Indigenous Affairs

Home Policy Spotlight Indigenous Affairs

Closing The Gap One Child At A Time

So Stan Grant wants to prance around like a prize git and pretend he is an oppressed man. Give me a break. Grant is healthy, wealthy, and (un)wise. I suggest he get over himself and let the wise think about the plight of the unhealthy and poor.

This is some of the bile he poured out at a recent ANU ‘oration’. ‘Not the big truths: how land is stolen without repatriation (I assume he meant reparation); how countries are invaded with no accountability; how people are killed without conscience; how the poor stay poor; how money buys speech…these truths that democracies hide so well.’

Let’s workshop this, Stan. Land stolen without reparation? Those who might conceivably require reparation are dead, Stan. The descendants are no more deserving than you or me. As for invasion, I presume you are aware that Aboriginal clans regularly invaded others’ territory. Were they held accountable, or indeed, did they pay reparation?

Killing without conscience, do you have any proof that either side did so? But be aware that murder was a capital offence under white man’s law from the earliest days of settlement and was enforced. The courts were, however, reluctant to intervene in inter-tribal disputes. As for staying poor, you seem to have worked out how to avoid that, Stan. Maybe you should pass on your secret to poor Aborigines; that would involve escaping a non-adaptive culture, but I guess if you admitted that, your whole Aboriginal identity thing would fall down around your ears. As for money buying speech, that is rich! Your top-end-of-town mates spent more than $50 million on the Yes case in the referendum. On the No side, we scraped around for pennies.

Close the Gap Research will concentrate on needy Aborigines. We will also call out the privileges and ideologies of upper and middle-class Aboriginal identifiers – like Professor Grant.

To cap it off, your distaste for democracy puts you in elite company. Translated, your disdain reads, ‘We of the elite were defeated by ordinary Australians, including many Aborigines, who could smell a grab for power a mile off. We were foiled when we tried to defile the Australian constitution and undermine universal citizenship in favour of group rights. Now I want to get back at you, you common bastards.’

Grant will get back at us in his new job. He was recently appointed a professor and inaugural Director of the Constructive Institute Asia Pacific at Monash University. If you have never heard of ‘constructive’ journalism, think of a ‘public interest’ NGO, ‘activist’ journalist, or ‘ABC’ journalist.

The constructive journalist is no mere cipher. Instead, they will facilitate ‘conversation with experts and those in power.’ That is precisely what the ABC and 9 News did in the referendum when they berated anyone who opposed the ‘experts’ from the Yes camp. The predominant side, woke academics and craven CEOs, readily captures journalists who take on this facilitative role.

If Professor Grant and the entire Aboriginal industry and their activist ciphers want to bat on after their drubbing at the referendum, we will be there to greet them. Our winning team, Recognise a Better Way, one of the teams on the No side, is flipping to the next phase in the war against Aboriginal separatism.

Close the Gap Research (closethegapresearch.org.au) will concentrate on needy Aborigines. We will also call out the privileges and ideologies of upper and middle-class Aboriginal identifiers – like Professor Grant.

We want to carry the fight to the industry that created the mess in the first place. We will assess existing programs for relieving the benevolent needs of Aboriginal people in three fields: school scholarships, employment programs, and prisoner rehabilitation.

These are critical points of intervention in a person’s life. Our method is to team with providers who are prepared to publish proof of success. Organisations prepared to publish their measure of impact and methodology would be added to a list of preferred providers.

Those who might conceivably require reparation are dead. The descendants are no more deserving than you or me.

The Productivity Commission, for example, reports on Aboriginal welfare relative to the non-Aboriginal population but does not assess whether the funds invested in raising Aboriginal Australians’ living standards are effective.

There is also the more significant question of what to do for those stuck on land with no economic base. It’s why we suspect the children of Aboriginal landholders are losing interest in the land rights game: there is little in it for them. They need the key to the broader world that lies beyond the title.

Several billion dollars are spent on programs for Aboriginal people each year. A small percentage improvement in the effectiveness of these programs would represent millions of dollars of new investment in programs. Now that is constructive, Stan.

Welcome To Warburton, Where Yes Is A Death Sentence

Shareholders are being taken for a ride, as are donors, trade unionists, sports fans and taxpayers. The relatively few high-profile CEOs, charity leaders, trade union leaders, sports administrators and politicians foolish enough to forsake their duty and send other people’s money to the referendum Yes case are doing harm. Many of their supporters and funders, and possibly a majority, are against the proposition. They are not as foolish as their leaders.

Leaders who think that a solution to Aboriginal despair lies in permanent government intervention in the lives of those few Aborigines who are failing in this modern society should think again. It is not all about government. Changing the Constitution does not change behaviour. Changing the Constitution will not get children to attend school. Changing the Constitution will not stop the grog, or the abuse, or the awful habits that cause early death.

This week, Aboriginal children will walk into the store at Warburton in Western Australia and purchase the typical fare of an Aboriginal diet. On the same latitude as the border of Northern Territory and South Australia, Warburton is as remote as it gets. But cake, Coca-Cola, and energy bars are all available, and expensive. For adults, throw in smokes. These are typical purchases. Week in and week out. Eating and drinking junk foods, not working, and having no purpose in life other than consumption, is a death sentence. No amount of government intervention can save this. No Voice, no committee, no treaty, no ‘truth-telling’, no Makarrata can save these people.

Warburton Art Gallery

Aboriginal people are a modern people. In Warburton, mobile phones are commonplace. Electricity keeps the food and drink cool. Without the paraphernalia of the modern world there would be no Warburton, it would have closed decades ago. Aboriginal people rely on modern means to survive. Most have no idea how it is made. This is cruel. 

The task of leaders is to have every child understand how it is that the mobile phone and electricity that makes their food and shelter available comes in to being. Government may be the provider, but it is not the maker.

Government makes nothing, it merely covers the indignity of woeful ignorance.

Why do governments refuse to teach their citizens how their lives have been degraded to the point of begging? This is no gracious gift; it is stealing the future of these people. It is an abandonment of leadership. Recognition is not the same as reconciliation.

Kids enjoying the Warburton Swimming Pool. Picture: Steve Girschik

Aboriginal parents face an awful choice. To keep children ‘safe’ on country, away from the worst of modern life, grog and drugs, or in doing so, condemn their children to live restricted lives, with poor education, few prospects and a poor diet. The great lie of this referendum is that choices can be avoided. Somehow, 24 select delegates in Canberra will solve the parents’ dilemma. They will not; they will continue to mask the choice and, in default, make the choice for them. A slow death on country, rather than to break free, with the help of their families and guidance from outsiders on how to handle the wider world.

There is no love for Aborigines in this referendum proposal, just ego.

The Aboriginal people at Warburton are radically disabled. They are self-determining alright, sitting on country, speaking language, and dying early. And CEOs and the Prime Minister think that this is a good idea.

They must, because their solution is to change nothing. Not to learn how to create value, not to adapt, but to wait. Government monies as a permanent way of life are poison.

Gary Johns is President of Recognise a Better Way

5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1)


Where there is much desire to learn,
there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.

John Milton

Libertarians believe in free speech.

We do not have to agree with the arguments we hear.

I therefore defend the publication of former Senator Duncan Spender’s debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes, and I welcome him to the publication.

If you haven’t read his piece, you should before reading this response.

I’ve read and reread his article. I’ve endeavoured to be as open-minded as possible, but he hasn’t convinced me.

I am firmly in the ‘No’ camp and stand by my 14 Reasons To Vote No In The Voice To Parliament Referendum.

In this piece and two others, I’m going to do my best to expose five blind-spots in his arguments.

Today, the big one.


BLIND-SPOT #1: SYSTEMIC RACISM

One thing I’ll say in favour of the former Senator’s arguments is that, as a Yes camp advocate, at least he doesn’t slip into the ‘you’re a racist’ slander. Name-calling is never a winning formula when the burden to convince is on your shoulders.

In fact, he concludes with an undeniable ‘indifference’ – his word. We are offered a kind of reluctant accommodation for race-based activism. For precision, I’ll use his words:

“While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.”

If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition.

I’m a simple fig farmer from the Adelaide Hills. But I’m left feeling empty at this meatless argument. More nourishing would have been ‘systemic racism is wrong’ and ‘race-based admission criteria to a constitutionally-empowered body is dangerous’.

Knowing my limitations, I checked with leading libertarian minds. I’m reminded of the great Thomas Sowell who wrote:

man
Leading libertarian, Thomas Sowell

Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”

Is it just me or does the prospect of systemic racism under the new management of the Voice’s architects fill us with dread? At the risk of being accused again of ad hominem, these people are animated by collectivist values, whether race-based or communist. And I am no collectivist.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

A properly-centred libertarian cannot simply rationalise the Voice as something to accommodate because we have a Race Power. We must say No, and fight to remove the Race Power at the very next opportunity.

The former Senator either agrees the Voice is a race-based project or not. As I see it, it self-evidently is. If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition. The burden of proof sits with the Yes camp to demonstrate why systemic racism is desirable.

It is philosophically unmoored to say “this is not a libertarian issue.” Murray Rothbard, no less, wrote:

Libertarian philosopher, Murray Rothbard

“Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby an individual is presumed to possess certain characteristics and moral attributes, or defects, solely because he is a member of a particular race or ethnic group.”

Should we Australian libertarians in 2023 limply concede systemic racism because it is “prudent and gracious”. Or should we listen to Ayn Rand:

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”


Tomorrow, I’ll cover Duncan’s two leading arguments and their defects as I see them, being:

Until then, I’d love to see your thoughts to this piece in the comments section below.

Trial The Voice At The ALP National Conference

Here’s a great idea. The Albanese government could trial the ‘Voice to Parliament’ by enlisting Aboriginal representatives to attend the national ALP Conference commencing in Brisbane on 17 August. The Prime Minister already has a posse ready to go, the members of his referendum working group, most of whom would be very familiar with ALP National conferences. Indeed, I observed a young Marcia Langton at the 1982 conference in Canberra having a very robust debate with delegates.

The Aboriginal delegates could have a right to advise on all motions of concern put to the conference. This may extend the conference by several weeks, but it would be an excellent opportunity for Labor to demonstrate how the Voice would work should Australia vote yes in the forthcoming referendum.

With the Conference dominated by left delegates, they would be falling over themselves to agree with whatever proposals the Aboriginal delegates would put to the floor. After day one, the Aboriginal delegates, emboldened, would put increasingly contentious proposals to the conference – what fun.

The 49th Australian Labor Party National Conference is the first National Conference in Queensland since the 1970s. Labor was then in the grips of the ‘old guard’, union officials in brown cardigans, intent on controlling all conversations, to the extent there were any. It was a dark and antidemocratic time for Labor.

Australian Labor Party National Conference

Much of the party’s electoral and policy history since has been far more open and enlivened, which is good. Its recent obsession with identity politics which will see it destroy its otherwise firm grip on reality, is bad.

This is most evident in Aboriginal policy.

The 2023 draft platform contains the oft repeated statement by the Prime Minister, “Labor supports the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, beginning with enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution.

To nail the lid on the coffin, the draft platform also reads, “Labor supports all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for agreement-making and a national process of truth-telling. Labor will take steps to implement all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in this term of government.”

But there is more. Labor commits to “a standalone piece of cultural heritage legislation.” Having leaned on the West Australian Labor government to withdraw its cultural heritage legislation, at least for the course of the referendum campaign, Federal Labor has vowed to step in to fill the gap. West Australian voters’ anger at the heritage legislation will become Australia’s anger. This is not a smart move. It is the opposite of Bob Hawke’s retreat from national land rights legislation under pressure from West Australian Premier Brian Burke in the 1980s. This time Federal Labor wants to double down on the foolishness.

The Uluru Statement From The Heart

A further disquieting step is “co-design” of “legislative reform, policy transformation, administrative improvement and governance”. It should be clear by now that the last 25 years in Aboriginal affairs has been an exercise in co-design. That is why there is a gap that needs closing. Aboriginal ownership and voice has ensured the livelihoods of university graduates of Aboriginal descent. It has locked poorly educated, non-integrated, Aborigines out of the market economy and the open society.

For example, Labor believes that “First Nations people have a right to live on their traditional lands. Labor also believes that it is crucial that “remote communities have essential services and are empowered to participate in the design and provision of those services as genuine partners”. All very well, but who pays for this ‘right’?  

Labor also asserts that “Strong cultural identity is essential to the health, social and emotional well-being of First Nations people.” Sorry, the evidence does not exist. Aboriginal-controlled services assert such things, they never prove it.

On one point we can agree. Labor believes what constitutes an ‘indigenous business’ should be re-defined to protect against ‘black cladding’ and ensure meaningful employment for workers. Who is game to ask who is an Aborigine?

I would be proud of the Labor party if they announced at the conference, ‘No race based policies by 2030’. Delegates of any background could have their vote and voice. Such egalitarian claims used to be the stuff of the old Labor party. Alas, it is no longer.

Gary Johns is the author of The Burden of Culture (Quadrant books) and a former Minister in the Keating government.

5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 3)

“We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice.”
F.A. Hayek

Let’s recap.

In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1), I addressed Duncan’s self-described ‘indifference’ to the Voice as an issue and that the ‘Yes’ case really acquiesces to systemic racism.

This is:

  • Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism

In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments’ (Part 2), I then tackled his leading two arguments, exposing the flaws in each:

  • Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
  • Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

This is the third and final instalment, in which I’ll conclude with two more blind-spots which, I suggest, no libertarian would accept:

  • Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
  • Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

*****

BLIND-SPOT #4: BUREAUCRATIC EXPANSION

If the former Senator had diverted us from the libertarian freeway by this point, he next drives us into a philosophical traffic-jam with “The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.”

Not likely. Definitely. Not short-term. Long-term.

Consider the half century bureaucratic history just on this issue alone:

1967 – Council of Aboriginal Affairs

1972 – National Aboriginal Consultative Committee

1973 – Department of Aboriginal Affairs

1977 – National Aboriginal Conference

1981 – Aboriginal Development Committee

1988 – Mabo (No. 2)

1990 – ATSIC

1991 – Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

1992 – Wik case

1993 – Native Title Act

He’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored

1995 – National Inquiry into the Separation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Children

1999 – Preamble Referendum

2006 – Reconciliation Action Plan

2008 – National Apology to Stolen Generation

2010 – National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, Expert Panel on Constitutional Reconciliation

2012 – Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island People

2013 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island People Recognition Act

2014 – Act of Recognition Review Panel

2015 – Referendum Council

2017 – Uluru Statement From The Heart calling for Voice, Treaty and Reparations

2023 – Voice Referendum

It’s a novel argument. I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy, short or long term.

My simple fig farmer mind is more attracted to the libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke, who wrote:

Libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke

“The growth of government is like the spread of a dense jungle, and the average citizen can hack through less of it every year.”

I’m still grappling with NDIS budgets growing from $4 billion in 2016 to $49 billion in 2023. I’m imagining that’s what the Voice will be, plus of course the $450 million just to run this Referendum!

Further, what the former Senator dismisses as a ‘slippery slope’ argument in the next step to Aboriginal treaties is a stated ambition in the Uluru Statement From The Heart.

I suspect he believes No campers are jumping at conspiracy shadows. You know, if our opponents write a 26-page mission statement called the Uluru Statement and conduct national roadshows talking about their plans for treaties, I listen.

“Treaty” very clearly on the agenda. However, treaties are between countries. Yes camp separatists?

And, ignoring this, if we do have a Voice, what would the logical argument from the former Senator be then: ‘They’re jumping at conspiracy shadows with reparations. Vote ‘yes’ to treaties.’

Step by methodical step, we move in the wrong direction towards an expanding bureaucracy.

*****

BLIND-SPOT #5: GOVERNMENT IS HARMLESS

Then there are the worrying one-line snippets which suggest very little by way of libertarian thinking, all downplaying the impact government has. In his language, he implies government is somehow harmless or innocuous.

In one example, the former Senator says the Voice will have “little bearing on lives of individuals”.

Then why push it? Libertarians are pro individual. Let’s not push the collective.

The former Senator blithely continues, “the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.”

I’d turn that line back on the good Senator as an argument against the Voice. If the Voice does nothing to reduce existing abilities to make representations, great. Let’s keep that benefit without yet another bureaucratic expansion.

I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy

He rails against “arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed”. Oh, it won’t be listened to? Why have it then?

Further, he’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored. Come on. Look at the oxygen it’s already sucking from the public square. Look at the money suck over the last 50 years.

*****

There are other points to raise, but I suggest this is enough to dispatch the Yes case.

Five blind-spots in the ‘yes’ camp arguments:

Let me know in the comments whether you agree or disagree.

And finally, I want absolutely nothing in my response to the former Senator to suggest disrespect. He is an honourable man. Rather, I began this three-part response quoting John Milton, so I’d like to conclude with what he wrote on the importance of playing the ball not the man:

“ … to dwell at large upon the arguments, and to insist upon the reasons, and not to insult or domineer”
John Milton

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Golden Years?

4
The combination of an ageing population, lack of children being born and an unquenchable thirst for public spending on ever-expanding social services has the...

You’re The Voice

The Perfect Dinner