Empowering Indigenous Australia Jacinta Nampijinpa Price 39
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3 ContributorThe . A journal of articles published by the Policy Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Keith Windschuttle | Daisy Cousens | Alex Ryvchin | Tony Abbott | Philip Ruddock Martin Drum | Aiden Depiazzi | Ross Cameron | Lyle Shelton | Robyn Nolan | Nick Cater Eric Abetz | Jacinta Nampijinpa Price | Rajat Ganguly | Caleb Bond | Neil James | Alexey Muraviev ContributorThe . Third edition, September 2017. Copyright © Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division). All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Policy Committee: Chairman Sherry Sufi, Jeremy Buxton, Alan Eggleston, Christopher Dowson, Joanna Collins, Murray Nixon, Dean Wicken, Christopher Tan, Daniel White, Claire McArdle, Jeremy Quinn, Steve Thomas MLC, Zak Kirkup MLA, Peter Katsambanis MLA and Ian Goodenough MP. The intention of this document is to stimulate public policy debate by providing individuals an avenue to express their views on topics they may have an interest or expertise in. Opinions expressed in these articles are those of their respective authors alone. In no way should the presence of an article in this publication be interpreted as an endorsement of the views it expresses either by the Liberal Party or any of its constituent bodies. Authorised by S. Calabrese, 2/12 Parliament Place, West Perth WA 6005. Printed by Worldwide Online Printing, 112-114 Mallard Way, Cannington WA 6107. If Liberalism stands for anything … it’s for the passion to contribute to the nation, to“ be free, but to be contributors, to submit to the discipline of the mind instead of the ordinary, dull discipline of a regimented mass of people. - Sir Robert Menzies 27th July 1962 Contents 3. Foreword Sherry Sufi 4. The Break-Up of Australia Keith Windschuttle 8. Feminism and the Unholy Trinity of Lies Daisy Cousens 11. The Anti-Israel Agenda Alex Ryvchin 14. National and Even Civilisational Decline Tony Abbott 16. Achieving Strong Border Protection Philip Ruddock 19. Republic of Australia: Is it Time Yet? Martin Drum 21. Immortal Lessons of the Forgotten People Aiden Depiazzi 23. Why we must leave the Paris Climate Accord Ross Cameron 26. Christian Foundations of Freedom and Democracy Lyle Shelton 29. Challenges for an Ageing Australia Robyn Nolan 32. Rediscovering the Art of Politics Nick Cater 34. Labor’s Politics of Envy Eric Abetz 36. Empowering Indigenous Australia Jacinta Nampijinpa Price 39. Trump’s South Asia Policy Rajat Ganguly 42. Restoring Our National Pride Caleb Bond 44. Defending WA: An Integrated Approach Neil James 46. Our New National Intelligence Agency Alexey Muraviev 48. Letters to the Editor Foreword As members of the Liberal Party, we preselect candidates for Parliament, we help raise funds for campaigns, we volunteer hours of our lives letterboxing, waving corflutes, handing out how-to- vote-cards and scrutineering. We devote our time and effort because we are committed to ensuring that the right policies with the best interests of the Australian community are implemented in Federal and State Parliaments across the nation. If our judgement is good enough to choose the right candidates, then surely our judgement is good enough to choose the right policies. And who would doubt that good policies come from smart ideas, which result from free and frank debate, which is why we have this journal. The Contributor was established three years ago by our Policy Committee as a modest attempt to help foster a culture of free and frank debate in our Party. Articles published in previous editions have helped kickstart vital debates on many significant issues. I am confident this edition will do the same. In the face of disagreement, our political opponents too often succumb to the temptation to attack the arguer instead of the argument. As Liberals, we must never stoop to that level. We must respect our right to disagree with each other as much as our opponent’s right to disagree with us. In producing this publication, I have kept my editorial intervention to a minimum. Any stats, facts, assertions and quotes contained within these articles remain the sole responsibility of their authors. If you find yourself in strong disagreement with a view put forward by one or more of our authors, then feel free to make a submission for a future edition mounting a case against that view and let the battle of ideas flourish - as it should - in the spirit of democracy. I am grateful to the eminent authors who submitted their articles for this edition, to the members of the Policy Committee especially Jeremy Buxton for his regular feedback, to the readers for your on-going interest in the journal and to the staff at Liberal Party HQ for their assistance. Enjoy the read and be sure to get in touch on [email protected] with your feedback. Sherry Sufi BA DipIS MA MHist Policy Chairman Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) 3 The Break-Up of Australia By Keith Windschuttle The recognition of indigenous people in the constitution has a hidden agenda that, so far, no one wants to discuss. On the one hand, our political leaders believe recognition will contribute to national reconciliation, that it will finally bring Aboriginal people into the political fold. In 2013 Opposition Leader Tony Abbott argued: “We have never fully made peace with the first Australians. Until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people.” As Prime Minister a year later, Mr Abbott said his objective in holding a referendum was not to change the Constitution but to complete it, so that we can make our country “whole”. On the other hand, when members of the Aboriginal political class discuss this issue among themselves in books, academic papers, and speeches to Aboriginal conferences, they take a quite different view. They don’t say their aim is to make the Constitution complete or the nation whole. Indeed, ever since their success in gaining native title in 1992, they have sought to go one big step further. As well as getting their land back, they now want to get their country back too. As the title of a recent book by Aboriginal academics Megan Davis and Marcia Langton says, “It’s Our Country”. To these activists, recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution would simply be one more step towards their real objectives: political autonomy, traditional law and values, and sovereignty over their own separate state or nation. They see themselves as “first peoples” whose ancestral status gives them ownership and jurisdiction over Aboriginal land. They do not regard the existing Australian nation as their true country. They describe the Australian nation as no more than a recently arrived “settler state” whose rule, according to Aboriginal filmmaker Rachel Perkins, they have endured with a “burning resentment” ever since 1788. 4 The concept of sovereignty has been absent from Kimberley. Other activists, such as Noel Pearson, the mainstream media’s reporting of constitutional talk in terms of a number of Aboriginal states, recognition but it has long been the principal based mostly on the territories now controlled by objective of the Aboriginal political class right Aboriginal land councils. Warren Mundine agrees. across the spectrum—from gradual reformists He advances a strategy to recognise all existing to radical agitators. They argue that because Aboriginal clan associations and language groups Aborigines never ceded sovereignty in the colonial as “first nations”, with the Commonwealth making era, because they signed no treaties and were separate agreements with each one. never actually conquered, as the first land owners How much land would a black state or states have? they remain the continent’s sovereign people. According to the National Native Title Tribunal, as They claim that, in restoring land rights in the at 31 March 2016 no less than 30.4 per cent of the Mabo decision, Australian courts recognised that Australian continent is already held under native traditional Aboriginal society was governed by title. Once all the claims now before the Native its own laws. The existence of a legal system, Title Tribunal are processed, this will add another they argue, logically entails the existence of 31.7 per cent of the continent to native title. All up, Aboriginal sovereignty which was supposedly native title will soon amount to more than 60 per never extinguished by the British Crown’s own cent of the Australian continent. declaration of sovereignty in 1770. This outcome is bound to test the complacency of There is nothing new about the demand for voters in some of the states affected. It would mean sovereignty. The concept dates back to the 1970s that more than 80 per cent of Western Australia will and to the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, a body be under native title, plus more than 70 per cent of white Canberra activists led by former Reserve of both Queensland and South Australia. These are Bank head Nugget Coombs. This committee enormous amounts of land to give to such a small looked forward to the day when an independent number of people. It means the 140,000 people Aboriginal government, or governments, could now living on traditional Aboriginal lands will be stand alongside state and territory governments the owners of 60 per cent of the entire continent, before the Commonwealth Grants Commission while remaining 24 million of us are left with less (now COAG) in their own right. than 40 per cent. Since then, all major government-funded federal If it was put to the Australian people that bodies of Aboriginal people have supported this sovereignty over this much of Australia was the objective, from the National Aboriginal Conference outcome Aborigines want from the constitutional in 1982, which declared: “In pursuing the Makarrata referendum, the chances of it passing would (Treaty) we assert our basic rights as sovereign be slim, to say the least.