Richard Broome, in his 2005 work Aboriginal Victorians, notes the original population of Aboriginal people in Victoria was likely around 60,000 people; nobody really knows for sure. He notes that “the Victorian Aboriginal population, which had survived for at least 40,000 years, was suddenly and dramatically reduced by colonisation.”[1] Yet Broome states on the very next page the Victorian Aboriginal population was reduced by 80% by Smallpox as introduced by Indonesian Macassans as early as 1720,[2] the Aboriginal population thereby being “possibly halved and halved again to say 10-15,000 in two Smallpox shocks before European settlers even trod Aboriginal Lands.”[3]
Mr Broome cannot have it both ways. His otherwise excellent work is marred throughout by anti-colonialist mantra typical of contemporary ‘histories’ of Aboriginal Australia, and herein lies the problem that must be noted from the outset. There is no doubt that European colonisation and settlement of Australia spelt the death knell for many Aboriginal communities across the continent. However, it is important that the facts are fairly and accurately told without the apparent politically motivated additional slurs, either stated or implied, against our forebears. They were very different times back then to what we know today.
Broome notes it is estimated that in 1834 at the time of the settlement of the Port Phillip district there were about 10,000 Aborigines in Victoria, yet this number fell to just 1,907 in the two decades to 1853, and to 1,067 by the time of the 1877 Census.[4] During the twenty year period from 1834 to 1854, and through until the turn of the century, it is estimated that up to 2,000 Aboriginal people died in violence at the hands of both whites and other blacks (in ongoing intra and inter-tribal fighting).
A further 1,500 died of natural causes and the population experienced very low birth rates. As time went by many Aboriginal people did not reproduce; they had no children often because of depression and a lack of any hope for their future. The population was further reduced by diseases (especially syphilis and gonorrhea) and influenza, to which they had little resistance or immunity. Drunkenness, accidents, suicides, high infant mortality, infanticides, fighting, starvation and murder by colonists and other Aborigines also took their toll.
Regionally, the figures of decline are truly shocking. The Wathawurrung (Barrabools of Geelong) numbered 275 in 1837, reduced to 118 in 1842 and only 30 remaining by 1852, a 90% decline. The Dja Dja Wurrung (Loddon district) numbered 282 in 1841 but only 142 in 1852, a 50% decline. The Gunai (Gippsland district) numbered 300 in 1844 and only 32 by 1852, a decline of over 90%. The Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung of Melbourne district numbered 350 in 1836, 207 in 1839 and only 59 by 1852, an 83% decline. The depopulation of Aboriginal people in Victoria as a result of European settlement was rapid and enormous, resulting by 1852 as indicated above in a total population of only 263 Aborigines.[5] That said, Broome’s own figures leave a gap of 1,644 people – the difference between his originally stated 1,907 people to the above listed 263 people. Where were the other 1,644? Broome later details the 1877 Census figures of 25 years later which give a clearer statement of Aboriginal numbers in Victoria at that time.[6] They are as follows:
| 1877 Census: | ||
| On Reserves: | Full Descent | Mixed Descent |
| 201 adults | 83 adults | |
| 93 children | 109 children | |
| Total = 486 | ||
| Off Reserves: | Full Descent | Mixed Descent |
| 435 adults | 51 adults | |
| 45 children | 50 children | |
| Total = 581 | Total: 774 | Total: 293 |
| Overall Total = 1,067 | ||
By 1877 there are only 1,067 Aborigines formally recorded as living in Victoria, 293 of whom are mixed descent. It is worth noting that by 1877 there were only two Aboriginal women, one, full and one mixed descent, listed as living in Melbourne. The difficulty in making sense of the numbers shows the problems knowing accurately how many Aboriginal people remained; however, one thing is certain, the numbers were extremely low. In stark contrast, in the ten years from 1851 to 1861 the immigrant population of Victoria grew from 76,000 to 540,000[7] and by 1901 the population of Victoria was 1.2 million.[8] The low numbers of Aboriginal people became almost invisible to most Victorians. Many of these hapless first inhabitants lived lives of dreary inordinate poverty and ill health, meeting with an early death. But then again, so did many settlers.
By 1900 the statistics of the time show this remnant population had decreased to about 400, many of whom were by now mixed descent children through interbreeding with the new settlers. In 1863 Simon Wonga and William Barak had about 40 Woi Wurrung, Taungurong and Bun Warrung in the Coranderrk district. By 1892 Ebenezer Mission had dropped to only 30 people and residents from Ramahyuck, Lake Condah and Coranderrk missions (about 60 residents in all) were moved to Lake Tyers Mission. By 1900 Framlingham Mission housed only about 90 residents and most missions already had a considerable number of mixed descent children. At the turn of the century there were a rapidly diminishing number of full-descent Aborigines remaining in Victoria.
Across all of Victoria the number of Aboriginal people apparently numbered no more than 3-400, including many of mixed descent. It is highly likely that by 2020 there are indeed no full descent Aboriginal people left in Victoria.[9] Indeed, by now every Victorian Aboriginal person, to a greater or lesser degree, has some European or other heritage as well. Therefore, to claim exclusive heritage as being a ‘Wathawurrung man’ or a ‘Gunai woman’ is to be historically, factually and biologically incorrect and fancifully misleading.
In 1848, four generations ago, my maternal great, great Grandfather arrived from Cornwall, England, as an orphaned 14-year-old miner, having worked in the copper mines since the age of six. Upon arrival he travelled to Burra in South Australia where he again commenced work in the copper mines. The point I am making is that I am no more a Cornish copper miner than these people are Aborigines, and nor do I claim to be. Our distant heritage (or looks) does not make us that person today, unless we want to claim it to be so – and why would we want to do that?
In 2020 the population of Victoria is estimated to be 6.36 million people. We are told by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that in 2019 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people made up 1.6% of the population of Victoria (50% of whom live in Melbourne),[10] which would be 101,760 people. By simple mathematics, how can we have gone from about 400 Aboriginal people in Victoria in 1900 to 101,760 Aboriginal people in Victoria in 2020, being four to five generations[11] in 120 years? That’s an addition of 25,440 people in every generation, which of course is a statistical and physical impossibility. Clearly, something doesn’t add up. Who are these people?
In the present time it would seem to be completely politically incorrect and perhaps even seen as ‘racist’ to ask the question ‘who or what is a real Aborigine?’ Indeed, the terms ‘full-blood’, ‘half-caste’, ‘quarter-caste’, ‘eighth-caste’ and even ‘sixteenth-caste’ (representing five generations removed), despite being in common sense descriptive use for 200 years or more, are now likely to see a user of these terms abused and might even in the future land you in jail. However, these descriptors have always been the reality, despite their contemporary disdain in favour of the more modern-day accepted definition of who is an Aborigine. In the mid-1980’s the above words and terminology were discarded in favour of the new three-part or tripartite definition, being descent, self-identification and community recognition. Although now widely accepted, this new definition is problematic from the outset and not a perfect solution, as follows:
- Descent – no matter how small or remote a portion of biological descent, a person can still identify exclusively as an Aborigine with that descent whilst diminishing all other elements of that persons’ heritage. This is of course absurd.
- Self-identification – if a person believes themselves to be an Aborigine, that person is an Aborigine. It is entirely a subjective measure, so must be discounted
as any objective test.
- Community recognition – this too is fraught with problems. It is again an entirely subjective measure based upon one’s relationship with others already within the accepted fraternity.
What this basically means is that within certain parameters, anyone who wants to be an Aborigine can be, should they be able to prove the slightest Aboriginal descent and be accepted by others (and in reality it’s only a two-part measure). This has little to do with objective fact, and indeed, no-one would particularly care what people identified as being, if it wasn’t for the fact that there are now so many benefits, especially financial ones, attached to being an ‘Aborigine’. This tripartite system has badly let down both ordinary Australians and Aborigines themselves. It is responsible for a new divisiveness and resentment growing every day within Australia. It is a new form of apartheid, segregation and racism. This ‘self-identification’ definition has proved problematic in other countries as well, and has been discarded by some indigenous nations as being insufficient to define who is truly ‘one of them’.[12]
This new system has also given rise to pretenders, which is also problematic for many Aborigines and their organisations. It would appear that many people are now identifying as ‘Aboriginal’ because it is trendy, popular and cool to do so, and there is a great deal of status, benefits, job opportunities and extra funding available (to the exclusion of all others) for your good fortune as being able to ‘identify’ as being Aboriginal. This goes hand in hand with many publications now seeking to romanticise, mythologise and reinvent what life in pre-settlement Australia was like for Aborigines in such fanciful but demonstrably false and misleading publications like Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu. This new tripartite definition has essentially opened the flood gates for the increase in the ‘Aboriginal’ population in Victoria, and indeed, right across Australia, and has created a multi-billion dollar ‘Aboriginal industry’, arguably established by confected guilt-ridden middle class white people on the basis of a very false version of history they have been force-fed in school, universities and the media.
So back to the statistics. The ABS further states that from the 2016 Census, the population of Aboriginal people in Victoria is actually 47,787 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people.[13] The ABS cannot have it both ways. If the population of Victoria is 6.36 million people then 47,787 people does not make up 1.6% of the population of Victoria, which would be approximately 101,760 people. 47,787 people are only .75% of the population of Victoria. It is most unlikely that the Aboriginal population has increased by over 50,000 people in the three years from the 2016 Census to 2019. It cannot be both, so which is it? It would appear clear that the 2016 Census figure of 47,787 is most likely to be correct, so the Aboriginal population of Victoria is in fact actually .75%, being less than 1%, meaning the Aboriginal population of Victoria has grown from .03% of the overall population in 1901 to .75% of the population in 2020, again 50% of whom live in Melbourne. Yet how can we have gone from two Aboriginal women living in Melbourne in 1877 to 24,000 Aborigines a mere 143 years (five generations) later? Again, it doesn’t add up.
Notwithstanding the above, the point is simply this – why is one particular interest group who are in reality very little different to the rest of Victorians, and consisting of only about 48,000 people, or .75% of the population of Victoria, now being given millions and millions of dollars along with freehold title and control over vast tracts of Victoria’s public land, not to mention privilege, status, funding and benefits denied to the rest of Victorians, on the basis of their partial and however small Aboriginal ancestry and so-called ‘Aboriginality’?
In 2014 the ABS noted “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is projected to be the fastest growing of the states and territories, with an average growth rate of between 2.8% and 3.1% per year, followed by Victoria (between 2.5% and 2.8%).”[14] The predicted growth rate for Aboriginal people in Victoria is an additional 20,046 people between 2011 and 2026, or 1,600 babies per year.[15] How can the ACT have the fastest growth rate of Aboriginal people, yet by contrast the Northern Territory with the greatest concentration of Aboriginal people, has the lowest growth rate? How can this be if not explained by the rapidly rising rate of ‘self-identifications’?
In the 10 years from 1991 to 2001 the recorded number of Aboriginal people in Australia rose 65% from 265,500 in 1991 to 410,000 in 2001.[16] These figures far exceed any likely birth rate, so can only be attributed to people now ‘identifying as Aboriginal’. There is no doubt that such identification is because of the increased status and acceptance of Aboriginal people in the wider community, and because of the generous opportunities and widespread benefits now made available to them as well. That said, perhaps what began as a reasonable program with good intent to address Aboriginal inequity, poverty and ill-health is now getting rather completely out of hand?
With current programs and extra benefits for newly identifying Aborigines, many of whom who do not need any extra public assistance, this represents an additional cost to the taxpayer purse. The Aboriginal industry in Victoria[17] is costing State taxpayers multi-millions, if not now billions of dollars a year, and for what real benefit? This is a highly discriminatory and unfair regime.
What happened to the original inhabitants of Australia was deeply unfortunate, yet given the circumstances of expansionism across the globe at that time, it was inevitable. If it wasn’t the English, it would have been the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or perhaps even the Germans or eventually the Japanese, any of whom may have been much less merciful to the indigenous population than the English. It is a pointless exercise to maintain that Australia and its indigenous population should have been left alone by the rest of the world – that was never going to happen, and even if it had, what would Australia look like today anyway?
As noted earlier, Broome concludes that 80% of Victorian Aborigines had already died from Smallpox, even before any Europeans set foot in Victoria, in an epidemic introduced by Macassans via the north of Australia as early as 1720, spreading over time all the way down to Victoria.[18] This of course is an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for those who would rather attribute blame for the demise of Aboriginal people, indeed, their genocide, on the murderous invading white male colonists.
Further, to claim that it was wrong for Australia to be settled without a ‘treaty’ with the original inhabitants is to fundamentally misrepresent, misunderstand and ignore the legal basis upon which Australia was settled at that time. Whilst it is a large and technical legal argument too detailed to recount here, it nevertheless ranks at the same level of falsehood as the claims to ‘Terra Nullius’ (a term only first mentioned in 1975), or that Aborigines were included in the ‘Flora and Fauna Act’ (no such Act ever existed), or that Aborigines were not counted in the Census (clearly not the case as shown by the 1877 Census), and that Aborigines did not have the vote before 1967 (they had Commonwealth enfranchisement from Federation and in many States well prior to that). Then there is the myth that most Victorian Aborigines were massacred in the so-called ‘frontier wars’, which in fact rarely ever took place (most violent deaths met by Aboriginal people were from other Aboriginal people). These falsehoods all contribute towards blaming evil colonists for racism and genocide, and to advance the newly established Aboriginal industry. Indeed, these myths, more properly referred to as lies, are still taught in Australian schools and universities today and should be rejected by all Australians.
What is now occurring in Victoria seems to be misguided reparations towards the partial descendents of Aboriginal people – a means for some Europeans to assuage their collective emotive confected guilt they have been brought to believe, without the slightest reliance on historical fact. These myths, created by universities and the legal profession, have been enthusiastically swallowed by education, media (especially the ABC, SBS and NITV), and public and legal sector bureaucracies resulting in what we see today as the open-ended handing over of status, power, control, resources, property, assets and vast sums of money to a very small select group of people with however small a biological connection to their Aboriginal ancestors. This is not making amends to our original inhabitants – this is stupidity motivated by myths and confected guilt that has already created wide division within the community, and will doubtless create much more in the years to come.
As a person of principally Cornish, Irish and English descent, I do not get to make any claims in relation to the land previously owned my by forebears in those locations. I cannot claim any reparations about my great, great grandfather being sent to work in a copper mine at age six. Nor do I receive any special benefits from the British Government because of my heritage and neither does any other British subject. To establish such a precedent in Australia is both divisive and absurd.
To base such vast reparations on fundamental ignorance and a new factually incorrect revisionist history, combined with a great deal of white blame, makes the situation immeasurably worse and unjust for all Victorians. An almost comical example of what has been happening for the last few decades is the new ‘Welcome to Country’ and ‘Smoking Ceremony’ which is inflicted upon us (often at great smoky discomfort) at almost every formal Government event. Allegedly, the ‘smoking ceremony’ was a “traditional belief that the smoke could ward off bad spirits” or “to cleanse an area … and shows a sign of respect for people past and present and also the passing over of elders.”[19] This wording smacks of modern day language and invention; and is our modern day enlightened and secular society really in need of the ‘warding off of bad spirits’? Aboriginal people in Central Australia laugh at the gullibility of ‘whitefella southerners’ in being fooled by this charade.
Thomas notes that “The supposedly ancient ‘welcome’ tradition goes back 30-40 years. … (and one story recounts that) … Indigenous entertainers Ernie Dingo and Richard Whalley, of the Middar Aboriginal Theatre, claim to have invented the “welcome to country” in 1976 because two pairs of Maori visitors from NZ and the Cook Islands wanted an equivalent of their own traditional ceremony before they would dance at the Perth International Arts Festival.”[20] Thomas further notes that “Anthropologists and early settlers failed to record anything much resembling ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies. Bess Price, CLP Aboriginal member of the Northern Territory Parliament and Minister for Community Services, has described ‘welcomes’ as ‘not particularly meaningful to traditional people anyway. We don’t do that in communities. It’s just a recent thing. It’s just people who are trying to grapple at something that they believe should be traditional.’”[21] The Ernie Dingo story is one of many pertaining to be the origins of ‘welcome to country’; however, the one thing they all share in common is that it’s a recent invention of no more than four to five decades old. Why are we living a lie?
Performances arranged by individuals or Aboriginal organisations can cost anywhere from $250 up to $6-11,000 depending upon the number of ‘performers’ required; having a didgeridoo is extra. Many would simply call this a money-making racket, one enthusiastically endorsed by ever-increasingly politically correct governments and autocratic prescriptive bureaucrats. Has this mystical ceremony just been rediscovered after being lost for more than a century, or is it a modern day mythical invention? I suspect the latter. It is highly likely that the contemporary ‘welcome to country’ and ‘smoking ceremony’ is nothing more than a lucrative modern day scam. Why do we fall for it, and why do we put up with it?
Further, adding to the Government’s (or rather, their bureaucrats and academics) obsession with all things Aboriginal, I note for example the sort of thing that is now rampant in Government publications. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Annual Report 2018-19 notes on page 2 (numeration added):
Acknowledgment
- We acknowledge and respect Victorian Traditional Owners as the original custodians of Victoria’s land and waters, their unique ability to care for Country and deep spiritual connection to it.
- We honour Elders past and present whose knowledge and wisdom has ensured the continuation of culture and traditional practices.
- We are committed to genuinely partner, and meaningfully engage, with Victoria’s Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities to support the protection of Country, the maintenance of spiritual and cultural practices and their broader aspirations in the 21st century and beyond.
Surely this is a statement that many other Victorians, especially landholders, will find
deeply offensive.
- Today’s Aboriginal people do not have a “unique ability to care for Country”[22], no more than anyone else does. Further, whilst some, or many, people who identify as Aboriginal may have a “deep spiritual connection” to the land, so do many others.
- Why do we “honour” these Elders and what “knowledge and wisdom” are we referring to exactly that contemporary Aboriginal people have that the rest of the community does not also have? Most “culture and traditional practices” have long been lost, thankfully, as many were harmful and violent, and many others are in fact recent inventions.
- Why only “Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities to support the protection of Country” and rather not by treating the wider community all the same? This is a statement that should apply to all Victorians, not just a select self-appointed few.
Another example comes from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Annual Report 2018-19 as found on page 1 (numeration added):
- The department proudly acknowledges Victoria’s Aboriginal communities and their rich culture and pays respect to their Elders past and present.
- We acknowledge Aboriginal people as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely.
- We recognise and value the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities to Victorian life and how this enriches us.
- We embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice.
- What ‘rich culture’? Does the author of this statement know anything about pre-European Aboriginal culture at all? If that person did then they surely cannot claim it to be ‘rich’. The harsh subsistence survival of Aboriginal tribes was anything but ‘rich’. This is an absurd statement based upon the myth of the ‘noble savage’. Much alleged Aboriginal culture is an invention, some borrowed from other tribes, cultures and indigenous peoples overseas. Some of it could be called copy-cat culture. Indeed, the Aboriginal Arts movement was started by a whitefella in the NT at Yuendumu in the 1970’s to give Aboriginal people something positive to do. Why do we “pay respect to their Elders past and present”? On what basis do we do this, and why are Aboriginal Elders any more deserving of our enforced ‘respect’ than any other older members of our community?
- The term “Traditional Owners” is and always has been a misnomer. Land ‘ownership’ was never countenanced by original Aboriginal people. There was no concept of land ownership, the land owned them. There were merely physical boundaries between tribes who at times variously fought and traded with each other. It is of great concern that the term ‘water’ has been recently added to the claims made by Aboriginal organisations, having serious and specific implications for the future control and management of all waterways.
- What does the “ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities to Victorian life” actually consist of, and why do we value it (more than any other) and how does it “enrich us”? What contribution is especially distinct and different to any other culture’s contribution? These are just hollow and meaningless words.
- This statement is of course completely false and is the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. There is no “equality of outcomes” or “an equal voice” because the vast majority of Victorians, firstly, have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, and secondly, absolutely no say in it whatsoever. None of this is likely to result in “reconciliation” but can only end in further division, resentment and enmity.
These ‘acknowledgements’ are largely confected, mythologised, fanciful, divisive nonsense and virtually everyone knows it, so why do we tolerate it? Today’s Aboriginal people do not have some mystical and spiritual knowledge embedded in their DNA that makes them better land managers than anyone else. Yes, let’s of course celebrate positive real and original Aboriginal culture; yes, of course let’s re-establish Aboriginal links with the past; yes, let’s honestly do a lot of that, BUT – just how far should this all go, and how much of it should be funded by the taxpayer, and on what basis? I have a deep spiritual connection to my forbear’s country in Cornwall, and have visited there, which was very moving for me, and a deep personal spiritual connection to the Victorian High Country, where I visit often. But I don’t get to own these places, or manage them, or derive any public income from them, or have exclusive access to them, or have any say over them any more than anyone else does.
In reality, who are these Aboriginal people we are now lauding, funding, celebrating and paying homage to? Are they not just like us – ordinary citizens of our community? What has all of a sudden made them so special, deserving of control of vast tracts of land and water, and the allocation of billions of taxpayer dollars? This sham would appear complete lunacy. Government policy in this area is an irrational nonsense that will ultimately infuriate most Victorians.
In December of 2019 it was announced that the Dja Dja Wurrung Aboriginal Clans Corporation received a $1.82 million Federal Government grant to research over four years the viability of growing native Kangaroo Grass to help the agriculture industry adapt to climate change. The work will be carried out with La Trobe University, Goulburn Murray Water, and Federation University.[23] It would be fair to ask what the role of the Dja Dja Wurrung Aboriginal Clans Corporation will be in this research work, and are they skilled to carry it out?
By 1852 the Dja Dja Wurrung numbered no more than 142 people. By 1900 they were less than half that number, perhaps no more than 50 at most. By 2020, what research expertise do the Dja Dja Wurrung have by way of traditional, cultural and scientific knowledge to gain a $1.82 million grant to carry out this work? Where will all this money go and what will be produced of direct benefit to the taxpayers from this grant? What sort of reporting and accountability will be required for the funds so expended? Perhaps this work, as so often seen in Central Australia, is simply a new form of welfare. Rather than being on unemployment benefits, Aboriginal people can now have jobs at the expense of the public purse. This in itself is not a bad thing, but what is the actual productivity and contribution of these new jobs? In addition, the implications for the rest of the community are also significant, but too complex to discuss in this brief paper.
Another example, again from the Dja Dja Wurrung, where the Corporation hopes to “hear the language reinstated, as a form of chosen language to be spoken in central Victoria.” The language will need to be “reconstructed and de-colonised” in an attempt to learn and understand it. [24] It is now four generations since there were any fluent speakers of the language. Yes, this may well be a laudable aim, but it should retain historical interest status only, and not be re-invented and forced into schools or paid for by the public purse. As has been seen in Central Australia, only being able to speak an Aboriginal language, and not English, prevents any person from being able to actively engage in employment or society, proving counterproductive to full societal participation thereby being detrimental to that person.
How is giving a self-appointed and select group of people multi-million dollars of taxpayer funding and control over our collective lands and waterways possibly ever going to ‘promote a spirit of reconciliation’, ‘work towards an equality of outcomes’ or ‘ensure an equal voice’? Is this intended to ‘right the wrongs of the past’? No, it can never do that, and if people think it will, that is nothing more than an absurd delusion. This will simply become a ‘rent-seeking-free-for-all’, with ‘Aboriginal’ people gaining multiple millions of dollars in revenue while actually contributing little or nothing back to the land or the community. The 2018-2019 DELWP Annual Report lists $13.1 million dollars that have been given in grants (for one year) to Victorian Aboriginal Organisations to ‘manage lands and waterways’ in Victoria. Who is it that is actually receiving this money, and what are they doing with it?
It would appear bizarre that a person can now place exclusive emphasis on their distant Aboriginal heritage, to the exclusion of their European or other heritage, thereby taking advantage of their newly found recognition, status, celebrity, benefits and advantages as an ‘Aborigine’. Sadly, what is happening now seems to reflect an inherent contemporary directionless emptiness in Australian and western society. Being recognised as an ‘Aborigine’ may now give a person an identity, a career, and their life new meaning, but should the rest of us now have to pay for that?
We now have a situation here in Victoria where the 48,000 self-identifying descendants of a remnant Aboriginal population that 120 years ago likely numbered no more than 400 people, already including many mixed descent children, are now in receipt of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds and are now claiming ownership to the lands and waterways of most of Victoria for which all the rest of us guilty citizens must feel bad about and ‘pay the rent’ – forever. What is of course ironic is that many of these intra and inter-tribal ‘Aborigines’ often don’t get along with, or agree with each other and continue their squabbling and infighting today, much as they have done for thousands of years. Unlike the myth of the noble savage, they are nothing like a homogenous spiritual group – indeed, they are just like the rest of us.
The recently announced ‘Taungurung Recognition and Settlement Agreement’[25] claims that it will “promote reconciliation” yet this is the exact opposite to what it will do. This misleading and perhaps deceitful document and arrangement will in fact promote huge anger and resentment, especially over time as ‘Aboriginal’ control and privileges become more firmly established, along with new limits on whitefella activities and with new fees and charges imposed.
On top of the $33 million awarded in 2018 to the 3,000 Taungurung people for ‘land and water rights’[26] the Taungurung have now been given a further $26 million as a part of the latest ‘traditional owner settlement’[27], plus a further $390,776 annual grant from DELWP. That’s $59,390,779 dollars in less than two years, being $19,796 for every Taungurung person, plus interest, plus additional grants and benefits, plus freehold title to land and buildings. Most Australians do not believe that a very small group of select people should be given so much power, control, land, buildings and money all for nothing based upon a small part of their genetic heritage. This is the exact opposite of what most Australians believe as being fair and equitable. For example, how can the old Woods Point Police Station, an important historic building in the town, now simply be given for free to the Taungurung, who have never had any previous connection or involvement in the town whatsoever, rather than it being given to the long running Woods Point Progress Association who could make excellent use of it?
It is further clear that laws applying to all other Victorians will now in many cases no longer apply to the Taungurung. These government policies are taking Victoria in completely the opposite direction to that in which we should be going, that of cooperative equality and harmony, and we will all one day live to regret it. How will any of this ‘benefit all Victorians’?
This is nothing more than a grand scale scam – an ‘Emperors New Clothes’ form of delusion, for which we shall all have to pay. How can the remote partial descendents of 400 people 120 years ago now essentially own much of the state, gain billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, produce little by way of value for money, and tell the rest of the population where they can and cannot go, and what they can and cannot do on the land, all the while now being given exclusive access themselves? How did this happen? This is not about being a racist – it’s about the facts of history, about genuine and real equity and above all, about common sense and fairness.
Indeed, today’s Victorian ‘Aborigines’ now have highly paid employment in the bureaucracy reserved for them, as is also increasingly occurring (and enforced by law) in the corporate sector. This inequity is highlighted by the fact that many ‘Aboriginal’ families are now financially very well off yet still receive many benefits, whereas many other European and ethnic immigrant families are very poor, yet are entitled to fewer benefits than middle-class Aborigines. Is this the ‘new equity’?
As shown by the appallingly misleading lies of the Australian version of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, the politics and policies of division create an ‘us-and-them’ resentment that inevitably leads to conflict, as opposed to the ‘we’re all in this together’ approach as one collective humanity. When we start to favour one group over another, resentment by the group not favoured is a certainty. In Victoria (as distinct from many areas of the NT, WA, Qld and NSW) being an ‘Aborigine’ is now to become a member and heir to an exclusive race-based club with huge financial benefits. Why have we created and funded a special privileged class of people who are in reality just like all the rest of us?
Most of the 48,000 Aborigines in Victoria today are predominantly ‘white’, originating from European or other ancestors and only from a remnant 400 Aboriginal individuals and small families as described in detail above. These are the historical facts which seem to be conveniently ignored (indeed derided) in the new world order of Aboriginal revisionism, mythology and invention – not based upon historical fact or reality at all. This is a great dishonesty and disservice to the whole community, and above all, why are we not even allowed to have an honest discussion about it?
* * * * * *
NB: All internet web addresses are correct at the time of writing. Some may have been later deleted or archived.
About the Author:
During the late-1980’s and mid-1990’s David Barton worked in mining and forestry the Victorian High Country around Aberfeldy and Woods Point, owned a property at Matlock for 25 years and was the Vice President of the Woods Point Progress Association for many years. He also spent six years working in Central Australia on programs with and for Aboriginal people, and in 2019 completed a two-month research project on the current state of affairs with Aboriginal people in the Centre. He is well versed in Aboriginal issues in both the Northern Territory and in Victoria, having followed and worked in these areas for almost 50 years. He has attained a number of Certificates and a Diploma of Youth Work, a Diploma of Community Development, a Bachelor of Counselling, a Master’s in Sociology and a PhD in Disaster Recovery. Dr Barton also received two bravery awards for his role in the 2009 Black Saturday fires, in which he lost his home, business and possessions. He is currently a self-employed consultant and during the last 40 years has amassed a great deal of experience and knowledge about both the management of the bush and Aboriginal affairs.
[1] Broome, R. 2005. Aboriginal Victorians. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin. p. 90.
[2] Ibid. p. 7.
[3] Ibid. p. 91.
[4] Ibid. p. 91 & 147.
[5] Ibid. pp. 91-92.
[6] Ibid. p. 147.
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(Australia)
[8] https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3110124.nsf/24e5997b9bf2ef35ca2567fb00299c59/c4abd1
fac53e3df5ca256bd8001883ec!opendocument#Table%201.%201901%20Population%20Counts%20f
[9] I stand to be advised and corrected about this assumption if incorrect.
[10] “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders made up 1.6% of the population of Victoria.”
[11] Note that a ‘generation’ is defined as being 30 years.
[12] There are 8 tribes of US American Indians that now require a 1/2 blood quantum for recognition and membership, 48 tribes that require a 1/4 blood quantum, 23 that require 1/8 blood quantum, 7 tribes that require 1/16 blood quantum, 29 tribes with no blood quantum requirement, and 5 tribes that have a requirement of both blood quantum and lineal descent for recognition and membership. See the ‘blood quantum’ requirements of many American Indian tribes in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_quantum_laws
[13] “For the 2016 Census in Victoria, there were 47,787 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. Of these, 49.4% were male and 50.6% were female.”
[14]3238.0 – Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026.
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/02D95BFBCDD976FBCA257CC900143A5B?opendocument
[15] The question should also be asked as to after how many years or generations of interbreeding does a person cease to be ‘Aboriginal’? In the year 2120 will a person with an Aboriginal ancestor from 1880 (240 years, or 8 generations earlier) still be recognised as exclusively an Aboriginal person?
[16]https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/statistical-overview-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-australia#toc2
[17] It is likely that many of these people are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from other parts of Australia, but these people are not Victorian Aborigines. Are they too entitled to the largess offered by Victoria by way of employment, etc, or should it be reserved for Victorian Aborigines only?
[18] See also: Broome, R. 2019. Aboriginal Australians – the vast sweeping story of Aboriginal Australia from 1788. (5th Edn.). Sydney NSW: Allen & Unwin. p. 13.
[19] Thomas, T. 2019. ‘A Nice Little Earner’. Quadrant Online. (4 April).
[20] Thomas, T. 2016. ‘Brand New Timeless Traditions’. Quadrant Online. (22 April). https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/04/brand-new-timeless-traditions/
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘Country’ now being a trendy word for ‘land’ that apparently only applies to Aboriginal people. Whitefellas are ‘on the land’ or ‘in the bush’ whereas Aboriginal people are ‘on Country’, which is somehow more spiritual and special.
[23] Cosoleto, T. 2019. Bendigo Advertiser. (13 December). https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6541827/dja-dja-wurrung-leading-research-on-adapting-to-climate-change/?cs=80&fbclid=IwAR3aHIIaST7lVOnLtwMOHBe6MmJXn-wPyhFxHu8H8pGpO_RX9pwpZeiUqkc
[24] Kernebone, E. 2019. Bendigo Advertiser. (13 July).
[25] https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/your-rights/native-title/taungurung-recognition-and-settlement-agreement#factsheet
[26] http://www.watercareer.com.au/archived-news/giant-title-claim-secured
[27] https://www.pressreader.com/australia/wangaratta-chronicle/20200824/281483573758180
