By MICHAEL SLOVANOS
CAIRNS News and our readers might like to know how a state government in Australia such as Victoria can enter into a treaty, given that treaties come under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade i.e. DFAT’s International Law: Advising and Treaties Section which “is responsible for, and should be consulted on, all aspects of the treaty-making process”.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines treaty as “a written agreement between two or more countries, formally approved and signed by their leaders”. Last time we checked Victoria is a state within a country, not a separate country.
Victoria’s radical Green-New Left state government says it is going to enter into treaty negotiations with the state’s Aborigines in 2025. The ABC reports that “Five Aboriginal people have been appointed to the Treaty Authority, which will oversee negotiations between the First Peoples’ Assembly and state government”.
Are we being led to believe that a separate branch of government or indeed a state will in effect be created when a “treaty” is reached between the First People’s Assembly, the Treaty Authority and the State Government of Victoria? It seems so.
To disagree attracts the inevitable slur of “racism” and not by coincidence the Australian Human Rights Commission has this week declared: “Australia is at a critical juncture in its fight to eradicate racism but must confront the legacy of colonisation and white privilege before moving forward”.
And now we have a National Anti-Racism Framework, launched this week by the Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman , who says “moves to eradicate racism should be First Nations-focused and include a truth-telling process to investigate the effects of colonisation.”
Note the guilt-inducing phrases like “white privilege” and “the legacy of colonisation”. It’s a subtle version of the “hate speech” they bang on about. Will investigating the effects of colonisation include reference to giving Aborigines a new language, understood worldwide. Technology and trade skills? Medicine? Agriculture? Formal education?
But does the Victorian Constitution or Commonwealth Constitution mention separate governing bodies for Aborigines? No. But the latter most certainly does put Aboriginal affairs under the Federal Government.
On May 27th, 1967, the Commonwealth Constitution was altered through a referendum with majority 90.77% support, to amend Section 51 (xxvi) to remove the phrase “other than the aboriginal race in any State” and remove section 127 entirely.
These amendments allowed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be counted as part of the national population, and for the Commonwealth government to make laws for them. So, why is Victoria assuming it can make laws specifically for the Aborigines of Victoria? Cairns News has put these questions to Victorian UAP Senator Ralph Babet.
Andrew Jackomos, a member of Victoria’s Treaty Authority, told the ABC “I think the important thing is for everyone to understand that when you come to the treaty table, that we’re there as equals and it’s about promoting self-determination, empowerment.” A separate “nation” within a state Mr Jackomos?
It sounds highly divisive and certainly what ex-Communist Party member Geoff McDonald warned 40 years ago would happen when the Aboriginal land rights movement came into prominence during the 1970s and 1980s – the fracturing of Australia into Aboriginal states – aka separatism as opposed to federation under a Constitution.
It’s well known that Federal, State and Territory governments now pour more than $30 billion annually into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, or 6.1% of total direct general government expenditure.
But that’s not enough for the activists. They not only want the money, they want the power, and they are exercising it already by kicking “white fella” off allegedly increasing areas of “sacred” Aboriginal land such as Mt Arapiles and the Grampians in Western Victoria, Mt Warning in NSW and sites in other states.
They are also promoting themselves as some sort of “special spiritual people” whose ancestors must be honoured on every public occasion.
One thing is certain to happen during the so-called treaty negotiations is that guilt-stricken, “liberal/left” lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and politicians will fall over themselves to meet most of the demands of the First People’s Assembly. Not to do so would be decried as “racist” and “colonialist”.
The neo-Marxist Aborigines will follow their NZ Maori comrades in demanding and getting all sorts of special privileges for the descendants of the “victims of colonisation” and so forth. And of course, they will have the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to appeal to should they meet resistance.
They will likely be proposing a system of “co-governance” as is being done in New Zealand, where every development application, public or private, will require approval from one or more of the local Indigenous bureaucracy.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a Labor Socialist Left State Government will fall into line and not want to be targeted by “the international community” as a “pariah, racist state”.
And the fact that Victoria’s “indigenous” people are a mixed race, won’t come into the argument. As long as you’re one part Aboriginal somewhere back in your family’s distant past, you’re “Indigenous”. You allegedly have a “spiritual connection” to the land that white people don’t understand because they are “less spiritual” – which would make most of the Aboriginal activists only “part spiritual”.
But the bottom line is that this Aboriginal separatism is all about reverse racism. White skin means “colonial oppressor” therefore all white people are guilty and must pay recompense and many deceived European Australians believe it. They must assuage their guilt. They must pay a price. Or so the separatists claim.
Victorian Nationals leader Peter Walsh, who has supported the legislation behind “Victoria’s path towards a treaty” (as the ABC described it), said it was important that the incoming authority members approached treaty talks “very, very carefully”.
“Because as we saw with the Voice referendum, public goodwill can be lost very quickly, if the detail is not explained and particularly if there is overreach,” he said. Cairns News doubts whether the radicals lurking in the background of the Indigenous movement care about public goodwill.
The Marxist and New Left anti-racism/anti-colonialism campaign has long been a political tool against the West and its institutions. Sometimes it can be a violent tool as the 2020 US riots sparked by the death of George Floyd showed, but most often this war is at the psychological level.
The Black Lives Matter movement used Floyd “the martyr” to tout it’s “noble, righteous anti-racism” cause. But the BLM were a fraud. They were just another neo-Marxist group with stated neo-Marxist objectives, such as destroying the nuclear family.
The tens of millions they received in donations from corporations and others ended up funding LGBTQ parades and big houses for the leaders of the group, as investigations by Candace Owens in her 2022 documentary The Greatest Lie Ever Told revealed.
But BLM were a spearhead group designed to distract, deceive and destroy. The “indigenist operation” is mostly psychological. For instance, a “Welcome to Country” speech given at the 90th anniversary of Sydney’s ANZAC memorial this week ran for nine minutes.
A “Gadigal elder” spoke about the NSW Metropolitan Land Management Council, the stolen people and boat people (English colonists), reminding their ancestors that “Gadigal country” is and always will be her land. The MLMC reportedly sits on $598Million in investments.
Radio presenter Ben Fordham said the nine-minute welcome must have been a record. He was told by attendees that it felt inappropriate, even insulting, despite the relevant fact that the speaker mentioned that her grandfather and great grandfather had served in the military.
An Australian military veteran told Fordham that he served his country for all Australians, not a select few and felt that welcome to country was “like a virus that had overtaken all of the country”.
