Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (52)
In a recent Weekend Australian, Chris Kenny quoted me from a Quadrant Online article. In doing so he seriously misrepresented my position, and he also demonstrated a lamentable lack of understanding of our Constitution – which he seems hell bent on changing in a significant and highly detrimental way.
Tony Thomas will co-launch Peter O’Brien’s THE INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT? THE NO CASE, at Il Gambero restaurant, 166 Lygon Street, Carlton, Thursday May 11, 6pm-8.30pm. To accept ($6), click here.
I must say that it pains me to be at odds with Chris Kenny, a journalist whom I admire more than most.
Three times, via the Letters Editor, General Enquiries and Editor-in-Chief, I offered my response to The Australian, only to have my request totally ignored. So, Chris Kenny will have to read it here. Not that it differs much from my original piece. Kenny says
For some reason No advocates have been keen to single out my commentary, including Peter O’Brien in Quadrant, who ran with the headline ‘The Voice in Chris Kenny’s Head’ and opened by asking, ‘Would it be too fanciful to suggest some sort of selective woke virus has infected Chris Kenny’s brain?’ I am not familiar with O’Brien, who used some of my online and email responses to readers and viewers to construct some sort of dialogue between us. (He could have just declared himself and asked for an interview.)
Contrary to his claim, I did not ‘construct some sort of dialogue between us’. I tried to commence a dialogue with Kenny via an email exchange — an exchange to which he initially responded and then declined to respond to further argument. The content of those emails is detailed in the Quadrant Online article to which Kenny refers. He continues
He took issue with my contention that the only mentions of Indigenous people in the Constitution had been to exclude them.
This is disingenuous. What I took issue with was Kenny’s repetition of a claim, made by constitutional expert Dr Shireen Morris, that Aborigines were ‘explicitly excluded’ from the original Constitution. That is to say, that they were not afforded the rights and protections inherent in the Constitution; that they were somehow ‘non-citizens’ and existed in a parallel system of governance, such as, dare I say it, under the Flora and Fauna Act. If that were true it would indeed be a stain on the Constitution. But the claim is not true, as I shall show.
Kenny continues
This is just a matter of fact: they were excluded from being counted in our census under section 127 (repealed in the 1967 referendum); excluded under the race power in section 51 (xxvi), the exclusion removed in the 1967 referendum; and in section 25 people of any “race … disqualified from voting” are not counted in state populations, a redundant clause that was directed at the many Indigenous people who did not have voting rights at Federation.
Here is the basis of my criticism of Kenny. In September 2022, in a debate on Sky News, Dr 
Morris claimed that the Constitution ‘explicitly excluded Aborigines’. In using the word ‘explicitly’, she can only have been referring to the original Section 51(xxvi) or Section 127 as these are the only sections that explicitly referred to Aborigines. Chris Kenny did not challenge that claim and has since repeated it. On December 3, 2022, writing in The Australian, Kenny said
The push for an Indigenous voice is not based on racial characteristics or assumptions; rather, the nation’s original inhabitants need a voice because they were specifically excluded from the Constitution initially …
Section 51(xxvi) did not exclude Aborigines from the Commonwealth or the Constitution. It merely excluded them from the class of people for whom the Commonwealth could make special laws, because that was the responsibility of the states. That is, they were excluded from an arguably discriminatory provision. And Section 127, which was repealed in 1967, only constrained government from counting Aboriginal people in ‘reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth or a State or other part of the Commonwealth’. It is generally accepted by constitutional experts that Section 127 did not originally relate to the census – although that was how it was subsequently interpreted – but to the allocation of seats in the Parliament or to certain financial provisions.
As British subjects, resident in Australia at the time, Aborigines were subject to every other provision of the Constitution in the same way that were white people. The fact that they were specifically excluded from Sections 51(xxvi) and 127 must necessarily mean they were included in all other provisions. Kenny’s reference to Section 25 being ‘directed at the many Indigenous people who did not have voting rights at Federation’ is an implicit acknowledgement that some Aborigines did have the vote and they could hardly therefore be said to have been excluded. Section 25 was not directed at Aborigines who did not have the vote but at those state governments denying them that vote.
The fact that, in 1962 – before the 1967 referendum – the Commonwealth legislated to extend the vote to any Aborigine who did not already have it, demonstrates clearly that Aborigines were not excluded from the Constitution before 1967. Kenny further claims
O’Brien argues the fact ‘Aborigines were specifically excluded from two provisions necessarily means they were included in all others’. Well, it was three, as I just outlined, and when the exclusion is to not count people as citizens of a state or a country, it is difficult to seriously argue this is evidence of inclusion – by this logic denying Indigenous Australians the vote was an act of recognition!
This is a grievous error. Aborigines in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania could vote in colonial elections before 1901 and, by virtue of Section 41 of the Constitution, they could vote in Commonwealth elections. Section 25 did not specifically mention Aborigines, as I correctly stated – it merely referred to people of any race (which could mean Chinese, Japanese and Malays). And it did not deny them the right to vote in Commonwealth elections. It simply recognised the fact that the state governments had the right to deny them the vote at state level and, as Quick and Garran make clear in their Annotated Constitution of Australia, it was included as an inducement to recalcitrant States such as Queensland and Western Australia to extend the vote to their Aboriginal populations. The Constitution, in 1901, contained no provision that would prevent Parliament from giving disenfranchised Aborigines the vote. No ‘explicit exclusion’ from voting rights. Admittedly, it did not guarantee them the vote. But the same is true of then-disenfranchised women or anyone else, for that matter. It left that issue up to Parliament.
It is important to recognise that the Constitution was not designed from the ground up to establish a perfect society. It was a compromise between the six colonies, some of which were more progressive than others. Without those compromises – such as Section 25 – federation would not have occurred. If some Aboriginal people are marginalised today, it is not the fault of the Constitution, but that of governments and, to some extent, their own communities.
I have ‘been keen to single out’ Kenny because, as a self-proclaimed conservative, one would expect he might be more amenable to reasoned argument than proponents on the Left. ‘Let’s have the debate’, he says repeatedly. Debates hinge around facts on one hand, and inferences or actions to be drawn from them on the other. But his refusal to acknowledge the facts, as detailed above, is indicative of either a lack of intellectual rigour or a wilful obtuseness. It has nothing to do with debate. When he says Aborigines ‘were specifically excluded from the Constitution initially’ he is just plain wrong.
Much of the support for this Voice is based on a perceived need to atone for the wrongs of the past. Kenny himself makes this case. However, it does not serve anyone’s interests if one of the justifications for a major constitutional amendment – a new chapter no less – is based on an egregiously false premise.
How many of Kenny’s other arguments in support of the Voice are similarly flawed?
AUTHOR’S NOTE: It has been suggested to me that I should have identified myself to Chris Kenny and sought his agreement before publishing the text of our exchange. I accept that I erred in this matter and apologise unreservedly to Kenny for that lapse
• Helen Irving was appointed Professor Emerita at Sydney Law School in 2021. Her research includes Australian and United States constitutional law and history; constitutional citizenship; comparative constitutional design and gender; the use of history in constitutional interpretation, and models of judicial review. She has just completed a three-year ARC Discovery Grant project on constitutional citizenship and allegiance, and in 2020 was awarded a three-year ARC Special Research Initiative grant, with Associate Professor Elisa Arcioni and Dr Rayner Thwaites, on Citizenship and Claims of Belonging in Australian Law and History.
June 2015
INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION AND CONSTITUTIONAL MYTHS
by Helen Irving
9JUN
Almost every history book contains factual errors. These can usually be corrected in later histories or pointed out in reviews. But errors that are repeated over time become difficult to shake. They transform into myths. Myths may be relied upon to support arguments for political or legal reform. Proponents of reform may, unwittingly, expose themselves to scepticism about the soundness of their proposal once the errors are identified. The force of their argument may be diluted. Erstwhile or potential supporters may conclude that there is no need for reform.
The place of Australia’s Indigenous people in the Constitution abounds with myths. Many have been repeated in the current discussion about Indigenous constitutional recognition. It is in everyone’s interest that these should be explained. This has no bearing on whether or not particular proposals for constitutional change are worthy.
Below, I identify the commonly-repeated myths, and explain the relevant facts. First, a few words about what the Constitution does not say:
THE CONSTITUTION
The Australian Constitution makes no mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Prior to 1967, it referred to the people of the “Aboriginal race” (but not the Torres Strait Islanders) in two separate sections. These sections said nothing about the identity of the Aboriginal people or the definition of “Aboriginal”, or about Aboriginal citizenship or rights. The Constitution has never described or defined Aboriginal people. It has never referred to the doctrine of “terra nullius.”
THE MYTHS
The 1967 referendum
The 1967 referendum has become iconic and inspirational for proponents of indigenous constitutional recognition. It is, however, poorly understood.
The question put to the voters in the 1967 referendum was: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled: “An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?”
More than 90% of the nation and a majority in all States said Yes. As a result, two changes were made to the Constitution.
1. Certain words were omitted
The “certain words” that were omitted were from section 51 (xxvi). Prior to 1967, this section gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to “[t]he people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This meant that the Commonwealth could not make special laws for the Aboriginal people, except in the Territories. Aborigines were a subject for State laws.
In 1967 the words “other than the aboriginal people in any State” were struck out. As a consequence, the Commonwealth gained the power to make special laws for the Aboriginal people (Native Title laws are an example).
The Constitution, it should be noted, refers only to “special laws”. It is neutral regarding the content of such laws. It does not say anything about whether those laws must be beneficial or adverse.
2. Aboriginals are to be counted
Secondly, following the 1967 referendum, section 127 of the Constitution was removed. This section said: In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
It is a common myth that the section excluded Aboriginal people from being counted in the census, and that the 1967 referendum meant that they would henceforth be counted. It did not. The Aboriginal people have always been counted, from the very first Commonwealth census in 1911. In fact, census statistics specifically recorded the populations of Aboriginal Australians. “Half-blood” Aborigines were considered to be white and were included in the general census.
The purpose of section 127 (admittedly, not obvious from its words) was to guide the calculation of the numbers of parliamentary representatives per State and also to determine certain State financial entitlements and obligations, based on State populations. When these calculations were made, the numbers of Aboriginal people, as counted, were excluded.
The right to vote
Another common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave the Aboriginal people the right to vote. This is incorrect. The 1967 referendum had nothing to do with this right (or “equal rights” or rights at all).
Aboriginal people were able to vote in all States and in the Commonwealth by 1967. From 1949 they could vote in Commonwealth elections if they were enrolled to vote in NSW, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania. Indigenous people who had been in military service also had the right to vote. In 1962, all other Aboriginal people became entitled to vote in Commonwealth elections.
At the State level, Aboriginal people were able to vote in South Australia, NSW, Tasmania and Victoria throughout the 20th century. In Western Australia and Queensland they gained the State vote, respectively, in 1962 and 1965.
It should also be noted that the official definition of Aboriginal has changed over time, and voting rights of individuals have therefore changed accordingly. Many Aboriginal people today would not have been excluded from the right to vote under the former laws.
In any case (with the exception of a now-spent transitional provision – section 41), neither eligibility to vote nor the franchise is mentioned in the Constitution. The right to vote is a matter for ordinary legislation. The Constitution did not need to be altered for Aboriginal people to gain the right to vote.
Citizenship
A further common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave citizenship to the Aboriginal people. This is incorrect. Between 1788 and 1949, everyone born in Australia (or any other part of the British Empire) acquired the legal status of “British subject” (“subject” was the term used for British nationality at that time). In 1949, under new legislation every person born in Australia, regardless of race or colour, became simultaneously a British subject and Australian citizen. Subsequent changes in legislation meant that Australians are no longer British subjects.
Eligibility for Australian citizenship has changed over the years. Citizenship laws, however, have never differentiated between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal persons.
Again, citizenship is not defined in the Constitution. A referendum would not be required to amend the citizenship law.
“Flora and fauna”
The myth that the Constitution included a reference to the Aboriginal people under a “flora and fauna” section is entirely erroneous. The words “flora and fauna” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, nor did they prior to 1967. There was no “Flora and Fauna Act” either. No legislation referred to or classified the Aboriginal people in such terms.
White Australia
It is sometimes thought that the “White Australia” policy was enshrined in the Constitution and/or directed at Aboriginal people. It was not. It is certainly true that Australian attitudes and policy favoured “white” people generally and, in many respects, discriminated against non-whites on the basis of their race or colour.
However, the White Australia policy was specifically about immigration, and not about the Indigenous people. The Commonwealth has power to pass laws with respect to immigration (section 51 (xxvii) ), but immigration policy is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was expressed in legal terms in the Commonwealth Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. Under this Act, an intending immigrant could be denied entry into Australia if he or she failed a “dictation test”. The test involved writing down 50 words that were dictated by an immigration officer, in any European language. If a person could not write as dictated, he or she was refused entry. The test was mostly applied to Asian persons. It did not apply to people living in Australia, whether white or non-white.
It is also frequent asserted that the Immigration Restriction Act was the Commonwealth Parliament’s very first Act. This is incorrect. It was the seventeenth Act of 1901 – the last Act of that year.
Indigenous recognition.
As an academic Helen Irving is not objective in terms of her personal views of Aboriginal recognition, but, as a professional in the field, her facts speak for themselves.
This paper was once available on the Sydney University site but it disappeared some years ago.
Thank you rosross for this good explanation and rebuttal of the myths by Helen Irving.
It is still on the web, I found it at:
https://conreform.sydney.edu.au/2015/06/indigenous-recognition-and-constitutional-myths/
@Brian Boru – this may have even more standing.
A ink at the bottom of Helen Irving’s in 2015.
@Ros Ross
https://tinyurl.com/2s3nfdbr
Parliament of Australia
Department of Parliamentary Services
Research Brief
2 May 2007, no. 11, 2006–07, ISSN 1832-2883
The 1967 Referendum—history and myths[24 pages]
@Brian Boru,
Still is not the correct term. It has been returned to the Sydney University site after an absence of around five years. I presume that is because as part of the article Irving also supports constitutional recognition and would be a supporter of the Voice. So, they have decided they can live with the uncomfortable facts, as myths, because of her general support for the racist voice.
The article may well have been absent for longer. I copied and filed it a long time ago, before it disappeared.
Thanks rosross for setting out the answer of Helen Irving on the myths. I have found it is still on the web.
https://conreform.sydney.edu.au/2015/06/indigenous-recognition-and-constitutional-myths/
This is my second attempt to thank you, previous is still in moderation. ?? So hope this works.
This is my third attempt to thank you rosross for setting out the answer of Helen Irving on the myths. I have found it is still on the web. My previous two attempts have included the web link so maybe that’s why they have both been held for moderation.
I found the paper by searching on “Helen Irving INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION AND CONSTITUTIONAL MYTHS”
Third attempt works, looks like a web link in a comment is a reason for it to be held in moderation. Thanks again rosross.
Kenny’s full article can be read at:
https://todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=a73c7386-77e3-4712-8aed-400c1b1d043b
This is just wishful thinking. Kenny is fooling himself if he thinks the voice is in no way divisive. As for the politicians and lawyers (respectfully) these people make an art form out of finding loopholes and cracks.
GREG CRAVEN IS A REPUBLICAN AS IS CHRIS KENNY and ALBO.
Chris Kenny’s piece reminds me of second hand car sales- wishful thinking, that holds back the naughty bits.
Kenny is fundamentally flawed on the subject of the Voice on first principles, that is to say, dividing a nations constitution on racial grounds is a fundamentally flawed in principle in a secular liberal democracy. There is no other requisite argument to be had.
The fact that Kenny subverts all his usual grandstanding on small government, diminished bureaucracy, individual freedom, the perils of the collective, the perils of MSM groupthink and its role as an effective fifth column, and the perils of the unaccountable elitist ‘expert’ class to then back in all of these things in relation to the Voice speaks volumes of his invested, considerable, ego in this matter having served on an initial advisory committee.
On matters of fact, Kenny continues to have to back peddle. Initially he claimed the Voice would only pertain to laws directly aimed at Aboriginal people, now he has been mugged by reality to accept that it will pertain to all areas of legislature, because Aboriginals, like all other races are equally incorporated by all laws in Australia. Now he claims that Ministers and bureaucracies can just ignore the Voices recommendations if they so choose without legal and/or governance backlash from the Voice. If he truly believes this then he knows little about the realities of power dynamics in governance even at a departmental level where everything is primarily motivated by arse covering against potential legal liabilities – the exact Damocles sword the Voice will hold to the throat of effect governance in Australia if it succeeds.
Kenny is also clearly naive to the fact that the Voice will be a permanent institutionalised ‘leftist’ branch of government, quarantined from the democratic process, that will strangle any potential conservative governments in the future, purely motivated by politics and not the wellbeing of Aboriginals at-large.
Kenny continues to pursue a Royal Commision into Covid policy to hold those in power, who assured us all prior to instituting their foreseeably disastrous policies, to account. I just want to know by what mechanism will I get to hold the likes of Kenny to account if and when the constitutional amendment for the Voice comes to pass and all the clearly foreseeable disastrous consequences flow, including all other tranches of the Uluru Statement of the Heart (Treaty, Sovereignty, Reparations).
We won’t forget Chris!
P.S. Watch his ratings on Sky continue to crash.
Excellent commentary on Kenny’s stance. You covered everything. Can’t watch him now – committing to being wrong in the face of logic and facts.
Sorry, but who is Chris Kenny?
Kenny was the journalist who reported on the Hindmarsh Island bridge case in SA in the 90s.
@Daffy – well he sure didn’t do enough forensic journalism into Hindmarsh Island.
His performance as a journlist and then as a n author was good on Hindmarsh Island but her has lost his way on the Voice.
@Narelle,
Kenny actually blew the Hindmarsh Bridge scam apart. He was vilified mercillessly for that and one presumes that turned him into the apologist coward he now is.
@Daffy – I had my wires crossed re Kenny on HM.
His argument is completely illogical – even if Aborigines had no right to vote in 1901 or 1966, there is no reason to give them a special voice now in 2023. This is a non-sequitur.
More than that, it is backwards: Aborigines need the voice if they cannot vote; since they can vote, they do not need it.
Not hard.
Kenny’s dismissive reference to Peter O’Brien shows that he is completely out of touch with modern conservative thought in Australia. There is far more originality and substance from the intellectual right in Quadrant magazine and QO commentary than is to be found in the Australian and a far more spirited and sometimes wonderfully and blessedly humourous response to leftist idiocy
Good response Peter. The sad fact is that the ‘Yes’ case, including as articulated by Chris Kenny, is built on misrepresentations and deceptions, without which they would have nothing.
The sad thing about Chris’s advocacy for the megaphone Voice to everyone on everything is that his arguments for it have nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal that is on the table, and yet this otherwise rational journalist doesn’t realise it. Like some others, he’s so invested in the concept, as he sees it, that he is blind to what it has become.
How the mighty have fallen. Chris Kenny who once saw through the Secret Women’s Business in the Hindmarsh Island matter is now sucked in by the mistique and secrecy surrounding the Voice proposal. His “wilful obtuseness” as Peter O’Brien puts it has lost him many former viewers.
For the edification of many of his viewers using simple terms: The Constitution is NOT the Birth Certificate of a Nation. It would be better described as a Pre-Nuptial Agreement for the group marriage of six British Colonies in which two or three colonies retained sole custody of some of its children for reasons undisclosed. This may have intentionally excluded those children from sharing some benifits of the marriage and that is not unusual or unfair.
You’re quite correct in my mind Peter. I’ve got a copy of the constitution and have read the relevant sections a number of times and can see nothing definitive in them to prevent aborigines, who were registered or capable of getting registered, from voting……. beyond their own reluctance to do so, and the round about syntax that it’s all couched in.
Kenny seems to be just grandstanding ( or virtue sgnalling ) for what ever reason, and is probably relying on that ’round about syntax’ of the time to cause enough confusion in understanding to allow him to get away with it.
Problem is, at the end of the day it seems to signal that he is playing a bit fast and loose in print, with something that should raise red flags in any responsible persons mind, because it can cause endless division and problems for us all, and if he really is supposed to be conservative his public reputation will suffer for it. Perhaps he’s reached a stage now where he just doesn’t really care ?
Mr Kenny is a well-known supporter of the republican movement. If passed, the “Voice” referendum will lead to the “Republic YES/NO?” referendum. To have the Voice referendum passed is vital to softening up the electorate to pass the more important republic referendum.
Has Mr Kenny been questioned on his support for the “Voice” if it was simply legislated or directed into being? (Obviously a futile exercise for Peter O’Brien!). Mr Kenny might be taken more seriously if he emphatically stated that his support for the “Voice” was completely satisfied if it was implemented by means short of a referendum. If he has not made, or will not make, that statement and insists on it being implemented via referendum, then perhaps his true intent can be understood.
After all, the Voice ($), the Truth ($$) and the Treaty ($$$) are simply a means of transferring immense amounts of taxpayers’ money to lawyers, politorigenes and public servants. (Does each one require its own separate referendum?). The billions to be transferred to those groups count for nothing if the greater aim of the open-ended republic question can be passed via referendum. The new, post-republic-referendum-constitution could even delete/ignore any hangover from the addition of voices and treaties etc. included into the current Constitution. Therefore, Mr Kenny et al can support any amount of nonsense added by the preliminary Voice referendum if it greatly enhances the chances of a successful republic referendum.
You have nailed it Greg.
What have Chris Kenny and the voice, have in common with Greg Sheridan and Gay Marriage ( mirage)?- Rupert – SOP.
The voice is simply the viral contagion that will make the constitution unworkable,
– social engineering-then they will have the perfect excuse to fix the problem that was created to cause the problem, then we will get the republic. The republic is all about divesting the average punter of the power in his vote , in order to secure a sovereign corporate state and centralised Marxist economics……and no Senate to keep these lowlife secular scum in check .
Let the treason trials begin.
PS, the Senate is the everybody’s voice in a liberal democracy. The Voice is the voice when you no longer have a democratic voice. I think it is a wiser path to endow dishonest and dishonourable people with less power not more!
I have now read Chris Kenny’s article at the link provided by correspondent lbloveday. He almost immediately mentions the concept of a legislated voice and says “all sides agree” – presumably mainly meaning the Federal Opposition and not excluding himself. He could have ended his article there by writing: – “I also agree that a legislated voice is sufficient”. I realise that his article at the link is, no doubt, only one of many written by Mr Kenny about the Voice. However, he provides no reason in this particular article to include the Voice in The Constitution. He certainly attacks those who disagree with the idea of Constitutional inclusion. He also makes the good and sensible suggestion that the “race powers” be removed from The Constitution. He then immediately foreshadows what would happen to that debate by suggesting instantly replacing them with new race powers in the form of the voice.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Mr Kenny may have done some introductory Australian legal studies course(s) that include basic ideas of Federation and The Constitution. Particularly the bits about the division of powers between the States and the Commonwealth (which is surely largely what The Constitution is about). Where you are taught about which powers transfer to the Federal government and which stay with the States. The general idea being that if the Federal government doesn’t get it, then the States keep it. The Feds got to legislate about all those foreigners, maybe being identified as races in 1900, but the States kept the domestic Aboriginal race. The 1967 referendum handed them over to the Commonwealth. Mr Kenny calls this “repealing their exclusion from the race power” – which is a very strange way of describing such a handover of responsibility.
He seems to suggest that the Voice is to assist those at the bottom of society. Then why not simply assist those at the bottom of society without regard to genetic origin?
It really pains me that journalists should be so easy with spreading disinformation – fake news if you will – without checking things they have not researched themselves particularly when errors are are pointed out to them.
The idea that Aborigines were “not counted” by the Commonwealth may have some basis in truth but it should be pointed out that each State took particular responsibility for its own population. Thus South Australia (founded in 1936) had already undertaken a census of its Aboriginal population by 1841. The Protector of Aborigines Matthew Moorhouse in his comprehensive Annual Report for 1842 informs us …
“Numbers.
People living in detached groups, subsisting chiefly by the chase, having no mode of cultivating the ground, herding, or domesticating animals, or any systematic manner of producing food, must of necessity be thinly scattered over the country. This singularly happened among the natives of New Holland. In my report bearing date Feb. 20th, 1841, I then stated that in an area of 2,000 square miles we had 650 six hundred and fifty, averaging one on every 4 ½ [sic] square miles. Since that time I have visited the Coorong in the South, 120 miles from Adelaide, the river Murray & Rufus to the east, a distance of 200 miles, and Crystal Stream to the north, a distance of 160 & should not think that more than 3,000 Natives are contained in this space. The Rev. Mr Schurmann calculates the number in the Port Lincoln district, to be from three to four hundred.
Causes of so limited a Population.
The scarcity of population is maintained first by the incessant wars, tumults and differences, which occur from the most trivial circumstances; secondly, from polygamy, and illicit intercourse, habits well known to check the progress of population; thirdly, infanticide; fourthly diseases as dysentery & venereal, the latter of which is particularly fatal to children.” 1842.
Every Annual Report from that time detailed births deaths illness etc from all the Government ration stations around the colony. For example …
“On Her Majesty’s Birthday, the 24th May, the usual distribution of food took place in Adelaide. There were present – Males, 106; Females, 76; Infants, 10; a total of 192, unto whom were given two pounds of bread, and two pounds of roast beef. There were, also, 56 children who were supplied, ad libitum, with roast beef and plum-pudding, 51 of whom were rewarded with a blanket to give to their parents for allowing them to remain in school. At Port Lincoln, Wellington, and Moorunde, flour and blankets were distributed on the above occasion; the returns would have been given but sufficient time has not elapsed for them to reach me, since the termination of the quarter.” 1849.
Further there were particularly detailed censuses in 1861, 1891, 1901, 1925 …
The South Australian Reports also detail census data from other states so the idea that Aborigines were not being counted is simply incorrect.
You can read all this in a book I published with Joe Lane Voices From the Past https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33259405-voices-from-the-past
See, We’ve done the research for you.
Thanks Alistair, just ordered a new copy on eBay. Seller has more copies available
@Lonsdale – so good that you could get one.
To my mind it is ‘the bible’ – you will enjoy reading it and learning so much.
Thanks so much Narelle. Had tried to get a copy before but couldn’t find a copy for sale. Have always admired research of both authors
@Alistair
An excellent piece of work which you and Joe did.
Voices from the Past is a must read and should be on everyone’s bookshelf who is interested in all things aboriginal and how our Government and the missions helped them integrate in the 1800’s.
Thank you for your work.
Kenny appears to be veering into don’t-you-know-who-I-am territory.
So it appears TonyTea.
It’s a tragedy that Chris Kenny apparently cannot see the blindingly obvious. His book on the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Affair (Women’s Business) was a brilliant case study in Noble Cause Corruption, but here he seems to have “turned”. I think he must have been deeply affected by the “dogf****er” incident and has been over-cautious ever since.
And thanks Narelle for the endorsement!
Maybe Mr. Kenny has been drafted to play the devils advocate to boost lefties interest in both The Australian and Sky News as both entities drift out of favour and vie with the Age and SMH as handy paper to wrap kitchen waste. No rational person would want our constitution changed to embrace racism whereby one race or those who pretend to belong to that race are superior to the rest of us. The irony of it all is that at present the aboriginal voice proponents of the yes case accuse we white folk of racism.
Botswana, sounds like a dreadful case of inverted snobbery/ racism. By the way at Uni we were given a lecture on Aboriginal health, by one of these Aboriginal Activists….. prior to the speeches commencement there was a lot talking going on in the theatre, the students present paying scant attention to the front- I did catch this particular lady sneering at the sea of white faces- I can say she was less interested in Aboriginal health issues and more interested in ultrasound Doppler machines being made available in two horse towns- it’s all about ownership.
“proponents of the yes case accuse we white folk of racism”. Ridiculous but true.
Worse, Aborigines are not a race and never were. The peoples here in 1788 were descended from different waves of migration and colonisation from different racial groups. The British noted that down from physical characteristics.
And today, with thousands of variations on those original hundreds of themes and with most of them more Anglo-European than anything else, they are most certainly not a race.
Peter,
From my experience, you are quite correct in your arguments, as is rosross. Please ask me if I can assist through having been there in 1967.
In May 1867 when that Referendum was held, I was employed by CSIRO Tropical Pastures, working part-time on my M.Sc. thesis and bouncing our 18-month first born on my knee. With little scope for grog and parties, I took some notice of the Referendum. This was partly because during my school years some of my classmates were Italian, some were Aboriginal, some were Indian, some Maltese in a harmony that was not even mentioned in the prelude to the Referendum.
Indeed, there was nothing or next to nothing said about a “No” case for the Aboriginal item. In later years the National Library assisted in a search that turned up only one short piece of Federal Government paper explaining the “No” case. In similar vein, little was told to voters about the other Referendum item about the balance of numbers in the Senate and House of Representatives (which failed). The publicity, which I felt was massive at the time, was all about injustice to Aborigines. For us, TV in the home had just commenced so we saw the pioneering of opinion by paid advertising, still in black and white.
I studied the proposed Constitutional changes beforehand, with the help of my lawyer older brother. It was not easy to understand why our Constitution needed change. It was not clear why there was so much distortion of the case for change. But, I was too young of mind to consider that we were getting a boots and all taste of what was later nicknamed a “snow job”.
It is rather sad that now, 56 years later, we are being fed another snow job. Some promoters seem to have no conscience, no easy distinction of right from wrong, truth from lies, power to and power from the people.
In those intervening 56 years, Australians have spent a very large sum of money on aboriginal privilege. For some, the “races” of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal are now further apart than ever. They became more divided because of the actions of politicians and bureaucrats, but was stupendous lack of logic, they are now promoting more of the same formulae for failure, to combat the failure.
We can be thankful that so many Aborigines have rejected this activism and led lives similar to most other Australians. May their quiet successes help defuse the activism of the few.
Geoff S
Hi Peter, I would have to say that you have the numbers here but beyond that, the logic also.
.
On the other hand Chris Kenny’s piece reminds me of why I don’t buy newspapers and dislike the media generally. It is the power imbalance, where the media get to trumpet their opinions instead of reporting the news or allowing fair debate.
.
Kenny firstly invents his view of the “no” argument to suit his specious, ant-egalitarian, racist and divisive case and then writes on, confident that there will not be a genuine debate.
.
Since Chris has mentioned Peter in his piece, I guess it’s a fair bet he is reading this. So I say, sorry Chris but you got done over when it came to logical and fair debate.
Issues that matter with Professor David Flint on the voice.
https://omny.fm/shows/overnight-with-michael-mclaren/the-issues-that-matter-with-professor-david-fli-64
Tom Switzer interview with Shireen Morris, Senior Lecturer, Law school, Macquarie uni . Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor, The Australian. Re the voice.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864?utm_campaign=abc_radionational&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_radionational
I just hope for the Australian citizen, that Mr Albanese clearly explains to them where the Australian Constitution is failing and why it needs to be amended. Currently our Constitution provides a framework for ALL Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents to be governed by, in a fair and democratic manner.
What is the problem with what we have? It works very well for all…so why change something that is not broken?
Neither Mr Albanese nor Mr Kenny have explained to me how their proposed change treats any injury due to a flaw or failure in the current wording of our Constitution. Every Australian citizen has a right and an obligation to vote for Federal representatives of their State (or Territory) and local Federal Electorate.
The suggestion to ask an unelected minority group of the population to obscure a political bill/proposal is just absurd nonsense. That suggestion does threaten serious injury to the whole governance of a fair and very reasonable system.
Bill Shorten has claimed , in Parliament, that Aborigines were given blankets, infested with smallpox.
Linda Burney, has claimed, in State Parliament, that Aborigines were considered “Fauna” until the 1967 referendum.
Isn’t it time that these lies were treated with the contempt they deserve?
Geoff, ABC fact check 19th March 2018, “Aboriginal people in Australia have never been covered by a flora and fauna act, either under federal or state law”.
“The Flora and Fauna act 1988 was passed to conserve threatened species and ecological communities and to minimise activities that posed a threat to Victoria’s ecosystems”.
Linda Burney is claiming or stating that what is coming out of her mouth is in deed false, a lie.
Darn right!
And as for Bill Shorten’s claim of smallpox, its divisive and could be potentially inciting racial vilification and hatred in that presumably white people knowingly gave black people smallpox – that’s just stupid – that’s BS – virus’s do not racially discriminate, that is excepting the viral Marxist .
Both Burney and Shorten, as George Orwell would have said, they’re both telling porky pies.
As to the Smallpox epidemic in Botany Bay in 1789, it is recorded in An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales, by David Collins, who arrived with the First Fleet and spent around 16 years in the colony. The settlers did their best to help the local Aborigines and indeed saved some from the Pox at risk to their own health and lives.
They also reported, as did others around the continent, seeing evidence of Pox scars indicating that Smallpox had visited the area long before the First Fleet arrived. This is hardly surprising given the evidence for visits from Polynesians, Macassans and others. It is also hardly surprising given the fact that the Aboriginal peoples had arrived in waves of migration and no doubt from areas in Asia, Africa, Europe which had contact with Smallpox.
An Account of the English Colony in New
South Wales [Volume 1]
With Remarks on the Dispositions, Customs, Manners &c. of the Native
Inhabitants of that Country. To Which are Added, Some Particulars of New
Zealand: Complied by Permission, From the Mss. of Lieutenant-Governor
King
Collins, David (1756-1810)
Chris Kenny is a good fellow, and I am sorry to have to disgree with him over the proposed ‘Voice’. I hope he changes his mind. In my view, the ‘Voice’ proposal would establish an unelected bureaucratically entrenched permanent hereditary politically privileged class based on race, far from what Australians want.
Vote NO to the racist Voice.
Searcher, by the description “….permanent hereditary politically..” am I to assume you mean ‘only of ALP political stock’? Because there is nothing in the current proposal wording to define who or what is appointed to this bogus panel. Currently (and this again is an assumption because the Albanese clarity is muddied), the proposed panel would be comprised of a select group of Australian citizens. Culture, bloodlines, skin colour, sex, religion, race, education or relevance are not defined, but I agree it will certainly be comprised of those sympathetic to and employed as an ALP political tool.
Anyone reading back this far may like to read what Kenny has to say in The Weekend Australian 20/5/2023 – copy and paste in Browser (not paywalled):
.
todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=b9621af4-29d0-4f97-892f-e593967d7aa1