issue about recognizing municipal/shire councils in the
constitution I understand Tony Abbott was complaining about unfair funding in favour of the yes
vote. Well, now we have the same about this recognize pursued referendum where Tony
Abbott now copies this.
As such it is a political push to con Aboriginals, and nothing to do with what the general
population in Australia really desire.
Both major parties desire to attract the Aboriginal vote as they do to seek to achieve the Muslim
vote and soon we may see Aboriginals versus Muslims battle.
p11
17-4-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
People should understand that the constitution is not some basic rule book but is a compromise of
basic law to true to suit all parties.
The Framers of the Constitution often had to concede to the majority or even the minority in the
Constitution Convention Debates as to achieve the ultimate goal a federation.
The former s127 was a compromise, that also served to protect Aboriginals from being mass
murdered as if s127 had not existed then Aboriginals so to say would have been targeted to
reduce a Colony (now State) liability to pay too much taxes. Western Australia, South Australia
and Queensland never could have afforded to pay the implied taxes had s127 not excluded them
from counting, regardless that already a number of Aboriginals were voting in the colonies and
from federation in the first Federal election.
The constitution does in my view not provide for treaty power within the Commonwealth of
Australia! This I have written about often in the past including in my published books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
Where is the evidence that the so called Aboriginal flag really represents all (Australian) Ab
originals? It was pushed upon them and many Aboriginals, as I understand it, do not recognize it
to represent them.
So, holding some kind of a game as to a 300 wording acknowledgment again is for those wanting
to win and ignores any opposition. As such, it will never be a consensus of the minds of all
Australians.
I did request Tony Abbott to provide also $6 million to MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL as to balance the campaign a bit regarding the Recognise campaign that was
funded a reported $6 million, but he didnt even bother to respond.
And the Parliamentarian inquiry was only for submission in favour of the Recognition
campaign and I understand any submission that was not in favour was side lined. And then they
can falsely claim they had a 100% support!
What a falsehood!
.
Have you ever wondered the deception of Tony Abbott referring to himself as Prime minister for
Aboriginals? After all there is already a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs!
.
It is in my view another unconstitutional political game Tony Abbott is playing.
Why is he spending a week between Aboriginals but not do the same with non-Aboriginal people
who live in similar manner? Oh I get it, no political mileage to get from spending time with nonAboriginal people as such!
.
Why is it about disadvantage Aboriginals but not the same ab out disadvantage people regardless
of race?
When it is about new building being trashed by Aboriginals it is because we (non-Aboriginals)
do not understand their culture and traditions, whereas if a non-Aboriginal does the same to
public housing then well generally speaking they are out of it and banned.
And on and on it goes that many are sick and tired of this Aboriginal nonsense!
Ample of lawyers/doctors/engineers/etc have Aboriginal heritage but stay far away from the
Aboriginal recognize campaign and other issues because they just seem to hold that as much as
they were able to succeed then others should attempt to do the same instead of just wanting
welfare handouts for their own caused miseries.
Playing the Aboriginal race card is in my view in the long term counter productive. Do you really
think that a person like Bill Shorten could give a red arse about what is long term appropriate for
the Commonwealth of Australia? In my view he only is interested in getting into power as much
as many other politicians pursue, regardless of the long term harm they are causing. The same
with Tony Abbott and numerous others.
p12
17-4-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
How would you like it if you were to be told you should walk in a Mardi Grass parade for a few
hours like a Muslim? After all the city of Greater Dandenong had this with non-Muslim women
walking about with a Hijab! So, are they now going to have Muslims to eat pigs so as to
understand what it is for non-Muslim persons?
.
As a born Dutchmen we should get every Australian walking in clogs (Dutch wooden shoes) and
this at least would be great for jobs, as the manufacturing of about 23 million pair of clogs would
boost the economy. Just consider how Aboriginals living in the bush could manufacture from
trees their own wooden shoes (clogs) and then have less injuries and illnesses by instead of
walking barefoot now using clogs. The Medicare bill would likely go down also. And if smoking
is a health hazard then walking without footware is also. And as the Dutch did settle in what is
now known as Western Australia and reportedly build their Dutch buildings, etc, and assimilated
with the Aboriginals living then one can then claim (regardless if you accept it or not) that the
wearing of clogs was part of Dutch-Aboriginal or Aboriginal-Dutch heritage.
And yes I did also wear clogs both in The Netherlands and in Australia, albeit more because
when walking in the mud on my property it was better to do so.
So it seems that perhaps now unbeknown to most Australians wearing clogs is a part of DutchAboriginals or Aboriginal-Dutch customs and traditions. Then if you are about Aboriginal
heritage when did you last or should I say first ever wear clogs? Or is it that these days only the
Aboriginal customs that suit todays Aboriginals are relevant? Ask yourself did Tony Abbott inn
his stays with Aboriginals ever don clogs to recognise the Dutch customs introduced into what is
now known as Australia? Or is it that he never did so because it is more like show and tell that
he can boost to others (more than likely for political advantages) Hey, can you see my
Aboriginals friends I spend time with?
I am well aware that there are people (Aboriginals or otherwise) who dont like my candid
writings but the choice they have is an honest view of a politicians deceptive view!
As I stated so often, that in my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST the Northern Territory
Intervention Act is unconstitutional, as it violates ss51(xxvi). Now, how many lawyers (including
those of Aboriginal heritage) have pursued this for Aboriginals, where they are so to say
screaming about Aboriginal rights?
Why is it that Tony Abbott seeks to ignore what I am on about? Is it because I do not suit his
perhaps ambition to fraudulent achieve what he seeks to achiever?
I wrote extensively opposing on constitutional grounds the recognition of municipal/shire
councils in the constitution and well combined with that of many others doing so it became a
fizzed. I suspect the same likely will eventuate with the recognise campaign because Tony
Abbott by refusing equal funding (as referred to above) means he is actually in a way causing
his plan backfiring.
Are we going to get an amendment of the constitution pursued such as this kind of nonsense:
Do you agree to amend the constitution that Aboriginals or those claiming to be of Aboriginal
heritage are recognized as the first people in what is now known as Australia but only if they can
proved by DNA that their ancestors resided some 40.000 years ago in Australia and not 39.00
years ago as then they no longer were the first people considered to have been Aboriginals in
Australia? And if evidence were to eventuate that a certain tribe or tribes existed before 40.000
years ago will you then accept that they were the original inhabitants and others since are not?
And if it were to com about that prior to Aboriginals as we know them other races existed first in
Australia then all Aboriginals are disqualified from being deemed to be the first people in
Australia?
Again, do keep in mind that bones of different races have been found in Australia and as such
without a precise written history in time what is deemed to be now Aboriginals may be delegated
as not just second inhabitants but perhaps tenth or even later inhabitants. And should we then
p13
17-4-2015
10
15
20
25
30
14
perhaps prosecute the current living Aboriginals for any mass murder they did against Ab
original tribes that were killed in past tribe massacres?
After all are we again on the bandwagon that only something in benefit of Aboriginals is
acceptable to be mentioned but the killings of Aboriginals of other tribes is not to be mentioned?
How do we know if land rights claims by certain Aboriginals or pretended (Australian)
Aboriginals didnt arose from the killing or total wipe out of the real Aboriginals that resided in
that area?
.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have
no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the soil; we have no
powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which
belonged to the Maoris themselves.
END QUOTE
Therefore, the federation was based upon there were no land rights issues and I view the High
Court of Australia in the MABO case went beyond its judicial powers to claim otherwise!
As much as Aboriginals and/or pretended aboriginals are now pursuing land rights claims, etc,
the time may come that so to say it all will be wiped off the face of the earth when some person
were to come to power who would apply the strict interpretation of the true meaning and
application of the constitution. Then Aboriginals and /or pretended Aboriginals will find they
pushed too far. They stand to lose the lot this is because they kept pushing and pushing for more
rather than just wanting to be as the Framers of the Constitution held equal in their federal rights
as any other Australian.
.
.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
natives shall not be counted.
35
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose
in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to
be debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal
population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
40
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be
deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up
the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
45
Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that
when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these
aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South
Australia will have so much the more to pay.
Clause, as read, agreed to.
p14
17-4-2015
15
END QUOTE
You see s127 was about so much less to pay and not specifically to deny Aboriginal rights.
5
10
15
Who is to say that a so called Aboriginal ceremony performed at certain times is that of the first
Aboriginals who settled in the area and not that of the recent settled Aboriginals? As such we are
not at all honouring the first settled Aboriginals but really whomever desires to make it up what
purports to be an Aboriginal custom. I refer to the first Aboriginals who settled in the area
which I view is a more appropriate term then claiming that Ab originals were the first people,
because (again) excavations indicate that other races existed long before Aboriginals came to live
in what is now known as the landmass Australia!
.
http:www.gwb.com.au/onenation/truth/ingtro.html
QUOTE
Land owned by Aboriginal Groups
Australia-wide, including Island area, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations own 14.22% of
Australia's 7,692,024 square kilometres. Under freehold, leasehold and reserve these organisations (not
including individuals) own 1,094,000 square kilometres of Australia.
20
25
30
35
This figure is certain to grow. In the current climate of uncertainty following the Mabo and Others v The
State of Queensland decision (1992) and in the wake of the Native Title Act, 1993 all vacant crown land,
Occupied Crown Land, ie National Parks, and Crown Leasehold Land, ie pastoral (farming properties) are
under threat.
The latter, farming properties, are attracting the bulk of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land claims.
These properties have had many years, in many cases generations, of work and financial investment put into
them and, as such, are of immense value, both in terms of the properties' monetary worth and the potential for
continued financial gains which those properties yield.
Now the menace of land takeover is spreading like a cancer to attack family homes. In what is expected to be
a native title test-case, four Aboriginal families have laid claim to the home of an elderly couple in Western
Australia. Fred and Jean Grubb (aged 66 and 60 respectively) may be forced from their home of 42 years
following the acceptance of the claim against their home by the National Native Title Tribunal in 1995 - just
one week before the Grubb's leasehold on the land became freehold. The case has the potential for grave
consequences for all non-Aboriginal Australians.
(*It must be pointed out that since this research was first commissioned, pressure has been brought to bear
regarding the Grubb's case. Sequentially, the claim against their property. However, the threat to other nonAboriginal Australians is still very real.)
Furthermore, many of Australia's waters, particularly along the coast of Queensland - including the Great
Barrier Reef - and associated islands also have native title claims against them
40
In 1994 (most up to date figures were available) land was acquired for Aboriginal communities under land
acquisition and maintenance and the Regional Land Fund. During that year, 45 properties were bought for
$17.3m, of which approximately 30% was spent on pastoral properties.
Aboriginal organisations own (up to 1994) the staggering total of 77 cattle stations (prolific through the
Northern Territory and Kimberley region), making those organisations the largest holders of pastoral property
in Australia. This figure does not include land owned by individual Aboriginals.
45
50
The most disturbing thing about this vast land acquisition is that there is repeatedly no accountability
or record of it! No list showing the extent to which Australian taxpayers - having provided the funds for
most of these purchases - are still paying for the maintenance of the stations and the communities on them.
Many continue to require on-going investment to rebuild fences, bores, dams, farm equipment and
restocking. This last point is the real financial killer. These expenses can be several times the original price of
the station itself.
p15
17-4-2015
16
Worse still is that no records are available for any of the stations, even though they were, and are, financed
from the public purse.
These organisations are established under Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act, 1976, which operates
under a corporate mechanism, making them immune from public scrutiny.
10
15
Taxpayers scrutinising ATSIC accounts have no way of knowing,

(a) how much has been spent buying stations,
(b) how much is spent maintaining them,
(c) what kind of future funding they require to make them financially viable, or
(d) what their present status is.
What also complicates the publics right to know what public money is going where, is the bewildering
duplication of Aboriginal schemes run by various Federal Government Departments, State governments,
ATSIC, and numerous Aboriginal groups.
Education is a prime example. The Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET) runs five
programs targeting Aboriginals, ATSIC runs one, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
runs three, and the Attorney-General's Department runs another.
Following the money trail and getting a handle on the extensive overlap in expenditure, duplication of
services and lack of accountability is nigh impossible. By the time you unravel the red-tape and follow the
"pass-the-buck" line to get someone who knows about where the money has gone, you have forgotten why
you asked the question!
20
But the fact that we (the taxpayers) are continuing to foot a multimillion dollar bill is reason enough to
continue demanding answers.
END QUOTE
25
This was an article long ago forwarded to me, and the implied resentment is building more and
more by people who are fed up of the double standards and this ongoing Aboriginal
disadvantage claims where ordinary Australians are left to sleep under bridges, etc, where they
are in similar situations.
30
35

From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To: healthachievers Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Gerrit, Yr recognise email and other:
Marg,
40
45
50
This Maureen E. Davis seems to want to have the best of both worlds.
She refers to treaties, but she doesnt indicate within which constitutional provision allows for this. External
Affairs is about external issues and not internal issues.
You cannot have so called self Determination for those claiming to be Aboriginals (irrespective if they may
just have migrated into the Commonwealth of Australia from Asia or elsewhere) and yet demand equality with
other Australians.
It is like having the cake and eat it.
The Framers of the Constitution held that for federal matters Aboriginals were equal as to any other Australian.
The United Nations supported the con-job 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum and this I view because it was totally
incompetent to understand/comprehend what the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
actually stands for.
.
p16
17-4-2015
17
Here you have aboriginals (including those claiming to be Aboriginals regardless if they are not) who demand
equality, but hey that is what they had since federation but they pursued and got in 1967 to be classified as a
race and so can now be discriminated against as a inferior coloured race.
Those who are promoting Recognise obviously havent learned from the 19677 con-job referendum and
overlook that if this were to be put into the constitution it may actually be used against them!
What if some Government indicates that the Constitution Recognised the Aboriginals were the first people to live
in Australia (cannot be the Commonwealth of Australia nor Torres Strait Island or many other places) and
therefore they are deemed inferior because they were never one nation but had tribes with different languages
and were often murdering out each other, and therefore they are of a lesser standing and right then ordinary
Australians? The biggest mistake many are making is that they desire to amend the constitution as to how they
see it and forget that others may have their hidden agenda and may support Aboriginals for precisely
contradictive intentions then those of Aboriginals.
The 1967 con-job referendum was supposed to fix it all and yet about 50 years later it showed it never was. Look
at the Northern Territory Intervention Act which I view is unconstitutional, will you really hold that any future
government would not find a way to abuse its powers precisely opposite to what the constitution stands for?
Constitutionally every purported treaty with Aboriginals simply isnt worth the paper it is written upon. All it
takes is a politician in power who understands and comprehend the true meaning and application of the
constitution and Aboriginals may be worse of, indeed far worse of then prior to the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum!
.
In my view this Maureen E. Davis hasnt got a clue what the true meaning and application of the constitution is
and is likely to cause more harm to Aboriginals in the manner she is writing.
10
15
20
All those land rights cases have in the end not assisted man y Aboriginals who are still living in squalor, etc, but
have made some Aboriginals filthy rich. As such the aboriginal cause is being hijacked by some Aboriginals who
are only so to say self-interested and couldnt give a darn about those Aboriginals who are needing help.
25
Consider the billions of dollars that have been poured in all kind of projects all for aboriginals and yet look at the
end result. It simply didnt fix the problems at all, other than some people getting (again) filthy rich in the
process.
.
This self-determination seems to be pursued that Aboriginals on the one hand are to be equal as others, but when
it comes to being on the dole they can deliberately stay in an area where no employment is available and so live
permanently of welfare. As such, self-determination but still having the financial benefits but not the obligations
as other Australians in similar circumstances.
.
If Aboriginals desire to be part of the land and lived of the land then as like any other Australian they can do so,
however, if they desire to have the financial and other benefits as Australians who have to work, pay taxes, or
find a job
30
35
40
What we need to do is to accept that any Australian regardless of race, colour, etc, HAS THE SAME RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS AS THE ORIDNARY AUSTRALIAN.
45
Apply this rule and things will work out bar for the screamers who want to get quick rich.
.
Gerrit
.
50

Snippets from "On Target"
Shopping
Jean
55
Today at 4:18 PM (27-2-2015)
Jean Holmes
To
p17
17-4-2015
18
27 February 2015 Thought for the Week: It is disappointing but not
surprising that Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy has failed to
oppose outright the campaign for constitutional recognition of
indigenous Australians ('Royalists recognise need for change', 18/2). Its
stance differs from the much wiser unequivocal rejection of such change
by the Australian Monarchist League and the pro-monarchy Australian
League of Rights.
Since the 1999 constitutional referendum there have always been doubts
about the royalist credentials of ACM. At that time some of its
spokespeople appeared very half-hearted in public support for the Queen.
One also wonders just how 'conservative' Damien Freeman and Julian
Leeser really are with their quite unnecessary proposal for a US-style
'Declaration of Recognition'. Australians should beware of all those
(including the Australian Christian Lobby) who in any way advocate the
admission into our political order of this Trojan horse. Nigel Jackson,
Belgrave, Vic
Biggest Issue for 2015: The biggest issue coming up for Australians in
2015 is the Prime Ministers recognise campaign. If you are worried
about Australias sovereignty then this must cause you concern and it has
the support of the communists! You might like to check the Green Left
Weekly website here... https://www.greenleft.org.au/ node/58184
Another article written by Gary Foley should be of interest; about 50
years ago Mr Foley said his goal in life was to smash Christianity when
employed with an Aboriginal legal service.
www.http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/ pdfs/229.pdf Then there
is another article The struggle for rights and freedoms used to
brainwash Australian school students ... see here
http://www.skwirk.com.au/
The communists have been involved in the Aboriginal Protest
Movement from way-back in the early 1930s and this has been
followed along by the Socialist Left... see GLW website above. We must
counter Prime Minister, Tony Abbotts endorsement of recognition in
the Australian Constitution at every turn and add to his unpopularity.
Perhaps we will find allies in the multicultural movement. Lou Cook,
Numurkah, Victoria
10
15
20
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/09/png-find-prompts-human-migrationrethink/
QUOTE
PNG find prompts human migration rethink
BY JULIAN SWALLOW |
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

49,000-year-old artefacts have been unearthed in PNG, suggesting a rethink of
human migration patterns.
ANCIENT ARTEFACTS UNEARTHED IN the highlands of Papua New Guinea provide some of the earliest
evidence of human settlement of Sahul, the primordial landmass that once joined Papua New Guinea with
Australia.
Charred nut shells from pandanus trees, fragments of animal bone and the remains of stone axes were found in
the remote Ivane Valley of south-eastern Papua New Guinea - near the famous Kokoda Track - by a team led by
archaeology Professor Glenn Summerhayes from the University of Otago, New Zealand.
p18
17-4-2015
19
These artefacts, which have been dated to between 49,000 and 44,000 years old, may prompt a rethink of the
traditional view that the prehistoric migration of people throughout the world took place along the coasts.
"This is among the earliest evidence of human habitation in this part of the world, or indeed any place outside
Africa, India and the Middle East," Glenn told Australian Geographic. "Many models for the movements of
people argue for a colonisation route along the coast, arguing that people were pre-adapted to a coastal way of
life...Our evidence shows such a pre-adaptation would have been short lived as people moved into highland
valleys as soon as they got out of their canoes."
(IMAGE NOT INCLUDED)
10
Ivane Valley resident, Paul Lamui, demonstrates how to use rocks to crack pandanus nuts open - the same
method used 49,000 years ago according to excavation evidence in the Ivane Valley of PNG. (Photo: Andrew
Fairbairn)
"Cold, uncompromising place"
15
The team's study is published today in the journal Science.

Professor Peter Bellwood, an archaeologist at ANU who was not part of the team, agrees the wealth of evidence
found in the Ivane Valley "provides the first reliable dates for the earliest habitation of the PNG Highlands."
20
Professor Chris Gosden from the University of Oxford - who writes a related article in the same issue of Science
- says its unlikely early humans would have lived there permanently as it was a "cold, difficult and
uncompromising place to live at any time over the past 50,000 years."
Starch grains from yams recovered in the valley appear to support this, having most likely been transported there
from their natural habitat in the lower elevations closer to the country's steamy sub-tropical coast.
25
Highly mobile
Archaeologist Dr Andrew Fairbairn from the University of Queensland, who worked with Glenn on the research,
says this suggests early humans lived in small nomadic populations that moved up and down the mountains of
Papua New Guinea in search of food.
30
35
"They clearly were very mobile. We assume [they lived in] some form of egalitarian structure, but it's very
difficult to say from the archaeological remains alone. It was a very cold period in history and these people were
both resourceful and capable to be able to live at this altitude," he says.
40
Long isolated by water, Sahul is thought to have been colonised via canoe from Southeast Asia sometime after
50,000 years ago. While the Papua New Guinea Highlands was one of the areas first settled by the new arrivals,
evidence exists of the presence of these early humans - who are also believed to be the ancestors of the
modern Aboriginies - in Australia from around the same time.
While DNA evidence proves this common ancestral link between Australia's Aboriginies and their modern
Melanesian cousins, rising sea levels around 8000 years ago seperated the two groups of people, leading to
significant subsequent differences.
45
A map of the Ivane Valley in Papua New Guinea (Photo: AAAS)
(IMAGE NOT INCLUDED)
50
MORE INO
PNG: Our sultry neighbour
Tiny new kangaroo: "spectacular find
55
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/fossil-may-be-earliest-human-ancestor/
Fossil may be earliest human ancestor

BY AAP WITH AG STAFF |
p19
17-4-2015
20
10
SEPTEMBER 09, 2011

Work by Australian scientists has found that fossils of one of our oldest human
ancestors are two million years old.
SHARE
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCHERS HAVE played a major role in confirming the age of what could be our
oldest ancestor. The scientists from the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University have pinned down the
age of two fossils found in South Africa to around 1.98 million years old.
The fossils made headlines when they were discovered and were hailed as among the most complete early human
fossils ever found. But initial efforts to date them could only estimate their age age to within a 200,000 year
range.
Australopithecus sediba, discovered in a South African cave in 2009, had a dextrous hand that might have
fashioned tools but may still have been used to climb trees. Its brain was small - the size of a grapefruit - but
shaped more like that of a human than a chimpanzee, and while A.sediba had modern-looking ankles, its heel and
shin-bone were mostly ape-like.
15
Australia's oldest ancestors walked upright

Scientists believe the creature walked upright, but not in the same way as living humans. The combination of
features, gleaned from the fossil remains of an adult female and male child, suggest the species may have been a
direct ancestor of our own species.
20
Lead researcher behind the dating work, Dr Robyn Pickering of the University of Melbourne, says that arriving
at a more precise age was critical to working out where the species fitted into human evolution. "It's because of
the improved dating that we know the fossils are from a narrow time range and a little bit older than we
originally thought, which makes them the possible candidate to be our most distant ancestor," she says.
Robyn, who used uranium-lead dating of the rocks above and below the fossils, said the results were arguably the
most precise dates ever achieved for any early human fossils.
25
Magnetic field reversal helps date fossils

The research also shows the fossils were deposited in the Malapa Cave site in South Africa during a 3000-year
period when the Earth's magnetic field reversed itself by 180 degrees and flipped back again.
30
35
Dr Andy Herries, from the Archaeology Program at La Trobe University, discovered the change in the magnetic
field through palaeomagnetic analysis of sediments surrounding the fossils. This was combined with Robyn's
research to confirm their age.
Andy says that being able to date and identify such magnetic reversal events will also help scientists understand
the possible effects they have on climate, plants and animals. "Our ability to date and correctly identify these
short geomagnetic field events is crucial as it will enable us in the future to both better date fossil and
archaeological sites as well as understand the physical workings of our own planet and its core," he says.
Candidate for early human genus
The findings are published today in the journal Science, along with other major research conducted on the fossils
by scientists around the world.
40
The collection of work reveals that Australopithecus sediba has a mixture of characteristics typical of older
australopthecines and the younger species Homo ergaster, which eventually led to Homo sapiens.
45
Professor Lee Berger, from the Institute for Human Evolution at the University of the Witwatersrand in
Johannesburg, South Africa, who led the team that found A.sediba, says: "The fossils demonstrate a surprisingly
advanced small brain, a very evolved hand with a long thumb like humans, a very modern pelvis, but a foot and
ankle shape never seen in any hominin species that combines features of both apes and humans in one anatomical
package."
"The many very advanced features found in the brain and body, and the earlier date, make it possibly the best
candidate ancestor for our genus, the genus Homo, more so than previous discoveries such as Homo habilis," he
adds.
The caves of Malapa, where the fossils were discovered, lie nearly 30 miles north-west of Johannesburg.
p20
17-4-2015
21
10
15
20
25
RELATED STORIES
Footprints reveal how early humans first walked
World's oldest fossils found in the Pilbara
Mystery bird fossil found in the Nullarbor
Carnivorous bilby fossil unearthed
Sabre-toothed bandicoot fossil found
Fossil of weird snail-eating marsupial found
Giant prehistoric snake snacked on baby dinosaurs
The dinosaur musterers
Archaeopteryx knocked-off evolutionary perch
Fearsome giant turtles found in Pacific cemetery
On this day: stolen dinosaur footprint discovered
Oldest Australian DNA etched from eggshells
More stories on fossils...
END QUOTE
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/01/aboriginal-genes-suggest-indian-migration/
QUOTE
Aboriginal genes suggest Indian migration
BY ALICE MCRAE WITH AAP |
JANUARY 15, 2013

Northern Australian aboriginals may have had contact with Indian migrants
4000 years ago, says study.
AUSTRALIA MIGHT NOT have been as isolated for the 40,000 years prior to European colonisation as once
thought, according to a new study which has found evidence of substantial gene flow between Indian populations
and Australia about 4000 years ago.
The research also suggests the dingo might have arrived on Australian shores about that time along with tool
technology and food processing though other experts are sceptical.
30
This is very exciting work and may well resolve a major scientific conundrum. says Associate Professor
Darren Curnoe at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who adds that scientists have speculated about
this possible ancient connection for 200 years.
Australian aboriginals had early contact
35
The study, published today in the journal PNAS, says it was commonly assumed that Australia remained largely
isolated following initial colonisation some 40,000 years ago, though the genetic history of Aboriginal people
has not been explored in detail.
Dr Irina Pugach and Dr Mark Stoneking, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in
Germany, joined colleagues in analysing large-scale genotyping data from Aboriginal Australians, New
Guineans, Island Southeast Asians and Indians that suggest a new possibility.
40
45
The authors found a common origin for populations in Australia, New Guinea and the Mamanwa (a
Negrito group from the Philippines) and estimated these groups split from each other about 36,000 years
ago.
The researchers say this supports the view that these groups represent the descendants of an ancient
southwards migration out of Africa. They also found a substantial gene flow from India to Australia 141
generations ago, or 4230 years ago, assuming a generation span of 30 years.
Gene flow from India to Australia
"This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the
Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India," the authors
write, though they add that the Indian genes might not have come directly from India.
50
These genes could not have arrived during the initial migration to Australia 40,000 years ago because they are
absent from the New Guinean and Mamanwa genomes. Also, they are too uniformly spread across northern
Aboriginal genomes to have come from European colonists.
p21
17-4-2015
22
Associate Professor Joe Dortch of the University of Western Australia in Perth says the findings are significant,
and questions whether there was some kind of migration or simply occasional contact. Its not possible to say
how the connection to India arose, he told Australian Geographic.
But expansion of trading or exploration activity by a culture or group of cultures called the Austronesians may
be a factor... [as] the ancestors of northern Australians, like those who were involved in the study, had more
contact with Asian peoples than other Australians.
Associate Professor Jeremy Austin from the University of Adelaide says that the study highlights the finescale knowledge that can be obtained from genome data, but adds that the results need to be interpreted
carefully.
10
The authors do not estimate the number of migrants involved that could have carried this genetic signature from
India, he says. In theory, this could have been a very small number of people. Thus, any lay-interpretation of
the results that boatloads of Indian fishermen arrived on the coast of Australia, bringing new technologies, may
not be accurate.
Could dingoes have arrived with Indian migration?
15
Jeremy is sceptical about the claims related to the arrival of dingoes in Australia.
Genetic data for dingoes suggests they came from Island Southeast Asia, not India. So linking the human
genetic evidence to the idea that they also imported a range of new technologies and dingoes is something that
needs further investigation, he says.
20
The important result of this paper is that it supports previous ideas about trade and movement of people between
Australia and Asia over a long period of time.
The Australian samples came from a broad area of the Northern Territory, and as a result may not be
representative of the indigenous populations across the rest of the continent.
25
30
35
40
RELATED ARTICLES
Kimberley reserve gets indigenous protection
Aboriginal desert reserve bigger than Tasmania
Massive new Indigenous Protected Area declared
New Northern Territory IPA the 50th in Australia
Aboriginal land handed back after 20 years
Project created ark for dying Aboriginal languages
Aboriginal rangers thwart crazy ants
Bush medicine: Aboriginal remedies for common ills
A mission to save indigenous languages
TV helps Aboriginal language survive
Top 10 Aboriginal bush medicines
PNG language dying with each generation
Acclaimed Aboriginal artist celebrated
Indigenous film festival opens in Sydney
96-year-old wins top indigenous art award
Noonkanbah: fight for Aboriginal land rights
The fight for Aboriginal civil rights
Indigenous servicemen: their contribution
END QUOTE
45
50
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/02/dna-reveals-new-route-of-pacific-migration/
QUOTE
DNA reveals new route of Pacific migration
BY AAP WITH AG STAFF |
FEBRUARY 09, 2011

Polynesian people may have populated the Pacific via New Guinea rather than
Taiwan as previously thought.
NEW DNA EVIDENCE has emerged which overturns theories on how humans spread across the Pacific.
The islands of Polynesia were first inhabited around 3,000 years ago, but where these people came from has long
p22
17-4-2015
23
been a hot topic of debate amongst scientists. The most commonly accepted view, based on archaeological and
linguistic evidence as well as genetic studies, is that Pacific islanders were the latter part of a migration south and
eastwards from Taiwan which began around 4,000 years ago.
Now, scientists believe the DNA of current Polynesians can be traced back to migrants from the Asian mainland
who had already settled in islands close to New Guinea 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. The evidence was uncovered
by researchers at the University of Leeds in the UK, and published in the latest American Journal of Human
Genetics.
10
"Our study of the [DNA] evidence shows the interactions between the islands of south-east Asia and the Pacific
was far more complex than previous accounts tended to suggest and it paves the way for new theories of the
spread of Austronesian languages," says lead author, Professor Martin Richards.
Genetic signatures from mum provide record of inheritance
15
20
25
30
35
40
The type of DNA extracted and analysed in this kind of study is that in the cell's mitochondria. Mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) is passed down the maternal line, providing a record of inheritance which goes back thousands
of years. The scientists look for genetic signatures which enable them to classify the DNA into different lineages
and then use a 'molecular clock' to date when these lineages moved into different parts of the world.
"Most previous studies looked at a small piece of mtDNA, but for this research we studied 157 complete
mitochondrial genomes in addition to smaller samples from over 4,750 people from across south-east Asia and
Polynesia," says Martin.
"We also reworked our dating techniques to significantly reduce the margin of error, he says. "This means we
can be confident that the Polynesian population at least on the female side came from people who arrived in
the Bismarck Archipelago of Papua New Guinea thousands of years before the supposed migration from Taiwan
took place."
However, many linguists maintain that the Polynesian languages are part of the Austronesian language family
which originates in Taiwan. Martin and co-researcher Pedro Soares argue, though, that the linguistic and cultural
connections are due to smaller migratory movements from Taiwan that did not leave any substantial genetic
impact on the pre-existing population.
RELATED ARTICLES
Australia's forgotten child migrants
35,000-year-old stone axe found in Australia
Aboriginal genes suggest Indian migration
Aboriginal colonisation was planned migration
DNA confirms Aboriginal culture one of earth's oldest
Footprints reveal how humans first walked
PNG languages dying with each generation
Fossil may be earliest human ancestor
On this day in history: Human genome completion
45
END QUOTE
50
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/dna-confirms-aboriginal-culture-one-of-earths-oldest/
QUOTE
DNA confirms Aboriginal culture one of Earth's oldest
BY AG STAFF WITH AAP |
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

The first Aboriginal genome sequence confirms Australia's native people left
Africa 75,000 years ago.
55
ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE descendents of the first people to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago, a
genetic study has found, confirming they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet.
Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who led the study, says Aboriginal Australians were
p23
17-4-2015
24
the first modern humans to traverse unknown territory in Asia and Australia. "It was a truly amazing journey that
must have demanded exceptional survival skills and bravery," he says.
A century-old lock of hair, given by a West Australian indigenous man to an anthropologist, has led to the
discovery that ancestors of Aboriginal Australians reached Asia at least 24,000 years before another wave of
migration that populated Europe and Asia.
Experts from the University of Western Australia (UWA) and Murdoch University were part of an international
team that analysed DNA from the hair, and found no hereditary material from European immigrants to Australia.
This made the man's DNA a perfect candidate for looking at the history of Aboriginal migration.
10

DNA reveals new route for human Pacific migration
15
Aboriginal Australians first to cross Asia
20
25
30
Studying his DNA, the researchers found that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals had split from the first
modern human populations to leave Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago. Dr Joe Dortch, a scientist at UWA, says
the discovery turns on its head the existing theory that Aboriginals arrived here less than 50,000 years ago. The
findings are detailed today in the journal Science.
"[The discovery] strongly supports the idea that Aborigines were [part of] an early and separate wave of human
expansion out of Africa, before the subsequent wave that established Europeans and Asians," says Professor
Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide. "However, while
this is a major step forward, the key unresolved question remains the unique story of Aboriginal history within
Australia."
"This new DNA study powerfully confirms that Aboriginal Australians are one of the oldest living populations in
the world, certainly the oldest outside of Africa," agrees evolutionary biologist Professor Darren Curnoe of
UNSW. "Australians are truly one of the world's great human populations and a very ancient one at that, with
deep connections to the Australian continent and broader Asian region. About this now there can be no dispute."
Oldest living population in the world
35
In another study, in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers found that when these
ancestors of Aboriginals crossed through Asia, they may have interbred with Siberian people known as
the Denisovans.
For that study, DNA was extracted from a finger bone excavated in the freezing temperatures of Siberia to
analyse the migration of people to tropical parts of Asia and Australia more than 40,000 years ago.
40
45
Examining DNA from the finger, researchers from the Harvard Medical School in the US and the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany concluded that the Denisovans - a primitive
group of humans descended from Neanderthals - migrated from Siberia to tropical parts of Asia. They
contributed DNA to Aborigines along with present-day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the
Philippines known as Mamanwa.
Aboriginal people had Siberian ancestors
To make the link between the Denisovans and indigenous Australians, the study looked at two Aboriginal
populations, one of which was from the Northern Territory. The researchers concluded that Denisovans interbred
with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea.
50
"This paper helped fill in some empty pieces in the evolutionary puzzle that began after early humans left Africa,
and reinforces the view that humans have intermixed throughout history," say the scientists behind the research
in a summary of the findings.
55
"The study also confirms controversial claims that the ancestors of all living Eurasians interbred with the
Neandertals, while past Asians/Oceanians also mated with the mysterious ancient humans from Denisova cave[s]
in Siberia," comments Darren from UNSW. "This is clear and independent validation of DNA work on both
these extinct humans [the Neanderthals and the Denisovans], confirming today's other big announcement
p24
17-4-2015
25
about their deep connections to Australians and other indigenous people in our region."
10
RELATED ARTICLES
Living the traditional Aboriginal life
Exploding star recorded in Aboriginal Dreamtime
DNA reveals new route of Pacific migration
Footprints reveal how early humans first walked
Dingoes originated in China up to 18,000 years ago
END QUOTE
15
http://ozsoapbox.com/rest-of-australia/aboriginals/why-acknowledge-traditional-aboriginal-land-owners/
QUOTE
20
Why acknowledge traditional Aboriginal land owners?

Mar.17, 2010 in Aboriginals
(IMMAZGE NOT INCLUDED)The absurdity of the blanket acknowledgement of traditional Aboriginal land
owners first hit me back in high school. I was in year seven from memory and it was an assembly marking the
establishment of the school.
25
To kick start the assembly an acknowledgement was made to the traditional Aboriginal land owners of the area.
As I sat in the audience watching this strange little ceremony I couldnt help but wonder what, if anything,
anyone was getting out of it.
Fast forward to 2010 and not much has changed.
Tony Abbott recently caused a bit of a stir when he had the balls to publicly raise what I suspect a lot of
Australians have been thinking;
30
Kevin Rudd is not an old-style lefty but the Labor Party is full of people who are, and I guess this is the kind
of genuflection to political correctness that these guys feel they have to make, he said.
Mr Abbott cited Mr Rudds speech at last weeks Australian Medical Association parliamentary dinner in
Canberra as an occasion at which a nod to the lands traditional owners was inappropriate.
35
Theres a place for this in the right circumstances but certainly there are many occasions when it does look like
tokenism, he said today.
Now I know that Mr. Abbotts intentions in raising this point are quite possibly purely political but even so, he
does raise a valid point.
Is acknowledging traditional Aboriginal landowners little more then a hollow token gesture?
40
I certainly think so. If youre holding some event related to Aboriginals in particular then by all means pay your
respects to the people that once roamed there. I dont really care if you do or not but its your call to make.
If whatever it is thats going on has absolutely nothing to do with Aboriginals or Aboriginal affairs, why exactly
are we acknowledging them again? And why stop there, why not acknowledge the previous tenants of your
residence the next time you hold a party.
45
Or hang a photo from the rear view mirror of the previous owner the next time you buy a second hand car.
It all does seem a bit silly.
As a young Australian the sentiment is completely hollow and beyond tokenism. Its like saying grace at the
table because your parents did despite you not believing a word of it.
p25
17-4-2015
26
Frankly I dont really care who inhabited whatever land before I happened to be attending whatever formal
ceremony was now being held on it. If they did nothing to contribute to the current state of events, other then
running around hunting some kangaroos a couple of hundred years ago, then why do they deserve my
recognition?
Yes the British could have handled occupation a bit better and its a tragedy that so many Aboriginal lives were
lost but Aboriginals didnt even have a system of land ownership to begin with. Get over it already.
In a similar vein of the abysmal state of Aboriginal welfare it seems traditional land acknowledgement is yet
another example of modern day Aboriginals living in the past.
10
Naturally after stirring the bleeding heart hornet nest that is the cornerstone of latte politics in Australia, it didnt
take long for people to publicly disagree with Abbotts remarks.
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally stated that
acknowledging traditional owners at official ceremonies is an appropriate way of recognising indigenous people
Im more inclined to take advice from Aboriginal people, from elders, from our indigenous leaders, than I am
from Tony Abbott on this subject.
15
Hey guys, do you want us to stop acknowledging you everytime someone so much as farts in public?
Yeah, no were right cheers.
Of course Aboriginal leaders are going to support the continued show of recognition of their people, no matter
how far removed from Aboriginal rights or relevence the event being held the recognition is presented at.
20
The question being raised isnt whether they are comfortable with it but rather does it mean anything to the rest
of the Australian population.
I mean traditional land ownership acknowledgement at an Australian Medical Association dinner really?
Next in line to swing the bat was Curtin University Centre for Aboriginal Studies director Anita Lee Hong.
Hong made a public announcement calling for an apology from Abbott citing
25
Its a way that non-Aboriginal people can show respect for Aboriginal people, building on our heritage and our
ongoing relationship.
Im all for respect as I see no point in disrespecting people for the sake of it. However just what exactly are we
respecting by acknowledging at a medical association dinner that Aboriginals once ran around the area?
30
Then theres the issue of respect being a two way street and all. I mean its not like non-aboriginal people do
nothing to show respect towards Aboriginals. What exactly do Aboriginals do apart from going around telling
the people of Australia its not enough and demanding we pay them more money?
Why pretend like Aboriginals have a choice in the matter or that were actually going to listen to them if they
objected to whatever event we asked them to attend and throw their blessing behind.
35
Sorry guys, weve had to call off this years Australian Medical Association dinner because the traditional land
owners didnt approve.
Token acknowledgement indeed.
40
And what must it be like from an Aboriginal (non leader) perspective. Itd kind of be like Britain taking control
of the Australian parliament and then requesting we attend every dinner party, afternoon tea or shopping mall
opening to acknowledge the now defunct Australian parliament.
I dont really see how modern day Aboriginals are benefiting from this acknowledgement at all. Its not like
were all going to forget who was living in Australia before the British arrived. I mean history is still taught in
schools right?
p26
17-4-2015
27
If Aboriginals are worried people will forget they roamed Australia for 40,000 years before the British arrived
then make it a question on our citizenship test or something. If you want acknowledgement as a race then how
about doing something acknowledgeable.
Simply existing just doesnt cut it.
10
Related Posts:
1.
Aboriginal Finance: Spend 10 million to loan 2 million - Dec 29th, 2010
2.
Why Aboriginal law has no place in Australian courts - Oct 13th, 2010
3.
Government supresses Bath report on Aboriginal kids - Feb 9th, 2010
4.
Aboriginal flag too valuable to use on Australia Day - Jan 30th, 2010
5.
An Australian republic means Aboriginal sovereignty? - Aug 27th, 2010

41 Comments on Why acknowledge traditional Aboriginal land owners?
1.
#1
lemmiwinks
15
Mar 17th, 2010 at 8:33 am (Q)

Terrificly un-pc post. I loved it!
If the Australian Aboriginals think they got a raw deal from the Poms they should be really glad that the
Dutch took one look at the coast of WA and went Nah, screw this place, its not for us. Their colonial
history shows they were not so generous to indigenous inhabitants. Same goes for Spain (find an Inca and
ask them how well it went when they met up with the conquistadors).
20
2.
#2
ozsoapbox
Mar 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm (Q)
Yeah youre telling me. How many of the old colonial countries have been caught up in pumping so much
into welfare to indigenous inhabitants with so little to show for it?
25
3.
#3
jennaya
30
Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:33 pm (Q)

I have to say I found your article quite offensive. To say that Inigenous people were doing nothing more
than running around hunting kangaroos before we white people saved them, shows nothing of your
knowledge, and everything about your ignorance.
Acknowledging the land that you are in is an Aboriginal tradition dating back thousands of years, and
rather than a mere token of political correctness, it is a mark of respect to the traditional owners of that
land.
35
Im not even going to call you racist, because you would need some sort of knowledge of Australian history
pre-1788 for that. You are just plain ignorant. Im all for people expressing their opinions, as long as its an
informed one. You my friend know nothing about anything you have just written about.
40
4.
p27
17-4-2015
28
#4
ozsoapbox
Mar 30th, 2010 at 1:10 am (Q)
To say that Inigenous people were doing nothing more than running around hunting kangaroos before we
white people saved them, shows nothing of your knowledge, and everything about your ignorance.
Well what exactly were they doing prior to the British arriving?
Its not like they established cities, constructed cities or achieved any great scientific feats. They were just
roaming the country killing animals for food were they not?
Acknowledging the land that you are in is an Aboriginal tradition dating back thousands of years, and
rather than a mere token of political correctness, it is a mark of respect to the traditional owners of that
land.
10
Well if Aboriginals want to acknowledge eachother then by all means do so. Why the hell do the rest of us
have to, or have the government do so on our behalf?
First and foremost you should be Australian and then Aboriginal. As far as Australian customs go
acknowledging people that ran about on the land before you were born isnt a custom. Otherwise wed all
be doing it in instances that werent just purely token and catering to the Aboriginal population that dont
live there anymore.
15
5.
#5
20
Cam
Mar 30th, 2010 at 3:58 pm (Q)
Heres something that might interest you. Aboriginals did not consider themselves Landowners but rather
they were part of the land itself.
So Terra Nullius really did belong to no-one!!
25
6.
#6
Gil
Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:32 am (Q)
I acknowledge the uninformed, uneducated, redneck, racist wowsers who comment on this page.
30
Do a bit of research before you open your uneducated, untutored, unschooled, untaught, uninstructed,
unenlightened, uninformed, uncultivated, ignorant mouths. (def: Research. noun / diligent and systematic
inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.)
Indigenous people had customs, traditions, culture, morals, science, community, and system of governance.
That it was different to the invading culture does not make it less meaningful nor unimportant.
35
Get an education!
7.
#7
ozsoapbox
Apr 7th, 2010 at 2:08 am (Q)
p28
17-4-2015
29
uninformed, uneducated, redneck, racist wowsers, uneducated, untutored, unschooled, untaught,
uninstructed, unenlightened, uninformed, uncultivated, ignorant
yada yada yada *massive yawn*. Thats a lot of words starting with un seriously could you have tried
harder to spout out token bleeding heart catchwords that address nothing, rebute nothing and contribute
nothing to the discussion?
Indigenous people had customs, traditions, culture, morals, science, community, and system of governance.
That it was different to the invading culture does not make it less meaningful nor unimportant.
None of the Aboriginals alive today experienced this pre colonisation culture as it existed. Either were an
Aboriginal country or were Australia, as it is today. Propping up a failed culture by pumping billions into
welfare at the expense of the rest of the country is a joke.
10
We shouldnt forget the history of this country or its people, but trying to psuedo sustain a half arsed way
of life (crying about your culture whilst living in government housing, drinking yourself silly and relying
on taxpayer handouts is not living traditional aboriginal) is not helping anyone.
Sure old Aboriginal customs are meaningful and important to Aboriginal elders and researchers (most
young aboriginals today are too busy sniffing petrol or drinking to care about customs or their culture), but
the rest of Australia doesnt really seem to care. Why should the government on our behalf officially
recognise who lived where 500 years ago everytime someone blows their nose?
15
8.
#8
20
Sir Livesalot
Apr 13th, 2010 at 12:32 pm (Q)
I can understand paying respect towards indigenous people but I dont think I would call them Traditional
Land Owners and I dont think they deserve anymore respect then the next person from a different
background.
25
I agree with the comment where the Aboriginal People regarded themselves as part of the land, however are
they the only ones to lay claim to that title?
We are all part of the land and over time we all evolve, adapt and remember and when we all die we go
back to the land. I would just acknowledge that we all exist on the land and are nothing more than
caretakers and residents of the land, the I was here first argument is so old and so immature.
30
If we find they are not Traditional Land Owners can we sue them for misleading us and reclaim all the land
titles that were given away ?
I suppose every country would like to have its own monarchy rule the land but in reality for the world to
grow we all need to realise not one of us, past present or future are Traditional Land Owners unless we
count all living things as a group of one.
35
And without showing respect to everyone how on earth are we supposed to grow as a planet when greedy
or selfish people think they own the place and have done since day 000000000000001.
9.
#9
ozsoapbox
40
Apr 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm (Q)

With the one exception of providing blanket respect to everyone (I believe respect is earnt not granted),
very well said!
p29
17-4-2015
30
The absurdity of acknowleding and respecting people who lived somewhere centuries ago isnt going to get
us anywhere.
10.
#10
Murray
Jun 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am (Q)
Sorry Im a bit late to this chat. I was wondering if the writer of this piece has seen Avatar yet and, if so,
whether s/he still has the same opinion?
For me, the concept of respect transcends race, gender, country, age and also time. We only have to look at
what white man has done to the Australian environment over the last 200 or so years to realise that a
culture based on domination and Im right, youre wrong is actually the source of our demise.
10
We are part of the landscape, but until we respect the landscape and each other, how can we actually move
forward?
Can indigenous people really be criticised for trying to survive in the box we created for them after we
intentionally attempted to destroy their culture that is so integrated in their spiritual connecttion to the land?
15
Stealing children from their families and re-educating them in missions and reserves, incarcerating those
who stood up and tried to defend their people, and only recently throwing money in their direction as if
thats going to fix things all sounds like a living nightmare to me.
Their culture, their hearts and the land that they live in have taken a huge battering.
20
If the tables were turned, we would really start to understand the horror of what has been done to these
people over several generations. Then we would at least have respect for their resilience.
There are so many positive stories out there about what indigenous people are doing to resurrect their
culture and our land so please dont judge everyone by what you might think you understand when you see
suffering souls trying to escape their plight at the bottom of a bottle. Im sure I would be tempted to do the
same if my culture and connection to the land had been systematically broken down.
25
Please see Avatar if you havent already and maybe it might help you unlearn what we were taught at
school. You can only respect what is on the outside if you respect what is on the inside they are one and
the same. Until we all realise that, the future looks like a pretty grim place to me.
There is great wisdom in respecting the land and each other, and only eventual destruction in carving it up,
exploiting its resources and ignoring the fact that we are part of our environment.
30
One day we will look back and realise how stupid white man was hopefully it wont be too late to fix
things by the time that day arrives.
11.
#11
35
ozsoapbox
Jun 8th, 2010 at 3:54 am (Q)
Ive seen Avatar but the problem with the analogy is that in Avatar we were at the invasion point so to
speak.
40
Trouble with reality is that were well past that point now and no amount of whinging or money is going to
take that back. Not to detract from what happened, but whats done is done and the Australian population is
never going to return to a nomadic lifestyle.
Not going to happen so get over it.
p30
17-4-2015
31
The current generation of Aborigines arent the same as the Captain Cook generation. Most have them
dont have any idea of their rich history or traditions and simply use what happened as a scapegoat to mask
their own laziness and drug dependencies.
As much as I harbour environmental concerns of my own (I do my bit by recycling and riding a bicycle as
much as I can), Im not going to pretend like some rerevolutionary uptopia is just around the corner.
Aboriginals for the most part are dependent on welfare, they arent self sustaining so to make an Avatar
movie comparison is kind of silly. Yes they were self reliant many decades ago and yes the government and
people of the time changed that but weve more then repayed this debt financially.
Culturally I believe were at a point where the Aboriginals themselves have destroyed as much of their own
culture as anyone else in this country did.
10
Personally I have no shame or feeling of responsibility over what happened. I wasnt born during that time
and my generation certainly has nothing to apologise for or feel guilty over.
12.
#12
15
M.T Lain
Jun 27th, 2010 at 7:16 pm (Q)
Here here. They had 40,000 years with the land & they achieved nothing. Other cultures achieved
significantly more in the same time.
The native North Americans developed permanent camping sites (on a rotating basis), with a central area
used for trade. Some traditions also developed a form of currency. The mayan and icans developed a form
of culture & free standing rock building structures. There a handful of island cultures that developed not
only these things, but also a banking system. Combine those with art and litrature & youve really got
something (Aboriginal dot painting art is not so impressive when compared to other cultures of the same
age).
20
Im all for recognising excellence, but i dont reward mediocrity & certainly dont award a complete lack of
cultural achievement.
25
Not much has changed. Thing is i blame our government. Too many damn hand outs is the problem. Why
would you give up the free money, if the alternative is to go out and apply your self?
If i had my way i would take are you aboriginal or torrestrate islander off of government forms. You
either Australian Citizen or youre not (my taxes go to pay for Aboriginal Liason officers and other crap
like that). An if you choose to not be an Australian Citizen you can be put straight into a reserve like they
did with the native north americans (but without any of the mod-cons or government support, & no outside
industry).
30
See how fast they decide that they prefer being citizens of an evolved society, rather then traditional
savages.
35
-M
13.
#13
ross dalrymple
40
Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:03 pm (Q)

If they lived on the land as traditional landowners well then yes their would be no problem acknowledging
them.I feel that they would get all the respect in the world if they did,because in truth they lived an
exceedingly brutal and short life before the white man came, constantly at war with other tribes and each
other.
p31
17-4-2015
32
You can still see this today with the feuding going on between the families and that is the only tradition that
has survived to this day along with sharing all they have with the immediate family unit
14.
#14
Wendy
Aug 10th, 2010 at 8:10 pm (Q)
10
15
20
I often wonder what they (Aboriginals) have been doing for all those thousands of years too. I ask myself
why they have not changed with the times like other countries & races have also. As someone else stated,
they did not create anything like the Romans, Egyptians etc.., and to this day, find it almost impossible to
survive without handouts, drugs, and booze.
Where I live, we are inundated with aboriginals. Thats fine- however- the racist comments thrown at ME,
everytime I walk past them is very disturbing. They congregate in groups around our shopping mall, asking
for cigarettes & money, while carrying a goon under their arms, stinking like last weeks fish dinner mixed
with a cheap brew & sweat, and boy do they get irrate when told no-. They spit on you, call you white
*unts, and any other name they see fit to call you.
They tell you to *uck off back to where we came from- yet I was born here, this is my home, they same as
they were,no doubt.
Their homes are filthy, run down squalors, with no windows, graffiti adorning all the walls, and keep a
multitude of dogs, that are skinny, and riddled with worms and goodness knows what else, putrifying the
soil. Any help offered to them in the way of repairs is usually destroyed by that night.
How can they say, they are about the land, when they insist on destroying everything given to them? Why
are they allowed to use such horrendous racial slur in respect to white Australians, yet continue to say WE
are the ones who are racist?
25
Why is it, that the kids never go to School? They even have their own Aboriginal Schools, but most are
almostempty- they even have their own School buses, yet my kids have to walk 4kms everyday to and
from School?
I suppose, if welfare removed their children for neglect and non-compliance- they would once again scream
RACISM! Im afraid, if it were a white person doing the same thing, those kids would also be removed, so
it isnt a racist thing if the children are removed for their own safety.
30
The Government should take a stronger stand on Aboriginal children that are not at School..cut the families
welfare off- youll see the kids rocking up to School ten-fold then
I also wonder, why they say we have taken all THEIR land, when they are quite free to return to the bush
and live like their forebarers, however, there would be no dole or pension, which means no beer and drugs,
so they have CHOSEN not to return to traditional ways..
35
It is no wonder many do not work,as they do not finish School, and they ARE given many opportunities to
do so, as they receive massive amounts of funding..they need to realise this is why they are not getting jobs,
NOT because of their colour..who cares what colour they are!
Where I live, they are drunk by 10am in the Morning, and this is our fault? Imagine refusing them the
chance of buying alcohol, to try to help them out? Youd be shot.
40
45
I, like many others, are getting fed up with their racism, demands, and free ride through life, when we have
to work everyday, to keep our families afloat. How many times must we say sorry to them, before it sinks
in? If my History lessons at School serve me correct, the British DID try to associate with the Aboriginals
when they first arrived on Australian shores, but they were met with spears, and hatred, so of course, there
was retaliation on the British soldiers part..and, times were much different back then, compared to now,
aboriginals need to realise, that sort of thing does not happen now, it is history, and it is now time to move
on, and build a new life for themselves, like the African Americans have done.
p32
17-4-2015
33
Sadly, too few Aboriginals have changed over the last 200 years, and refuse to do so, so they will always be
at the bottom of the chain, so to speak, by THEIR choice.
They want equality, then MAKE them behave equal..MAKE them stay at School, or cut their
dole/pensions, as would happen to us..MAKE them take care of their homes, or kick them out- as would
happen to us..make THEM responsible for their actions, as we must do, and on top of all things- make them
accountable for their racist slurs..because we sure as heck wouldnt walk up to them, and call them horrid
names in regards to THEIR colour to their race and colour!
15.
#15
10
Si
Aug 29th, 2010 at 1:10 pm (Q)
Heres an address by Paul Keating that summerises nicely what I would like to include in these discussions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqAFLud228&feature=player_embedded
16.
15
#16
ozsoapbox
Aug 30th, 2010 at 12:54 pm (Q)
Heres an address by Paul Keating that summerises nicely what I would like to include in these discussions.
Wow theres a lot of wes in that speech. What a crock, none of the Aboriginals listening to that speech
were dispossessed or owned any land or faced any of the colonisation experiences.
20
Talk about pandering to and feeding the victim mentality, no wonder theyve always got their hands out
asking for more.
17.
#17
25
Tbird
Sep 15th, 2010 at 6:53 pm (Q)
Disgusting.
Learn your history before you rant about it.
18.
30
#18
Beck
Sep 24th, 2010 at 3:52 pm (Q)
This article and some of the subsequent posts might be the worst, most overtly racist thing I have ever read.
19.
35
#19
Megan
p33
17-4-2015
34
Oct 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am (Q)
Well, its helped me make up my mind whether or not to do the whole acknowledgement thing at an event
where Im the MC.
20.
#20
ozsoapbox
Oct 5th, 2010 at 2:17 am (Q)
Out of curiosity Megan, what type of event was it and what was your final decision?
21.
10
#21
Megan
Oct 5th, 2010 at 12:01 pm (Q)
I cant say I agree completely with all your comments, but do agree that it is simply tokenism since the
indigenous people didnt ever claim to own the land as they were nomadic.
15
I decided not to do the acknowledgement as the event was a tourism launch and this had nothing to do with
aboriginal people or their culture.
However, two people of aboriginal descent came along, so I changed my mind. I did ask the aboriginal man
if he would like to do a Welcome to Country, but he declined as he said that the place where we were
wasnt his peoples land, even though he is of the same tribe who once stayed around here.
I believe if we are going to acknowledge the traditional owners, then we should acknowledge all those
who came after them, opened up the land and started producing food crops to feed the world, all those who
started industries and created wealth to make our country what it is today.
20
Thanks for the discussion, Ill be reading more of your soapbox blog.
22.
25
#22
ozsoapbox
Oct 5th, 2010 at 4:41 pm (Q)
However, two people of aboriginal descent came along, so I changed my mind.
30
This brings up an interesting point. That being that if there are no Aboriginals in the audience, does
acknowledging them become any more or less relevant or important. Are we acknowledging them for their
sake or ours?
So if there were no Aboriginals in the audience, you wouldnt have acknowledged them right? On the other
end of the spectrum its kinda like a comedian not telling racist jokes after learning that members of his or
her audience are of that race.
35
Im not suggesting token acknowledgement is racist but the principle is the same, be it in reverse.
Im glad to hear the Welcome to Country was knocked back, although would have been nice to hear it
wasnt necessary rather then it wasnt their land.
Thanks for the discussion, Ill be reading more of your soapbox blog.
No worries, glad to have you as a reader.
p34
17-4-2015
35
23.
#23
hi
Nov 14th, 2010 at 7:24 pm (Q)
M.T Lain:
Here here
Its hear, hear and Torres Strait. Btw, your capitalisation is inconsistent.
ozsoapbox:
Im glad to hear the Welcome to Country was knocked back, although would have been nice to hear it
wasnt necessary rather then it wasnt their land.
10
Its than,not then. You did that in your article as well. No comment about your education, but just
Google it and get it right, everyone makes mistakes.
ozsoapbox, Ill try to be short and sweet.
Im not 100% sure, but I think they dont have such selfish ideas as land ownership because they believed
that they could coexist with their environment, not steal the resources as if they were inexhaustible like we
are.
15
Personally, I think their society was far superior to the wasteful one you live in and just because the British
invaded them does not mean they have to completely lose their way of life. And if you say Get over it
one more time, I ask you a question,
If your grandmother died, how would you feel if I told you to just get over it? It was the past. You might
say you would still be grieving but what if the Aboriginal people are still grieving their losses? Get over it?
20
ozsoapbox: Personally I have no shame or feeling of responsibility over what happened. I wasnt born
during that time and my generation certainly has nothing to apologise for or feel guilty over.
Another point I want to make, dont be an ignorant little brat by saying if you didnt cause it, you have no
responsibility over it. Another rhetorical question:
If you didnt cause global warming, but you think its wrong that we dont do anything about it, is it alright
to just say Whatever! and not do anything?
25
Or is poverty a better example?

If I didnt make those people poor, should I just sit back and remark how you werent born into it.
30
And to those who complain about Aboriginal youth. Yes, there are some who need help but is it really in
your capacity to say theyre taking your money. Why arent YOU doing anything to help them personally
so that they dont continue to take your money? Too lazy? Just pay taxes and wait for the government to
take the load?
Give them a chance to change. Just dont be a spoilt asshole about it.
Sorry if my view is uninformed, uneducated, etc but I dont like your passive-aggressive way of showing
your opinion.
35
24.
#24
ozsoapbox
40
Nov 15th, 2010 at 2:15 pm (Q)

Its than,not then. You did that in your article as well. No comment about your education, but just
Google it and get it right, everyone makes mistakes.
p35
17-4-2015
36
Thanks for that, because yknow one spellling mistake is an accurate representation of someones
education. Then/than is just one of those mistakes I make quite commonly. Its been pointed out before and
since then Ive made a concentrated effort to use the correct spelling.
Personally, I think their society was far superior to the wasteful one you live in and just because the British
invaded them does not mean they have to completely lose their way of life.
Would you go and live running around naked in the outback?

Didnt think so. Face it, for all its short comings modern society with all its luxuries beats the crap out of a
nomadic lifestyle.
If your grandmother died, how would you feel if I told you to just get over it? It was the past. You might
say you would still be grieving but what if the Aboriginal people are still grieving their losses? Get over it?
10
If I was demanding billions in welfare and carrying on with the woe is me mantra then yeah, I wouldnt
be at all surprised if people told me to get over it.
People have lost their grandparents all over the world and gotten on with life, its simply not an excuse or
justification to continue binge drinking and child abuse.
15
Another rhetorical question:

If you didnt cause global warming, but you think its wrong that we dont do anything about it, is it alright
to just say Whatever! and not do anything?
Strawman argument. Global warming is an ongoing event. All the stuff the Aboriginals whinge about
happened before most current generation Australians, including the Aboriginals whinging, were even born.
20
A better analogy would be that if the governments around the world worked together to get our emissions
down to sustainable levels, would it then make any sense to further damage economies and pump billions
into further combating global warming?
I dont believe there is anything to say sorry for and I havent a shred of guilt in me as far as Aboriginal
welfare goes. If anything, theyve stolen been given far more from the Australian people economically then
I personally will ever take from them.
25
Ill do my bit by voting for any government who hopefully one day sends the wakeup call that enough is
enough.
Why arent YOU doing anything to help them personally so that they dont continue to take your money?
Too lazy?
Yeah, lets all go help the drunk drugged up teenagers. Thatll work well.
30
Even the cops get attacked when they go around, Im sure Johhny non-aboriginal will get a rip roaring
welcome reception. Great idea.
25.
#25
35
hi
Nov 16th, 2010 at 7:16 pm (Q)
Try not to use sarcasm in text (if you were being sarcastic); it doesnt really work. Anyway, good debate!
Now Ill leave you alone to let you live your meaningless life!
26.
40
#26
ausGeoff
p36
17-4-2015
37
Nov 17th, 2010 at 1:36 am (Q)
This comment is very typical of others claiming that our Aboriginals had some sort of deep and
meaningful, and spiritual understanding of the land they invaded.
hi: Im not 100% sure, but I think they dont have such selfish ideas as land ownership because they
believed that they could coexist with their environment, not steal the resources as if they were inexhaustible
like we are.
But
When the Aborigines arrived in Australia, the country had a diverse range of very large and unique
mammals, now usually referred to as megafauna. These animals disappeared soon after the arrival of the
Aborigines, and ultimately, the Aborigines effect on the environment was devastating.
10
Most scientists (including, surprisingly, Prof. Tim Flannery) believe that their extinction was due either
directly or indirectly to the arrival of the aborigines. The animals, of course, were so unafraid of man
that the Aborigines were able simply walk up to them and kill them.
15
Scientists also believe that the fire farming introduced by Aborigines changed the environment in a way
that eventually led to the total extinction of the megafauna.
20
The disappearance of this megafauna made a huge difference to the history of Australia. This is because
some of them wouldve been prime candidates for domestication, and with domesticated animals would
have come a whole new development path for Aborigines. At the time, domestication had proved hugely
successful in other continents. However, with the extinction of the megafauna in Australia, Aborigines were
left with no readily domesticable animals at all.
By the time the white man arrived in Australia, the small population (300,000) of Aborigines was already
consuming the majority of animal protein in Australia and, through fire farming, was almost certainly
effectively wasting more of the edible grasses and grains than all the other herbivores combined. With both
domesticated animals, and crops, the Aborigines lives could have been far more sustainable.
25
In fact, during their period of sole occupancy of Australia, the Aborigines caused the extinction of far more
species than the white man has.
hi: Personally, I think their society was far superior to the wasteful one you live in []
Really? What a bizarre conclusion.
27.
30
#27
Cait
Dec 31st, 2010 at 1:39 am (Q)
THANK YOU!!!!
35
I am beginning to write my submission to the most repressive initiative, the Draft Flora and Fauna Strategy,
the Yarra Ranges Council in Vic has ever had written for them by dubious greeny types.
And like everything else they do, it begins with them acknowledging the Traditional Owners.
That the Council does this ticks me off to no end. When the Aboriginies start paying all the back rates they
owe, then they can claim to be traditinal owners. Until then, tough.
40
The council also puts a picture of that ridiculous flag on the page. I hate it. The Council NEVER has the
Australian flag anywhere in their documents, but flies the aboriginal flag in every one of them.
And I can never remember which term to call them aboriginies or aboriginals. I dont know why we just
cant call em abos.
p37
17-4-2015
38
Ozsoapbox, I really enjoyed reading youre post, and Wendy, loved your comment.
AusGeoff, what you have written needs to be taught to every school child.
And whatever happend to the ORIGINAL OWNERS of the land, the Mungo people? Or the Negritos? Or
the pygmies that lived near Cairns? Why have they gone missing from the textbooks?
Its shameful that the ancient anthropological history of Australia is nothing more than a pc political
football that has nothing to do with science.
5
28.
#28
ozsoapbox
10
Dec 31st, 2010 at 7:44 pm (Q)

I am beginning to write my submission to the most repressive initiative, the Draft Flora and Fauna Strategy,
the Yarra Ranges Council in Vic has ever had written for them by dubious greeny types.
And like everything else they do, it begins with them acknowledging the Traditional Owners.
Ugh, this sort of mandatory acknowledgement is exactly what I was talking about. If I was working there
Id be actively working towards getting the council to ask why it does so.
15
If its an issue related to land ownership then fair enough, but what does slapping the acknowledgement
(and Aboriginal flag wtf?) on every document achieve?
29.
#29
20
Nicola
Jun 27th, 2011 at 10:31 am (Q)
Ozsoapbox, you bring up good points. Why should we say the welcome to country? Especially when no
one even fully understands what its meaning is.
Todays youth are made to feel ashamed about what was done in the past, and I feel that my class mates and
I do feel ashamed, we certinally wouldnt do what our forefathers did and now we want to make emends,
but how can we do that when we dont even understand the full extent of what has been done?
25
I think that we need to be properly educated on the subject so we can fully understand the extent of our
ansesters actions so we can actually mean it when we say the welcome to country.
I personally am all for saying it, what is wrong with simply acknowledging the original custodians of
Australia? Its not like they are asking us to stand on our heads and resite our whole family tree and what
our family members did to their family members, its simply saying I acknowledge that you were living
here perfectly content until we came along.
30
It takes around 2 seconds max to listen to it, its really not that hard. (it obviously takes more that 2 seconds,
i was just trying to imply it takes up a very short time)
35
On the other hand, better wording should be used to give the proper acknowledgement to the aboriginals.
I mean no offence to anyone by commenting on this, i simply feel the need to express my thoughts as a
young australian to those who also feel the need to discuss the topic.
Thank you for your time.
30.
40
#30
p38
17-4-2015
39
ross dalrymple
Jun 27th, 2011 at 3:07 pm (Q)
Welcome to country! What a load of crock! whose country? Arent we all Australians living in a
multicultural Australia?
I just dont get it, aboriginal people expect white people to feel ashamed of what their forefathers did. Our
forefathers did what they had to do to survive, if aboriginals stole they were punished if they waged war
they got war According to archaeology palaeontology ect
Thousands of years ago their aboriginal forefathers committed genocide on the previous inhabitants of this
country (the negritos) I dont hear them saying sorry about that!!!
10
Im a 3/4th generation Aussie with Irish Scottish ancestry and when I see a white guy with more Irish blood
than aboriginal painted up and doing a corroboree it just shows it up for what it is, a farce.thats like me
going to Scotland dressed in a kilt doing the highland fling and telling them welcome to MY country.
31.
#31
15
ozsoapbox
Jun 28th, 2011 at 1:30 pm (Q)
@Nicola
Todays youth are made to feel ashamed about what was done in the past, and I feel that my class mates and
I do feel ashamed
20
And herein lies the problem.

If your grandfather or parents murdered someone would you feel directly responsible or guilty about it?
Shame implies that youve done something to be ashamed of.
So what exactly have Australians living today done to feel ashamed about? You can acknowledge what
happened perfectly fine without feeling all guilty and ashamed about it.
Welcome to country is nothing more than tokenism which, as you acknowledge means little to todays
generation.
25
32.
#32
Rayzor
30
Jul 2nd, 2011 at 1:15 pm (Q)

I am quite proud to be called an invader even when I not even British. I am an Australian. Bitza mix. My
question is Why are they still here?
Perhaps you can call me Rayzor The Barbarian or Rayzor the Conquer. Or King Rayzor of Gondwanaland
Or Rayzor Lord of the Quinkan men. Either on would be nice.
35
I am a master of pointing the bone kapow!

33.
#33
Almica
Sep 15th, 2011 at 4:00 am (Q)
p39
17-4-2015
40
This is just how I feel, and Im glad to see everyone feels the same and has made such good points making
me realise I am not alone. I also see the few who dont understand and are just copying the propaganda of
being PC are really.. well.. dumb.
10
15
20
Comparing the aboriginals behaviour to saying my grandmother died is the worst analogy second the global
warming one. My grandmother did die, and oneday my mum will, and so will I, and it will be sad. Many
sad things will happen and that is life. My great great great great etc ancestors also died, and im sure many
went through extremely hard times (living in the desert in the 1800s would of sucked) being shipped here
as a prisoner and all, and then having to build the railroads and wander for miles without food or water in
an extreme climate. wow.
I know my recent ancestors went through bad times (rape, abuse, poverty) and I dont know the extent of it,
I have no records. But I am sure the older times were even worse. But my genes survived, so I should be
grateful and so should all the aborigines who might of died otherwise by disease or an inquisition, and same
goes for you.
Most other natives didnt get off so easy. The aussies/old british that did come here however- as being
deported, didnt even want to come here, and they made friends with the natives cause they couldnt
navigate the land. Both were trying to survive. It was no picnic for anyone. But obviously it worked out
because australia is a great country, high literacy rate, clean water, health care, technology, secular, multi
cultural and modern!!
I mean look at this, its so easy and happy compared to places that are war torn and ridden with problems.
Why complain? We brought medicine, technology, clothes, food, clean water, sewage, housing, aircon,
cars EVERYTHING! You wanna hate on us for bringing you this??
This makes me sad for what our ancestors worked for, only to be discriminated against, only to be
reminded of a bad incident compared to the positives that overwhelm the bad things. The stolen generation
was only about 100 people, and they were put into rich family homes, with servants included.
25
30
35
Funny how much damage has happened in history overseas, what other countries have done but they dont
even mention it (look at africa, india, china, america who has inavded everyone!) but our australian youth
must be reminded everyday how being white is bad. Why dont we all sit here and cut our wrists for being
white? what a joke.
The south americans have proudly claimed their land, they never speak of the aztecs. Why do we have to??
I wouldnt even mind it, if I got some respect and wasnt persecuted for the colour of my skin.
I hate hearing others, like aboriginies and the old black argument.. saying they lost touch with their
spirituality as though that means something. You choose to be spiritual (whatever that means, religious,
hippie?? Pagan?? Shaman? god knows!) you arent born into it, and weve all see the devasting effects of
religion anyway (look at the middle east) so really I have no idea what my ancestry was spiritually but I
can take a guess (some kinda pagan, catholic, protestant thing) and Im glad I was born open minded and
not indoctrinated.
I accept this, however others do not, they wear it like baggage making everyone feel bad for them for
losing something, but what?! it means nothing!
40
45
I bet if you were never even told that as a kid about lost spirituality and false entitlement, you wouldnt
even think of it. Cause we dont. Self pity is learned. It is dogma, and it is reverse racism. Black children
are taught to hate white people- doesnt matter if youre a new immigrant from russia, germany, italy,
england, or anywhere that is irrelevent to the old settlers, you are still discriminated against. Even us
aussies have no control over the past.
I hate that Hi person who moronically stated that even if you have nothing to do with something, you
are still responsible for it. That doesnt even make sense! How does that make sense?
Ugh, you could use that to deny responsibility by just pushing it onto someone else. Its such hypocrisy!
The aboriginals use that in order to AVOID responsibility, and its not for us to claim. The only person
responsible is his or herself.
p40
17-4-2015
41
If something directly happens to you such as rape or abuse, then yes you can hate that person, but that was a
personal experience. You cant hate a whole group of people judging by their LOOKS, about some story
you heard and have made your own.
Its just another old story that gets emotion attached to it, but if you were never told it, it wouldnt bother
you. If someone told me about my great great grandmas hardship and said I can blame my next door
neighbour cause his great great x 10 grandfather abused her, that would be irrational and insane.
However the aboriginals and bleeding heart hippies advocate this, mainly for money. Its a sinking ship and
they are not ready to stand on their own feet, its about money and nothing else. Its like trying to take money
away from a spoilt adult who never worked- they wouldnt know how to cope, so they manipulate you.
10
Getting handouts is not about respect or the future, and it is SO far removed from anything spiritual.
Asking for money and free cars and houses, and spending it on drugs and gangsta gear is so materialistic.
How cultured is that, exactly? Its pathetic.
How much more money do they want before they start being cultured? LOL. it will only get worse. The
money handouts do not work, and more money wont help.
15
20
By the way, aboriginals are not Gangsta. Gangstas have guns and fight for their own money, they are
gangstas because they do not get handouts. Peoples stupidity does my head in, and there are so many more
things I could point out that are inconsistent, yet ignored.
I grew up with aboriginals as a child (they are now drug dealers, Ive finished my psychology degree) and
my godmother is aboriginal, my ex stepdad is an activist for them too. My step mum is Jamaican. I have no
issue with race, and thats why I can see clearly and have no fear.
All I was ever taught was good things about other races, yet as a white I have seen a lot of predjudice
towards us. I learnt that the ones who propagate this, are the aboriginals, because of their entitlement
bullshit.
25
30
African and Indian and chinese immigrants live all over here, everywhere, and they come from actual
fucked up countries, work their asses off and they do fine! They dont sit around saying someone stole
their land. just like I dont bang on the front door of my great great great grandpas house and say This
my land, yo white dawg cunt. It would be disgraceful, and stupid.
You should all watch Blood Diamond, and see what actual warfare is. THATS land stealing. The holocaust.
The Hiroshima Bomb. Seriously guys, wake up! You think aboriginals got it bad? Shit, they have it
FUCKING EASY.
By the way, avatar is more relevant to a place like the Middle east. If you guys are so concerned with
peoples welfare, how about you work on things happening now, that far exceed the tragedy of the past.
35
There is a war going on, millions have died. Millions are also in slave trade around the world. Girls are
being circumsized in africa, and in even in australia/america/england in secret by their families, cause its
illegal here. Women are being killed and beaten everyday in islamic countries.
Everyday 1500 women die from childbirth.
Every 3 years one million people die from smoking.
40
Seriously people, wake up. This is a big world, and bad things happen. Humans are scary, disease is scary,
nature is scary, and the universe is even more unpredictable. A comet could hit at any time. No warnings
are given because it only causes chaos, thats a fact.
45
We are all mortal, and none of us own the land. We need the eco system to support us, and over population
is proof of our arrogance and ignorance. Food is getting scarcer and more expensive (bread is the easiest to
harvest, protein isnt, thats why we are all sick and overweight, shit food is cheaper) and because we are
breeding so fast and basically everyone is selfish, and everyone from aboriginals to africans, europeans,
indians, asians all of us will fight ourselves to get our own way, no matter how damaging it may be.
Us humans arent that clever you see. We are driven by emotions (the aboriginal thing is proof of emotions
winning over logic) our primal urges to consume, have sex and breed, regardless of what is rational.
p41
17-4-2015
42
This is what will cause mass famine and wars over resources. If we cant come to terms with the aboriginal
bullshit, what hope is there for real issues?
None of us own anything. Life isnt a battle of owning the most toys. Life is about simply surviving, but
people dont think about that. we die empty handed. Remember that. I am a 21 year old white person, and I
have more wisdom than a typical aboriginal, only cause I chose to be informed, but you cant say all
whites are greedy, ignorant etc, cause lots of us are nothing like that. I was not raised to be greedy, only to
be intelligent and to have just enough to be happy.
You can be a surviver, or you can be a failure. You can stand up and make the most of your blessings or
you can whinge cause clean water, health care, clothing, a home and education arent enough.
10
15
20
25
30
Immigration has become a huge issue, and overpopulation concerns me more than the abos welfare. Our
economy knows that if we are going to deal with the immigrants we need to start telling the aboriginals
sorry, party is over, Australia is in debt to the Federal Reserve, we have to house refugees, and its killing
us having to pay you too, when so far you have done nothing.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Feed him for one day, he will go hungry tomorrow. well we have
tried, we have TRIED FOR YEARS! Nothing has gotten better, only worse through handouts. Greater
issues are at hand now, and once the money stops, the abos will wake up to reality and will get off the
booze, cause they will HAVE TO if they want to work and survive. I wish I could party everyday too, but I
cant!
if australia ever went down hill, and went broke, the aboriginals would die first, cause they are so reliant
and cant sustain themselves. plus No invader would ever spare those hopeless drunkards. But the
aboriginals dont see how lucky they are to live in this place, not tibet or africa or india or russia, or
thailand.. you name it. They would be dead, or would shape up.
We cant force aboriginals to want to learn, just like you cant force a drug addict to stop, or a depressed
person to wake up. That has to come from inside you. I get depressed, but I realised that change must come
from me. so I know what its like to be helpless despite being beautiful, thin, popular etc. I know how it is to
want more. and trust me, you will find someone to blame if you want to. But I accept it, and I cant blame
anyone for my state of mind. I have to get on with life, or fail.
Aboriginals never have to face that kind of maturity though. we all have obstacles. Some of us may seem
like we have it all, but we dont. We do not go around telling people though. We hide it, we hide our
struggles and hope it goes away.
Do you really think being white is easier? Do you really think being an ugly, poor white person is better
than being a successful black person?
35
Being white doesnt make you any better. White people (and asians, and afro-americans, mexicans etc)
usually just have to be, cause we work. or else we lose a job. White people just ACT okay, but we have
tragedies that no one gives a shit about.
My grandfather was a street kid, he ran way from home from his alcoholic dad after his mother (my great
grandma) stabbed herself to death. He found her when he came home from school and left. It would of been
traumatic, and he never speaks of it and is just fine!
40
45
He got married when he was 20, and studied while looking after his kids (my mother one of them) and he
founded the Leukemia Foundation and many other very famous charities, and was the CEO of Telethon in
the 80s. so people can overcome things. He got over it, so to say. I thank my ancestors for being
resilient.
THAT is strength, and whoever said aboriginals are resilient is a moron. in what way are they resilent?
Surviving the Hiroshima Bomb is strength, being a hobo cause you cant get a free house is fucking
pathetic. So far Ive only seen disintergration, not reslience, and they have no one to blame but their OWN
ancestors. The babies of these aboriginals now, can only blame their crack pot parents for their situation. I
would.
I thank my ancestors for being strong and overcoming so much, I hope my own problems can be solved so I
can be a good mum too. If I was a drug addicted scum bag I would never bring an innocent child into it.
p42
17-4-2015
43
The aboriginal woman who lived a few houses down from me had 20 kids, yes 20. The enormous, beautiful
stone house (that was given to them) became a drug lab.
so I have seen it all, I have stood back and assessed it. Everything is refuted by now. There is no good
argument for aboriginals stealing our money, not for us or them, and it furthers their poverty, and our secret
resentment towards them and their invalid hatred towards us.
so for all your bullshit analogies, I have a life story to tell that proves we are each responsible for ourselves.
I wonder if my children, and grandchildren, will have to endure this kind of bull shit too, and be taunted for
being white? You had better think about your effects on the future.
as for the land ownership and the energy wasted on such a trivial debate, Life of Brian put it best:
You are born as nothing, then you die and return to nothing. You actually dont lose anything!
10
Nothing comes from nothing. Know what I mean?

We all die. Money, land.. whatever you want: nothing saves you. nothing stops time, nothing stops nature
and death. We are all mortal and should enjoy our time here because oneday things will be worse. Lost land
is nothing, be grateful you are alive today. Cause you never know when it will be over.
15
34.
#34
Almica
Sep 15th, 2011 at 4:13 am (Q)
that was a huge comment, but it was hard to write one thing and leave out something else. I guess I just
wanted to sum it all up in one go. Especially in these topics, you all need to understand where I am coming
from as a person, how I am not racist yet why I feel as though people judge me as being superior cause I
am white, and people project their own insecurities onto me. I dont know why, and it hurts.
20
Everytime I say simply that aboriginals shouldnt get benefits, people think Im ignorant (but really they are,
ironically) so I had to explain all my reasons why Im actually very open minded and I know what I feel is
right, cause I have seen it for myself.
25
I have been robbed by rich white-aboriginals at a catholic school when I was 15 (all my weeks wages were
stolen, when your 15 thats very heartbreaking), because they have been influenced by that culture. They did
it cause they could, cause they are aboriginals.
They were PAID to go to school, and were rich anyway! But took my money, and called me names because
I was white, blue eyed and attractive (I guess, even though they were pretty too) until it got so bad I left. so
even the rich ones ride that wave cause they fucking CAN.
30
Do I get reparations for that? Nup.

Its reverse racism, and everyone who is a self hating white here, has ever actually known them like I have.
lived around them. I promise you that. They arent poor suffering souls, they are naughty kids. They are
just like spoilt kids. Nothing deep there at all, trust me I have tried to look.
35
No substance, no culture, no education about other nations or foreign wars. They dont care for anyone else
but themselves
35.
#35
40
ozsoapbox
Sep 15th, 2011 at 11:07 am (Q)
p43
17-4-2015
44
Thanks for sharing all that Almica. Some great insight there that youre definitely not going to get from the
late city crowd who defend policies like traditional land acknowledgement as if their lives depended on it.
36.
#36
Megan
Sep 15th, 2011 at 12:47 pm (Q)
Almica, you sound well qualified to make those comments.
The picture you paint for our country sounds pretty dire, I would hope that things dont get that bad.
The reverse racism you mention is so prevalent in a large town near where I live. Young white people are
terrified of aboriginal gangs and keep well out of their way.
10
The thing I find incredible is that all the take away Bottle Shops in that particular town close down when
theres an aboriginal funeral. The entire community and those in surrounding areas are inconvenienced
because the aboriginal people cannot control themselves. They drink themselves into a stupor, then fight
each other.
15
And where do they get the money to buy all this grog? From welfare payments which come from our taxes.
Perhaps the government will have to apologise in years to come for giving them the money because it led to
alcoholism and destruction of families.
37.
#37
20
ausGeoff
Sep 15th, 2011 at 4:28 pm (Q)
Thanks for your informative, detailed input Almica phewwhat a read LOL.
Having lived and worked in rural WA (Port Hedland and Kalgoorlie) I know all about reverse racism too.
Cheers.
25
38.
#38
sigh so sad
Mar 20th, 2012 at 12:00 pm (Q)
30
i take offence to the generalisation that australias first people constantly have to put up with. they are not
all alcoholics laying around in the streets waiting for the next government hand out, which is the picture i
get when i see such comments as yours.
Why should you put down a race of people who have survived displacement, dispossession and genocide
yet who will still extend the hand of friendship.
35
Would you rather they be aggressive and militant like other countries to receive any respect. Ive seen
white children wandering the streets of perth and sleepin under the bridges because they have been kicked
out and disowned by thier families.
ive seen white youths strung out on drugs and sitting in doorways and not one person stopped to help, the
society that has been built is not wonderful for everyone but who cares right?
p44
17-4-2015
45
alcohol, drugs, greed and a lot of chronic diseases did not exist in australia prior to colonisation yet they are
the very things that are killing off indigenous australians.
the average australian aboriginal has a shortened life expectancy than non indigenous people.
dont even know why im takin the time to address such ignorance but it made my blood boil
my wish for you is that you wake up tomorrow and find out your aboriginal..
5
39.
#39
ausGeoff
Mar 20th, 2012 at 8:37 pm (Q)
10
I can agree with this and still see the contrary situation
sigh so sad: They are not all alcoholics laying around in the streets waiting for the next government hand
out []
15
Of course, theyre not ALL alcoholics; itd be naive to truly believe that. What we are saying is that theres
far, far too many aborigines who waste their lives drifting aimlessly through their days with no ideals or
goals or aspirations or future. And, again, far too many aborigines do rely on their fortnightly, taxpayerfunded welfare handouts.
sigh so sad: Why should you put down a race of people who have survived displacement, dispossession
and genocide yet who will still extend the hand of friendship.
20
25
Displacement and dispossession? Accepting that this did actually occur, whats the difference? Or are
you simply trying to reinforce your argument with tautologies? And genocide? Are you one of these
people that are still blaming us whites200 years down the trackfor the actions of our great-great-great
grandfathers? You must be kidding surely?
And the hand of friendship? Whyif indeed such a concept existsis it that its inevitably us whites that
have to extend this hand? Having lived and worked amongst two large large Aboriginal populations in
north-western WA, I can honestly say that no aboriginal person ever initiated contact with me in the streets.
Well, apart that is from the occasional threat to punch my lights out if I didnt give them some smokes or
money for cheap booze.
And these are both straw man arguments
sigh so sad: Ive seen white children wandering the streets of Perth and sleeping under the bridges []
30
sigh so sad: Ive seen white youths strung out on drugs and sitting in doorways []
Are you really suggesting that because an infinitesimal percentage of us whites are homeless druggies or
hopeless alcoholics that this somehow excuses the massive percentage of the Aboriginal population who
are? Nope; doesnt make any sense.
These assertions are somewhat over-generalised too
35
sigh so sad: Alcohol, drugs, greed and a lot of chronic diseases did not exist in Australia prior to
colonisation []
Youre obviously unaware that the first smallpox epidemic amongst aborigines was due to its introduction
into Australia by Macassan fishermen (from Indonesia) and nearby islands who landed on our northern
coast prior to European settlement.
40
And youre also unaware that it wasnt European settlers who introduced alcohol to the aborigineswhich
is a common myth. They were actually producing their own alcoholic drinks from plants such as
Quandong, Corkwood and Pandanus way before the white man appeared on the scene.
p45
17-4-2015
46
In fact, its more than apparent you dont really know anything much at all about Aboriginal social history.
Well, apart from the misinformation that the bleeding-heart leftie luvvies are feeding you.
40.
#40
tangles
Jun 26th, 2014 at 9:15 pm (Q)
brilliant. I thought i was the only one thinking that its absurd acknowledging traditional owners when none
are present and when its got nothing to do with aboriginals or aboriginal affairs.
41.
10
#41
Aug 21st, 2014 at 11:18 am (Q)
15
I personally hold this was a great article. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the Framers of
the Constitution held there was no land right issue and that is the basis of our constitution, and I view the
High Court of Australia sold us out in MABO.
The court ignored what their limits of constitutional judicial powers were as it also did in Sue v Hill. They
are by backdoor manner seeking to amend the constitution as to its true meaning and application.
Check out the 21-1-1837NSW-Gov-Gazette-259-about shooting black fellows and how it was explained
he had no choice to do so as the savages were killing people in their sleep, etc.
20
As such, there are pros and cons as to Aboriginals. and they were numerous different tribes often at war
amongst each other and not speaking the same language nor using the same customs and traditions having
murdered the original inhabitants the Davisonians.
25
The current sought amendment by This Adam Goodes is utter and sheer nonsense because s128 referendum
power cannot amend the Preamble. Yet it appears Qantas, AFL and others lack the understanding about this
and seek their discriminatory conduct to pursue this nevertheless.
30
There were many outstanding people of the Aboriginal race, one even became Governor of South Australia
and this shows that if you are not feeling sorry for your own inflicted problems but out you mind to
succeeding in life then you can achieve a lot, including those who became respected doctors and lawyers.
But you always have the stirrers in any race who feel sorry for themselves for their own created misfortunes
and then blame whomever for it.
Why is it that in remote communities there is all this hype about how bad Aboriginals have it but not a
word about the non-Aboriginals who reside in the same communities? here we had this person referring (in
the USA) to White woman meaning Delta Goodrem, but if she had referred in kind to him as a black
man then she would have been outed as a racist.
35
40
The same with Aboriginals who can refer to a non Aboriginal as a white fella but you call them black
fella and you are deemed a racist.
Lets be clear about it there never was a national flag amongst Aboriginals when Captain Coook entered the
then New Holland. The only flag that ever was on any flagpole for many years was the Dutch flag, after a
captain and about 7o0 of his crew ship wrecked in what is now known as Western Australia in the 1620s
and they then set up Dutch houses, and cultivated the ground. (As reported in journals of French ships).
The Framers of the Constitution specifically omitted Aboriginals from subsection 51(xxvi) as they held
Aboriginals were equal to other Australians. Well, they wanted to be discriminated against and pursued and
obtained in 1967 to be regarded a race against which one can discriminate.
p46
17-4-2015
47
Well you got what you wanted and so do not bother to complain about your self pitty because it is so to say
time you grew up, and did as so many other people of the Aboriginal race did and that was become part of
society and enjoy the fruits of being so.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
As you may notice from the above there are different views and I quoted them so it is not just
that I am making them up as I also provide for the internet links that you can verify those
comments having been downloaded from there.
.
Let us be clear about it that this recognize campaign is racism! Just that because it is in fav our
of Aboriginals it somehow is not considered as such, however if someone were to campaign to
derecognize Aboriginals in any State constitution then the person more than likely would be
accused of being a racist.
It seems to me this division between Australians of Aboriginals versus the rest of Australians is a
political engineered event that should stop.
But unless Aboriginals themselves are (finally) waking up to the rot of the politicians, and realise
that no matter what they claimed even the apology by Kevin Rudd made not one iota
difference to persisting with the unconstitutional; Northern Territory Intervention Act. As such
fools those who continue to fall for the rot of the politicians.
Only when we are one people, regardless of heritage, race, customs, traditions, etc we can live in
peace and tranquility.
Those who are stirring should be held accountable and then by this we may stop the rot.
25
Well I had my say, regardless if you may or may not agree with all or some of the above at least I
have shown to have done some minimal research to answer your question.
To me holding a competition isnt going to resolve anything either because the competition
implies support for whatever, and those against it are not heard.
30
.
If Aboriginals are part of the land and not own it, then what are then all this land right claims
about?
35
Gerrit
Constitutionalist & Consultant

40
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
p47
17-4-2015
48
The content of this email and any attachments are provided

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.
5
10
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read

it, all you now need to do is to consider the content
appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE
QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE
LABELLED A FOOL.
15
From: Les McDonald <bebuybac@yahoo.com.au>

To: "inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 19:13
Subject: Your opinion appreciated
20
Noel only speaks for his mob people .

The AGE Melbourne 14 April 2015
Noel Pearson calls for a national competition to recognise Indigenous Australians
25
30
35
40
Australians would be given the chance to draft a declaration recognising the place of Aborigines
and Torres Strait Islanders in the nation's history and culture under a bold plan backed by Noel
Pearson.
Under the proposal by two constitutional conservatives, Damien Freeman and Julian Leeser, the
words of the declaration would be chosen through a national competition, voted on by all
Australians in a referendum and used at national, civic and religious events.
The day the declaration was adopted - potentially in 2017 - could then become a public holiday
and an annual commemoration and celebration of Australia's Indigenous peoples, but the
declaration would sit outside the Constitution and have no legal force.
Mr Pearson has supported the plan as a "breakthrough idea", warning that the current plan for
constitutional recognition is a "recipe for a conflagration between conservatives and other
Australians".
But the Indigenous leader and lawyer has stressed that it is not a solution by itself and should be
linked to constitutional changes, including a provision to give Indigenous Australia a voice to
government.
p48
17-4-2015
49
He has called for a series of Indigenous conventions across the country to debate his preferred
model for change and the model he helped craft as a member of the expert panel established by
the Gillard government in 2010.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Indigenous leaders have reacted cautiously, saying more than five years of consultations have
been predicated on recognition being within the nation's founding document, which some have
dubbed "the birth certificate of the nation".
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, Mick Gooda, said it was a "big
ask" to now be promoting a declaration of recognition outside the Constitution. There is also
strong support from Indigenous leaders for the expert panel's call for a prohibition on racial
discrimination to be inserted into the Constitution.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott welcomed Mr Pearson's intervention, but stressed the importance of
securing bipartisan support for a model and working with Indigenous Australians is fundamental.
"Unless we are together on this, we will fail," he said. Labor leader Bill Shorten, agreed and
renewed his call for Mr Abbott to convene a meeting of Indigenous leaders to discuss the issue.
Mr Pearson says it is clear that constitutional conservatives will ensure the defeat of any racial
discrimination prohibition on the grounds that it would diminish the power of the Parliament.
He is also convinced that the concern that recognition within the Constitution would be subjected
to interpretation by the High Court would result in a set of "mealy-mouthed, miserable and
minimalist" words.
The architects of the new plan agree, saying a declaration outside the Constitution would have
"greater capacity for rhetorical flourishes, sweeping statements and soaring poetry".
"The constitutional conservatives have the power to hold the country's future to ransom," Mr
Pearson told Fairfax Media. "What I'm interested in is to convince constitutional conservatives
that there is a way they can uphold the Constitution and recognise indigenous Australians at the
same time.
"The second group that could kill this are those who rightfully insist that racial discrimination
has been a defining feature of our relationship to the national Parliament and that recognition
must in a substantive way address that."
He believes his proposal for a Constitutional amendment requiring the Parliament to consult
with, and consider advice from, an Indigenous body is the better way to address this concern.
40
45
"I just think the important thing now is to make sure constitutional conservatives don't foreclose
on this and advocates of an expert panel don't blindly insist on a position that is very obviously
going to result in trenchant opposition."
Under the plan drafted by Mr Freeman and Mr Leeser, the process to formulate a declaration
would draw on the public competition approach employed to choose the Australian national flag
more than a century ago.
"In order to ensure popular participation, the government should ask Australians, through a
national competition, to compose a potential Australian Declaration of Recognition of no more
than 300 words," they say.
50
p49
17-4-2015
50
A committee would then select a shortlist of five versions to be put to a referendum, with a
preferential voting system deciding the most popular.
The text of the declaration could then be carved into the fabric of Parliament House "in the same
way that the Declaration of Independence is carved into the Jefferson Memorial in Washington
DC".
END QUOTE 17-4-2015 email to Les
10
I look forwards to your detailed positive response.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
15
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p50
17-4-2015

20150417-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Funding Recognise Campaign and Others

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

20150417-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Funding Recognise Campaign and Others

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

MY RESPONSE Re RECOGNISE-COMPETION-ETC-Re: Your

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Noel Pearson calls for a national competition to recognise Indigenous Australians

Split opens in recognition push the Australian

Split opens in indigenous recognition push

Split opens in indigenous recognition push - The Australian ...

Split opens in recognition push, 2015-04-13 | NewsWits.com

Marie McInerney (@mariemcinerney) | Twitter

Split opens in recognition push | dailynewsleaks

Split opens in recognition push | Amazon Herald - Breaking ...

Shorten blames PM for recognition split | Amazon Herald ...

PM blamed for recognition split | Amazon Herald - Breaking ...

QUOTE 28-3-2015 EMAIL

Pygmy aboriginal encampment in the rainforest behind Cairns, 1890.

As The Netherlands, Germany, r

Taxpayers scrutinising ATSIC accounts have no way of knowing,

QUOTE 17-3-2015 EMAIL

QUOTE 27-2-2015 EMAIL

Today at 4:18 PM (27-2-2015)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

(IMAGE NOT INCLUDED)

The team's study is published today in the journal Science.

Fossil may be earliest human ancestor

SEPTEMBER 09, 2011

Australia's oldest ancestors walked upright

Magnetic field reversal helps date fossils

BY ALICE MCRAE WITH AAP |

JANUARY 15, 2013

BY AAP WITH AG STAFF |

FEBRUARY 09, 2011

BY AG STAFF WITH AAP |

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

PNG find prompts human migration rethink

Why acknowledge traditional Aboriginal land owners?

Aboriginal Finance: Spend 10 million to loan 2 million - Dec 29th, 2010

Government supresses Bath report on Aboriginal kids - Feb 9th, 2010

An Australian republic means Aboriginal sovereignty? - Aug 27th, 2010

Mar 17th, 2010 at 8:33 am (Q)

Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:33 pm (Q)

Apr 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm (Q)

Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:03 pm (Q)

Or is poverty a better example?

Nov 15th, 2010 at 2:15 pm (Q)

Would you go and live running around naked in the outback?

Another rhetorical question:

Dec 31st, 2010 at 7:44 pm (Q)

And herein lies the problem.

Jul 2nd, 2011 at 1:15 pm (Q)

I am a master of pointing the bone kapow!

Nothing comes from nothing. Know what I mean?

Do I get reparations for that? Nup.

Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

The content of this email and any attachments are provided

If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read

From: Les McDonald <bebuybac@yahoo.com.au>

Noel only speaks for his mob people .

I look forwards to your detailed positive response.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Awaiting your response,