Over the past year or so, the Albanese government in Australia has been promoting a referendum to change the Australian constitution. The purpose is to set up a new constitutional entity made up of indigenous peoples as an advisory body to the Australian parliament. About this proposal I have many concerns.

The first concern is that it is a top-down decision and hasn’t arisen from the grass roots of the nation, unlike the 1967 referendum vote to include indigenous Australians in population counts which was a grass roots movement with wide support, easy to understand, and easy to ascertain if it has been done properly.

The second concern is that a lot of money is being spent by government to push for the Yes vote. We’ve seen government buses with slogans. We are seeing Australian business corporations also displaying alliance with the Yes vote, as they did for the same sex marriage plebiscite. Previously business corporations had zero interest in the outcome of national decisions. But in this age of so-called virtue signaling, it has become de rigueur. This bothers me because it has a coercive impact.

The third concern is the appeal to emotion rather than to reason. It goes something like this, as a nation we are more aware than ever of the injustices meted out to indigenous Australians throughout our history, and we are grieved about this, and think something should be done. This referendum is a something, therefore we should do it to assuage the guilt levels we feel. No one seems to be asking whether this voice to parliament is the best solution or not.

The fourth concern is that we have a history of well-meaning legislation supposedly put forward to better the lot of our indigenous peoples and actually making their lives worse.

The fifth concern is that the actual legislation to enact the referendum change, should it be voted in, will not be written until after the vote. In effect each of us is signing a blank cheque with unknown consequences. We know that the promises of our politicians aren’t worth much, since we are still waiting for them to enact legislation to protect free speech and religious liberty – which was promised as part of the same sex marriage legislation.

The sixth concern is that the letter of this unknown actual legislation could be significantly different to what the various politicians have been promising that it will be. I’ve seen footage of a politician speaking to one group of people saying that the change will be minimal and then speaking to another group of people and saying that the change will be far more than minimal.

The seventh concern is the wedge this proposed referendum is driving between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians. It seems the antithesis of ‘Australians All Let Us Rejoice’ as we sing in the national anthem. If one was truly cynical you could consider it a diabolical invention to inflame racial hatred in this country. We are already facing derogatory terminology if we dare to question this referendum proposal, and being accused of hurting our indigenous folk because we are yet to be convinced that it is a good thing for them, and for all of us.

The eighth concern is that you don’t normally get politicians, corporate business and media singing from the same hymn sheet unless there is a much bigger agenda afoot; and yes, I am deeply worried that it is a W.E.F. agenda or similar.

Let’s step back and look at the objective situation.
​
In Australia there are many hundreds of indigenous nations, tribes and cultural groups.

It isn’t a wonderful photo, because it was taken through glass at the State Library of NSW, but it does give you an idea about the diversity of indigenous nations within Australia.

Now some of them are freshwater people, some of them are river people, some of them are salt-water people, some of them are desert people, some of them are river people, some of them are grass plains people, some of them are mountain people, some of them are rain forest people – and I’m sure to have missed some out.

Each of these indigenous nations has a very strong connection to the geographical area of their nation, and deep understanding about how all the landscape, the plants and animals all coexist. What I need you to see is that it is a local relationship and local custodianship. There are all kinds of multi-layered stories to explain geographic formations and animal traits.

Can you begin to see the troubles that could arise if a river person starts making decisions that affect desert people? Or if a rain forest person starts making decisions that affect grass plains people?

Consider that each of these peoples all have different laws, customs, stories and culture, and that some of these things change according to whoever carries leadership or eldership at the time. For example, one elder may have a prohibition about speaking about deceased people for 3 years, and the next elder may have a prohibition about speaking about deceased people for 10 years.

Now consider that many indigenous peoples are not living on their ancestral lands. This is truer in urban areas than in outback areas. I attempted last year to find out if there were any indigenous people with ancestral connection to the area I live in and still living here. I failed to find any. What I did find were indigenous people with connections to the mid north coast of NSW, to the Riverina region of NSW, and to river people of VIC. I discovered that a former local indigenous leader wasn’t from around here either.

What happens to your region if there are no elders with ancestral connections to represent your region in the voice to parliament?

Next consider the problematic definition of who is indigenous and who isn’t. Are you indigenous if you have at least one great-grandparent indigenous (1/8)? Are you indigenous if you can trace any indigenous ancestor back to 1788? When do you stop being indigenous and start being hodge-podge Australian? It certainly matters from a government funding point of view. Does someone who has 1/16 indigenous ancestry have the right to tell someone with two indigenous parents what to do - and how to live their lives?

Believe it or not matters can be even more complicated. We watched a Who Do You Think You Are episode recently about a retired director of an indigenous dance company. Going through his family tree found Australian indigenous, Cook Island ancestry, and Philippine ancestry and more. How many others have such hybrid ancestral connections – and don’t realise it?

What happens if people start identifying with indigenous Australians, even though their ancestry is thoroughly Anglo-Celtic? Do they get government funding as indigenous? Since we are living in the craziness of men identifying as women and vice versa, this is no longer in the region of “la la land”, but a real issue.

It makes far more sense to me that an indigenous elder should have an ex-officio seat at the local government table. That’s where the custodianship is, that’s where the knowledge and commitment is. But it needs to be an indigenous elder with a true ancestral connection to the local government area.

Because of the local focus of indigenous nations within Australia, it makes no sense to me to set up a national body of indigenous to speak to national issues. The concern is that the people interested on serving on such a voice to parliament would be political activists and politicians – unless there is a way to make them hereditary positions. But who is going to say which indigenous bloodlines are more important than other indigenous bloodlines?

What is going to stop political activists from making constitutional challenges to be heard in the high court which could enshrine interpretations at complete odds with the understanding of the people who voted yes to the voice to parliament? How do you protect against people acting in their own interests at odds with the needs of the rest of Australians? How do you protect against people acting for foreign interests at odds with the true needs of Australians?

It all feels like a recipe for chaos, disorder and disunity, with the possibility of pitting one indigenous culture against another one. Chaos, disorder and disunity are at enmity with peace, unity and truth. Shouldn’t we want national decisions that establish peace, unity and truth in our land?
​
That’s why, unless the structure of the referendum proposal drastically changes for the better, I will be voting No.

.........................................
Below is a printer friendly edited version, 4 x A4 pages,
​

In recent weeks I have been doing a deep drive into local history. Rapidly it went from how did British settlement start in this area?: to what can be discovered about them?: to horror at how the native peoples were treated: to what was the unwritten side of the story?

The British had lived for centuries under an accepted cultural system.

The native peoples had lived for millennia under a completely different accepted cultural system; in fact you could say it was a road untraveled by any other culture.

The British and most other cultures worked on a notion of private property, and understood that this system accepted violence as a cost of civilisation. If you had something, you had to be prepared to defend it; and if you wanted to grow in importance then you had to usurp the property of others either by violence or coercion.

The native peoples came up with a completely different solution.

Instead of regular patterns of group vs group violence they chose mutual benevolence. Admittedly being human, disputes over mating rights did occur. However that is observable behaviour in the animal kingdom. What they chose was mutual survival. Part of this was choosing hospitality towards strangers to diffuse any possible violent intent.

Even now it is a difficult concept for Western minds to grasp.

The native people used what they needed from the land, and then moved on to a new location. They never depleted an area of resources. Tribes consisted of a number of family groups. Estimates for this location have a minimum number of 10 family groups, but there could have been 15 family groups, or even 20 family groups as part of one tribe. Survival depended on being part of a family group.

At certain times during the year and at agreed locations the whole tribe would gather together to conduct necessary tribal business including dispute resolution. When children neared the age of becoming an eligible mating partner, the men took the boys for initiation rites and the women took the girls for initiation rites. There were complicated rules to prevent relationships between close blood lines.

Picture an area of some 240 km2 and that would be a tribal area or country. Within it the various family groups are moving independently. Place names within country either describe geographical features, or the specific flora and fauna of a sub area, or the tribal purpose of the area. Therefore the next family group to pass where your family group has had a sojourn is most likely to be another family group within the tribe. Making sure your family group didn’t deplete the resources of a sub-area meant that the next family group to stay in that sub-area would have enough to survive.

You could think of this locality as a submerged mountain range. Which means getting anywhere other than along the waterline is going to be up hill and down dale, over rocks and timbered terrain with an occasional cave or hard rock surface. Therefore it made a lot of sense to leave tools made of natural materials where the next family group could find and use them than to carry them from place to place. In hospitality to each other on hard rock surfaces simple images of the safe game to hunt were painstakingly carved, or sometimes simple images conveying other messages to the initiated.

The other thing about this locality was the threat of flood, bushfire and drought. Anything built would either get washed away or burned away, so it truly was pointless to build anything permanent. But what was possible was working with the seasons and the locations of flora and fauna to obtain the best outcomes for everyone.

Here’s an example: In most places the tree line came down to the waterline. But there were areas that were flat, having been built up by natural sand deposits from the beach. These places were covered with native grasses due to specific cultivation. At the right time of year when the wind was in the necessary direction this flat land would be set on fire in such a way that the fire went towards the beach and burnt itself out for lack of fuel. The fire did two things: it dissuaded trees from growing and the fresh shoots of grasses after the fire would attract game animals. What this meant was that when the tribe gathered annually in that location to be together there was a plentiful food supply.

If someone was guilty of grave misdemeanor there was effective punishment. The miscreant was obliged to become the ‘first taster’ of the family group. Until a new miscreant emerged, the current miscreant became the go-to person to test whether a food stuff was poisonous or not, and if a food stuff was sufficiently ripe or not. The rest of the group would wait a day or two to see what happened to the first taster before sampling the food stuff themselves. As both a deterrent strategy and as a way of safeguarding the group from toxins it is quite brilliant.

What we often fail to appreciate is that this way of life was so successful that it didn’t need to change. It had remained a successful way of life through long stretches of drought and through long stretches of rain, through hail, storm and bushfire. It was a way of life sufficiently adaptable that paradigm change wasn’t necessary.

What this culture did do was to closely observe the natural environment. They studied the plants, the animals, the weather patterns and the landscape patterns. It wasn’t for interest, it was for survival. If you studied the life cycle and the migration patterns and eating patterns of the kangaroo then the hunt would be more successful. Not only did they study, but they used what they had learned in dancing in imitation of kangaroo and emu and through that medium passed knowledge to the younger members.

Stories were passed down from generation to generation which contained not only knowledge of the local animals but also moral lessons. On the surface they were simple and entertaining stories, but they had multiple layers of meaning. The deeper layers of meaning were only taught when a member was considered ready to learn them. This is not dissimilar to memory by association techniques.

These patterns of listening and observing the created world, and the stillness necessary for successful observation meant that this ancient culture was also in tune with the spiritual realms. Most tribes would be in tune with the good, the true and the beautiful, but some tribes would align with the darker elements in the spirit world. Not everything in the dreamtime is safe. Human beings wherever they reside are capable of both cruelty and gentleness; they thrive under good leadership and they suffer under poor leadership.

When the explorers arrived in 1770 with their western eyes they saw a natural landscape bereft of built structures; no stone structures like the Aztecs, no tents like the native Americans, no huts like the Polynesians. What they didn’t have eyes to see was a respectfully and minimally cultivated native landscape with everything needed for the survival of an ancient culture.
The description of the land as terra nullius was incorrect and wrong, yet convenient for a small island nation with dense population and many persons convicted of crime to punish. It was the first injustice upon which other injustices were perpetrated.

If not for help the native peoples gave to these strange idiots who were beginning to starve due to lack of local knowledge, the fledgling colony would not have survived. This pattern of help was repeated as explorations and new settlements began. When a convict absconded into the woods, or when someone got lost or shipwrecked, native tribes enabled them to survive.

Due to terra nullius the governor of the colony felt free to award large areas of land firstly to non-convicts, and later to convicts who had either proved themselves useful or who had served their time. No consideration was given to the what the native tribes had used these tracts of land for. The more important the ancient land use, the more likely native retaliation would be, and ancient weapons - lethal though they could be - were no match for guns.

The native population only had naturally occurring sugars in their diet from honey and berry-like fruit. Therefore the introduction of complex sugars and especially alcohol had severe effects including addiction and diabetes. Neither were they immune to the diseases that the settlers brought with them. Due to this many lives were lost prematurely.

When settlers began looking further afield than the Sydney colony there were two motives; one to find farm land with which to feed the colony and the other to exploit any other resources they found to the best of their ability. Hence the deforestation of cedar trees in the Brisbane Water area, and the commercial harvesting of seafood, particularly crayfish. No consideration was given to the impact of these exploitive activities upon the stable ecosystems and the well-trodden hunting and gathering routes of the native tribes. Local resistance was met with violence, written complaints to colonial authority, and with imprisonment and deportation. Some natives were tried for snatching the equivalent of a cigar out of a local colonial bigwig’s hands, and sentenced to deportation to Tasmania. It was commuted to two years’ hard labour in iron chains quarrying rock on a rocky outcrop island near Newcastle.

The net effect over several decades of occupation was the genocide of some native tribes and the decimation of other tribes. Since the early settlers had a very high male to female ratio of inhabitants many of the local tribeswomen were impregnated against their will and the resulting children suffered from not fully belonging to either culture. Such practices broke down the kinship bonds designed to transmit culture from one generation to the next.

The losses sustained by the native tribes are incalculable.

Sadly it has taken almost 235 years for us to begin to understand those immense losses.

This cannot have been God’s original plan.

Only the evil one is known for robbing, killing and destroying.
The losses of the early decades were followed up by the White Australia policy, and the systematic destruction of families by taking the children of native tribes to be raised in anglo-celtic families, and continued with other government policies which ultimately harmed more than helped.

So what could have been God’s original plan, and what’s behind this implacable hatred of the evil one for the native peoples of this land?

God’s plan must have been that we should learn the best from each other in order to build a completely new society based on respect for God, respect for creation, the cherishing of family life and the mutually beneficial sharing and conserving of resources.

Why the evil one’s hatred? Because this ancient culture was remarkably resilient against temptation to sin. Because it had so much good to teach and bequeath to humanity. Consider that greed, the root of all evil, did not have a foothold in this culture. Sloth is deadly in a survival culture, so it didn’t have much of a foothold either. That’s why the vehement desire for it to be snuffed out, disfigured and destroyed as quickly as possible.

Yet despite that hatred, despite the areas of genocide, the threads of that ancient culture are being slowly put back together with each artefact return, with each rediscovery of the wisdom in ancient practices and in ancient stories, and with each discovery of the gentle imprints upon the land by the ancient cultures. The deposit of good is beginning to be treasured as it should have been from the beginning.

What can we do to co-operate with God’s Plan?
​
We can ask God’s pardon and mercy upon all the sins and crimes perpetrated against the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God’s blessing upon the descendants of the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God to recompence the native peoples for all the losses and injustice they have suffered.
We can ask for God’s perfect will to be accomplished in this land.
We can work on eradicating greed and sloth from our own lives.

​Yesterday I was asked a question about the validity of incorporating rituals from Australian indigenous culture into church events, especially 'welcome to country' and 'smoking ceremonies'.

The questioner had recently read this article, and understandably was disturbed by it https://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2019/11/25/australia-my-country-the-smoking-ceremony-and-its-effects

I mistakenly thought that his worries were due to this report about the recent Australian Catholic Youth Festival in Perth http://bernardgaynor.com.au/2019/12/18/observations-from-the-australian-catholic-youth-festival/

That's one side of things.

Then there is this other side summed up by St John Paul II in his address to Australian indigenous peoples: "You are part of Australia and Australia is part of you. And the Church herself in Australia will not be fully the Church that Jesus wants her to be until you have made your contribution to her life and until that contribution has been joyfully received by others."

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1986/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861129_aborigeni-alice-springs-australia.html

and also in

http://romawaterman.com/the-black-stallion/

Both of these positive visions are worth re-reading slowly.

How I replied to my friend went something like this. When it comes to these ceremonies, intention matters, and the careful selection of who leads them matters. As always we need to discern if malice is intended, and if so, to act decisively against that.

Yet we are also called to embrace the good in the cultures that we find, and to preserve and use that good. The Maori's have greatly enriched New Zealand, and the world, with their wisdom, rituals of welcome and the Haka.

So what we are looking for is a carefully discerned 'both/and' not an either/or; and I do recognise that we all shy away from the things that are strange to us.

There are plenty of examples of bad inculturation around, which means that we have to do better and work harder at producing healthy inculturation which is genuine and not just done because it is seen as being politically correct.

When it comes to 'Welcome to Country', there are good values worth preserving. It is good for us to acknowledge that we are part of a continuum, and that we owe much to those who have gone before us, whether they Aboriginal elders past and present, or whether they are the ones who built our parishes, schools, shopping centres and transport infrastructure. We inherit legacy from both sides, and as we partake of the fruits of those labours of theirs, it is only right and just to acknowledge and give thanks for that – although we should go further and actually pray for them too, and for ourselves that the dreams and visions that God implanted in them for this city, municipality, school, parish, diocese, recreation area would be completely fulfilled.

It would do us all good to grow in this type of respect. In the lives of St John Francis Regis and St John Vianney we read that whenever they came to a parish or diocesan boundary they would pray and invoke the assistance of the holy angel to whose care that parish or diocese had been entrusted.

Smoking ceremonies and indigenous sprinkling rites I admit I am more ambivalent about, firstly after reading about the possible dark sides of those rites, and secondly because we have legitimately good holy water that is far more spiritually effective anyway if used in faith.

However I admit that the more bush fire seasons I live through, the more the symbol of smoke as cleansing and uniting becomes meaningful. Smoke speaks of facing unknown dangers together in solidarity. Smoke speaks of the abundant renewal that comes to our bushland once a bush fire has come through it. Smoke speaks of holding onto what is essential as you rebuild life after a fire, and letting go of what is not essential. Smoke speaks of managing resources for the good of all generations, by regularly keeping the build-up of undergrowth under control with hazard reduction fires.  It makes sense to substitute sprinkling rites in places where there is high fire danger.

Definitely there are good values embedded in these ceremonies, but we do need to exercise prudence and get any chants and indigenous language used in them translated carefully from several translators.

It certainly doesn't hurt for us to relearn the truths that our actions have both natural and spiritual consequences, to learn greater respect for the Holy Spirit and to remove anything occult from our lives.

There are still treasures from indigenous culture that have yet to be fully valued, evaluated in light of the Gospel and welcomed into the kingdom of God. And there are still treasures of the Gospel that have yet to have their turn of enriching indigenous culture. We still have much to learn on both sides.

​May the Holy Spirit and the holy angels of God always assist us as we take up this challenge. Amen.

St John Paul the great, pray for us.
St Paul VI, pray for us.
All holy friends of God from the Australian indigenous nations, pray for us.
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.