Are we crazy?

PM Albanese at the Garma Festival (Echo 4/8/23) told Australians he would push for the call of the Uluru Statement in full – namely, grant Recognition, a Voice, and a Treaty. He said a ‘Yes’ vote would show what the referendum might look like.

‘Might look like!’ Either he’s not letting on what it will be, or he doesn’t know where it will lead!  That’s scary enough to vote ‘No’ in the coming referendum – we don’t know where he’s taking us – we don’t know the implications of a ‘Yes’ vote.

By Aboriginal descendants wanting a treaty, it means they do not believe the land of their ancestors was conquered; indeed, they say this land is still theirs because no treaty was signed.

By and by, no treaty could have been signed in 1788 because as neither the British nor the natives knew each other’s language communication was impossible. Besides, the Sydney natives could not speak for the countless native nations said by Aboriginal descendants to have existed throughout the land. On that note, an Aboriginal spokesman that same day said it would take a very long time to negotiate a treaty because there are so many Aboriginal nations to negotiate with, and each one may want something different.

If we accept that there should be a Treaty we are accepting our Anglo-Saxon ancestors did not conquer this land but stole it, and that raises a right hell of a mess.

There cannot be, under our justice system, a law for Anglo-Saxons and another for Aboriginal descendants.

Our law is that if my watch was stolen, and the thief sold it to Bob, and he sold it to Peter, the watch is still rightfully mine because a thief cannot give good title to stolen goods – hence if this land was stolen our monarchs had no right to issue land grants and title deeds, and no right to allow for the formation of an Australian government – thus our titles to property are worthless, and we Anglo-Saxons even have no right to be here. 

(A saving grace perhaps is that as our Aboriginal descendants some 50 years ago requested and were given Australian citizenship then by that act they acknowledged their ancestors were conquered, and have acknowledged governance).

Recognition in our constitution is unnecessary. Captain Philip wrote in his journals that natives were here in 1788, and our history books record so too. Pursuant to their court action we have given Aboriginal descendants ownership of nearly 50 per cent of Australia’s land mass, and rights over our minerals. What better recognition is needed?

Let’s value our Anglo-Saxon heritage. Sure, history has not always been noble, but if not for Anglo-Saxons we would still be rubbing sticks to make fire and living in bark shelters. Imagine! No electricity, no TV, no phones, no cars, no planes, no roads, no police force – nothing – but a puff of smoke awaiting another defenceless invasion.

They’re damn lucky us Anglo-Saxons beat Hitler and the Japs otherwise those two aggressors would be in possession of this land today with no hope of entertaining claims for Recognition, a Voice, and a Treaty. Rather, such agitators would likely be poisoned or go missing as is done in Russia today.

Just as we were not told 50 years ago that by allowing Aboriginals to be citizens of Australia it would give them access to our Anglo-Saxon court system to claim and be granted land rights and mineral rights we don’t know what this new constitutional change will end up being, but as the Aboriginals are represented by Australia’s largest law firm you can bet there’s mighty big money involved.

Don’t risk a right proper mess. Vote ‘No’, or be prepared to pay, at best, an occupational rent.