As for Senator Chisolm, he joined the Labor Party at the age of 17 - click here
We live in a democracy where everyone who is a citizen and over eighteen years old has a voice to be heard in every local, State, and Federal election. Albanese now wants to give everyone who is a citizen and over eighteen years old AND IDENTIFIES - self-identifies, I might add - AS ABORIGINE an addition Voice.
A democracy where one group of people have more than one voice is not democratic, a democracy based on race is not democratic, and yet this additional, this second voice will be given to everyone who self-identifies as an Aborigine. It is wrong, and what makes it worse is that there is no clear definition of what is an Aborigine. It seems that to call for a definition is racism - or at least 'borderline racism'. As former public servant and politician John Stone wrote in the "Spectator":
"Few topics in this country evoke so much emotion – and so much intellectual confusion – as the state of Aboriginal affairs. One major reason for this is that our 'Aborigines' in fact fall into two very different categories. The first category – the one in which Aboriginal culture still holds sway and those ‘problems’ remain so apparent – comprises the 60,000 to 70,000 whose ancestry is wholly Aboriginal. The second category – several times more numerous – consists of people of mixed ancestry, who have chosen to identify as 'Aboriginal', but who could equally (or even more accurately in many cases) identify with their Caucasian, Chinese, or other non-Aboriginal forebears. (Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, whose outstanding qualities almost literally shine out of her, has actually taken this bull by the horns, referring to herself from time to time as ‘part-Aboriginal’.) These people live in the community side-by-side with their non-Aboriginal neighbours, go to work on a regular basis, send their children to school, take out mortgages, and so on. So why do governments include them in programs devised to deal with Aboriginal problems? Because, I suggest, the politicians leading those governments lack the intestinal fortitude to refuse to do so.
That is precisely the problem with the current controversy over the so-called Voice to parliament – the matter to which the editorial mentioned at the outset principally pertains. The undeniable fact is that this proposal seeks to insert into our constitution provisions endowing one set of Australians (Aborigines – however defined!) with rights not available to the rest of us. But as the Institute of Public Affairs, writing about this many months ago, said: ‘Race has no place in Australia’s Constitution.’ (It was not merely opposing the Voice on those grounds, but arguing for removal of the two existing race-based passages in that document.) This is so obvious that all the questions about how the Voice would work, were it to come to pass, are plainly irrelevant. Why then are our politicians? – particularly the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton – so reluctant to say so?"
Robert Gottliebsen, columnist for the Business Spectator and an economics writer at The Australian, has gone one step further and suggests that the Voice could hurt Parliament and our capital system:
"Anthony Albanese is pushing for a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia’s history.
Slowly the Voice debate is swinging to issues like property ownership, rent and the allocation of government revenue.
I could say welcome to my country, but it is a very unwelcome country. On election night last May, among the most inspiring words of our newly elected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was his embrace of a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia's history.
Albanese aimed to bring together our past and our present and end current and future basic differences.
At the time, like most Australians without Aboriginal heritage, I knew very little about how the so-called Voice would work, but the Prime Minister's sentiments made me an early supporter.
Then the detail started to emerge, and it became apparent that we were being asked to vote on a proposal without full knowledge of what the legislation to be passed by Parliament would contain. I found this both strange and disturbing.
Then came constitutional experts, who warned us that while the proposed wording change to the constitution might look innocuous to a lay person, keywords had legal meanings which the High Court could easily interpret to give the First Nations body very wide approval powers over the actions of the parliament of Australia. Almost certainly that would include the federal budget.
The Australian's legal affairs writer Chris Merritt, who is also vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, explains that the constitutional provision has been drafted in a way that would permit the First Nations body to dissipate its efforts across the entire range of federal public policy – a very powerful body indeed.
More recently the debate has taken an even more dangerous course and a group of First Nation people led by a member of the Upper House of the federal parliament now opposes the Voice referendum because it inhibits First Nations' rights to be declared the real owners of all land in Australia.
Some people in this group take the natural next step and say that as people with Aboriginal heritage own the land, those who occupying it should pay rent.
The Greens, whose support the government needs to pass most of it controversial legislation, say the Voice is merely a first step and a "treaty" must follow. The word "treaty" in this context usually means property ownership and rent.
We are now looking at a potential attack not just on the power of our Parliament but our capital system, which operates on the basis people who buy, and mortgage property have title to the land.
It's possible – maybe even likely – that reference to land ownership will be contained in this so far secret legislation. Perhaps that's why it's being kept secret.
In normal circumstances when groups of people or individuals want to reconcile their views and move forward, then any issues involving property, money or rent must be put on the table as part of the reconciliation. If not addressed, then such issues will arise again and again.
Now that section of the First Nation community has raised the issue of property and rent to be paid by Australian householders and commercial property "owners" for occupying land they "don’t own" the issue is in the table.
The government is pouring very large sums into places like Alice Springs, and the overall Australian community has little concept of just how this money is being distributed.
The same applies to the large royalties being paid by mining companies.
Reconciliation is not all one way. It should be a two-way exercise, with both sides coming together and prepared to give ground.
In this context, Australian land covering large parts of WA, SA, NSW Queensland and Northern Territory has the potential to be used as major solar power generation sites and for the growth of carbon absorbing plants like saltbush.
This will be highly remunerative. The land is part of Aboriginal land rights. We need to talk about these things now, rather than leave it to heated debates later.
I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the forces that are causing First Nations people to attack each other and wreck property.
Obviously alcohol plays a big role, but I suspect deep in the background is the way the abundant cash is being distributed and the difficulty of First Nations people in those areas have in owning a house.
We are now discovering in our capital cities and regional areas that when you spray money into a community, as we did in Job Keeper, it can have bad impacts on the younger generation irrespective of their colour or racial origins.
We are rushing into a referendum that has great superficial community appeal but where we have not sorted out the details and kept some of the details that have been sorted out secret. Lasting reconciliation agreements negotiate these things first. By rushing we may head into an area of dispute it will last many decades.
Finally, our Prime Minister is telling us that the new parliamentary body will not impact the broader workings of the nation's Parliament.
I suspect most of the nation is like me and wants to believe him, but the Prime Minister is not a constitutional expert and those with far more knowledge of this subject are warning us that he is wrong."
I know which way I will vote!
