Why the Australian Constitution is Racist and, if This were Corrected, How Such a Change could give rise to Many Reforms that would Greatly Benefit Justice, Australia's Economy and its Security
By: Kevin Loughrey LtCol(Ret'd)
Dated: 12 June 2023
I suggest to you that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is racist and that this actually resulted as a consequence of an unwitting change to the Constitution effected by the 1967 Referendum; namely, the Australian people agreed, without realising the full implications of such agreement, that the Federal Government would take over the role of the States in the management of native Aborigines and, for that purpose, would be permitted to make laws specifically for Aboriginal natives. This change entrenched racism into the Australian Constitution. Although its genesis may have been rooted, by some, in good intentions, it was a clause that discriminated against the majority of Australians on the basis of their race.
This change was not accidental. I believe it was deliberate and, after the change was made, was quickly taken advantage of by both Whitlam and Hawke (who had an association with the Fabian Society - an organisation rooted in elitism, globalism and Marxism) and this gave rise to the racist, discriminatory welfare system that is in place today whereby people with some smattering of Aboriginal genes are the beneficiary of government largess without the need to be means-tested. For example, if a person declares they are an Aborigine, they are exempt from paying TAFE fees and even University fees. This is grossly unfair to those impoverished Australians who do not have any Aboriginal ancestry.
To understand how this happened you firstly have to understand the meaning of the term "Aboriginal Native" or "Native Aborigine".
In 1901, the Attorney-General Alfred Deakin provided a legal opinion on the meaning of section 127 of the Constitution and the term "Aboriginal Native". Section 127 excluded "Aboriginal Natives" from being counted when reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or a state for the purposes of determining electoral boundaries. His legal advice was that "half-castes" were NOT "Aboriginal Natives". [Deakin, Alfred (29 August 1901). "Opinion Number 13 - Aboriginal natives whether half-castes to be included in count for reckoning population". Legal Opinions. Australian Government Solicitor. Retrieved 17 September 2020.] Further inference could also be drawn that these persons who were classed as being "Aboriginal Natives" lived on reserves or missions and followed largely a nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle as well as being totally dependent on the State Governments for their welfare should they find themselves in a desperate situation. (I will explain later why this inference could be reasonably drawn at that time, namely 1901). Conversely, those persons who were fully or in part of the Aboriginal race who participated in "modern" society, ie, worked a job and paid taxes were not classed as Aborigines. They were entitled to all the rights to participate in politics and society as any other Australian citizen. This fact has been "memory-holed".
It is noteworthy that the Commonwealth Government website, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/Chronologies/IndigenousChronology, provides an untruthful and distorted version of Australian History. For example, it uses the term "Aboriginal People" instead of "Aboriginal Native", saying that Aboriginal People were excluded from voting etc. A person reading this, in this present day, would infer that all persons with some smattering of Aboriginal genes were excluded when this was nothing like the case. Added to that, the word "Indigenous" has now crept into modern parlance when referring to Aborigines. In doing this, the term "Aboriginal Native" has been entirely lost! This serves two purposes for those who wish to malign the early Australians of non-Aboriginal ancestry. Firstly, it devalues the status of any non-Aboriginal Australian who was born and raised in this country, ie, is actually indigenous to this country per the strict use of the word. Secondly it avoids using the word Aborigine because that word would bring into focus the fact that the speaker/writer is discriminating on the basis of race.
To further underline the point I am making here, the Commonwealth Electoral Act No. 31 of 1962 states in its foreword that it is:
"An Act to give to Aboriginal Natives of Australia the right to enrol and to vote as Electors of the Commonwealth, and to provide for certain offences in relation thereto. [Also, most importantly:]
Section 159 of the Principal Act. is amended by adding at the end thereof the words, "or with the free exercise by an Aboriginal Native of Australia of his choice whether or not to enrol as an elector "
There are two points one should note here:
The word "native" is used to explicitly define the "type" of Aboriginal, ie, not a person of mixed race.
The act was deferential in that native Aborigines could opt not to enrol to vote as opposed to Australian citizens who were not native Aborigines and were therefore compelled to vote.
With every Referendum there is required to be a "Yes" and "No" case provided to the Australian electors. The 1967 Referendum was multi-faceted, ie, it did not just deal with the counting of Aboriginal Natives in the Census. I have attached a copy of the original public briefing on the various matters to be decided by the 1967 Referendum. (This has been largely lost down the "memory hole" when Googling about the 1967 Referendum - such searches giving only a distorted version of what actually applied at that time.) Once again the explanatory notes refer to Aboriginal Natives, using the words "Aborginal Race", saying:
"The first proposed alteration is to remove the words "other than the Aboriginal race in any State" from paragraph (xxvi.) of Section 51. Section 51 (xxvi.) reads: "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi.) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws." The proposed alteration of this section will do two things. First, it will remove words from our Constitution that many people think are discriminatory against the Aboriginal people. Second, it will make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Parliament considers it necessary"
The second proposed alteration is the
repeal of Section 127 of the Constitution. That section reads:
'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.'"
(I should point out that the word "Aboriginal" is not a
noun but an adjective that has, through common usage, become a noun
through the shortening of "Aboriginal People", "Aboriginal Race" or
"Aboriginal Natives". When the word "Aboriginal"
was used in 1967 in the context of amendments to Section 127, it
therefore meant "Aboriginal Native".
The explanatory note in this public briefing went on to say (and this puts the situation into its proper context for that day and age! unlike the Googled results one now obtains):
" Why was this provision included in the Constitution In 1900? Well, there were serious practical difficulties In counting the Aboriginal[Native]s in those days. They were dispersed, and nomadic. Communications in inland Australia were poor, and frequently non-existent. Today the situation is very different and counting is practicable." (Note that I have inserted [native] in the verbiage and I have to wonder if, even in that day and age, there were malignant Fabian forces at work to muddy the issue by using the adjective "Aboriginal" rather than fully qualifying the noun by saying "Aboriginal Native" as was the case in the original Section 127, crafted circa 1900.
When the Australian people agreed to allow the Federal Government to make laws specifically for Aborigines, they did so in the belief that it only applied to Aboriginal Natives. The Australian people did not knowingly give the Federal Government the right to make laws specifically for "half-castes" and by implication persons who had a lesser degree of Aboriginality in their genetic makeup. Also "Aboriginal Race" was synonymous with "Aboriginal Native". It meant an Aboriginal whose racial makeup was not adulterated by another race.
Further to this, the implications of agreeing to this change in the Constitution were never revealed to the Australian people as there was never a "No" argument made against this proposed change. This casts into doubt the legitimacy of that Referendum as the rules for a Referendum require that with every proposal there should be a "Yes" and "No" argument presented to the Australian people. This I believe was a deliberate deception.
As a consequence of this, all laws which the Federal Government has subsequently made after 1967 for persons, who were not by definition of Alfred Deakin, Aboriginal Natives, are unconstitutional and discriminate against all other Australians who do not have Aboriginal genes in their makeup. My understanding is that this matter of racially based welfare has already gone to the High Court and Labor leaning Justices opined that the amended Constitution gave the Federal Government the right to institute a system of welfare that was discriminatory. I don't believe my argument, put here, was ever presented to the Justices because the Government of the day was half-hearted in its objections.
Referendums, just like the 1967 Referendum, can put to the Australian people multiple proposals. I believe there should be a second proposal to amend the Constitution put to the Australian people and it is one that would be very difficult to argue against. That proposal should be:
"An amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to amend Section 51 (xxvi), which presently gives the Commonwealth the right to make special laws on the basis of a citizen's race, by replacing that wording with the following:
No Government, nor any Government funded agency, at Federal, State, Territory or Local level within the Commonwealth of Australia may make laws or construct regulations that discriminate on the basis of a citizen's race, gender or ancestral heritage. To this end, all citizens, regardless of race, gender or ancestral heritage, shall be treated exactly the same under the law and shall be entitled to whatever benefits their circumstances might entitle under those laws and regulations."
Note that this amendment also explicitly binds State Governments and Government funded agencies to this prohibition. That is very important for in the past State Governments have provided a means by which Federal politicians have been able to skate around the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It also prevents the establishment of Non-Government Organisations for this purpose. This has particularly been the case with health and with compensation for the deprivation or degradation of personal property rights by the Government.
If this amendment is made to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, it prevents Parliament from instituting such things as the "Native Title Act"; something that has grievously assaulted the property rights of many Australians, especially those owning rural properties. That too, must be reversed. The first step to that process is the prohibition of the Government discriminating on the basis of race, gender or ancestral heritage.
- End of Paper -