The rise and fall of crime

The rise and fall of crime 

Crumbling crime rates in the face of media sensationalism

By Ranting Panda, 14 July 2024

Every day we are saturated with media reports of violent crime, youth crime waves, car-jackings, home invasions, murders, and on the list goes as journos breathlessly sensationalise the gory details in an effort to instill fear in the viewer. 

Much of this reporting is politically motivated. Certain right-wing media outlets are constantly reporting on any crime they can sensationalise while charging Labor politicians with neglect and responsibility. Of course, they don't hold Liberal party governments to the same level of accountability.

In 2013, when Campbell Newman romped to power in Queensland, he took the 'pooper scooper' (in his words) to the public service. One of the first groups to go were child safety workers. He also decimated police inspectors and shut youth mental support facilities. Each of these actions directly removed the very support that young people needed that would help them avoid a life of crime. Did the media hold him to account? Of course not. Instead, they blamed the incoming Labor government for the youth crime 'crisis', as did the LNP from the opposition benches. 

Be that as it may, is it true that there is a crime crisis? Is it true that crime is worse now than ever before? 

These are important questions because if the answer to this is 'no', then we risk politicians implementing laws that are merely knee-jerk reactions to media sensationalism, which may exacerbate crime rather than reduce it. If the answer to these questions is 'no', then we need to consider what has been happening to reduce crime over the years and ensure that those factors are either encouraged or at least not hampered. 

Similarly, it's important to understand the demographic of the people responsible for crime. If we blame the wrong demographic for the rise in crime, then the real perpetrators may not be adequately addressed. For example, is there really a youth crime wave, or are there other demographics responsible for a larger volume of violent crimes?

The answer to these questions depends on the time period that crime is measured over. Crime, like other things in the world, tends to fluctuate. Given that there are also different types of crimes, there may be a spike in one type while others fall. 

Let's look first at whether there is a youth crime 'crisis'. Youth crime is actually at an all-time low. This is based on the number of unique offenders. What we're seeing is that there are fewer young people committing crimes than at any other time in the last 20 years. 

Sato (2024)

The demographic responsible for much of the crime is aged between 30 and 39. Out of 19,977 assaults in Queensland, the 30-39 age group committed 4,761 of the crimes, while those aged between 10 and 17 committed 4,041.

Sato (2024)

Although there are fewer younger people are responsible for the assaults, that demographic has a higher rate of recidivism than adult criminals. This is also reflected in data across Australia, which shows that the average age of offenders is increasing, while there are fewer young people offending (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 102). The higher recidivism rate gives the appearance that youth crime is out of control, when in fact, there is less likelihood of a young person being involved in crime and an increasing likelihood of someone older being involved in a crime. 

Recidivism rates (Sato, 2024)

Everywhere we look, there are reports of youth crime being out of control. To reiterate the above, youth crime is trending downwards. The following table breaks youth crime down by Australian states. Despite the occasional fluctuation, youth crime has described dramatically over the last 10 years. 

Goldsworthy, Brotto & Cawthray (2023)

It's important to understand these figures because it determines how governments should be responding to crime. If they were to only address juvenile crime at the expense of adult crime, it is clear that crime will continue to rise. If they simply target juveniles, then that would also be a mistake, because juveniles are less likely to be engaged in violent crime. However, there should be programs in place to address the recidivism rates in young people. 

Let's look at other crimes. 

The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan at Pentridge Prison, Victoria, in 1967. He was hanged for murdering a prison guard. In the 20 years or so after capital punishment was finally abolished in all states of Australia, murder rates dropped. The following charts were produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1987, showing that numbers of homicides increased since 1965, but as a rate per 100,000 of population, homicides had actually decreased. 

Potas & Walker (1987)

Further to this, murder rates in Australia have continued decreasing since 1986, when there were 2.19 murders per 100,000 of population. By 2021, murders had reduced to 0.74 per 100,000 people (Macrotrends n.d). In 1993, there were 697 murders in Australia. In 2023, there were 409. In the 20 years between 1998 and 2018, the homicide rate declined by 67% (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 245).

Data sources from Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020, 2024)

One of the explanations for the decline in murder rates is improvements in emergency medical treatment. However, attempted murder also declined significantly. Between 2001 and 2017, murder rates in Australia dropped by 50%, while attempted murder dropped by 70% (Weatherburn & Rahmann 2021, p. 24). 

Since 2008 in Australia, assaults have declined by 45%, from 3.1% of persons aged over 15, to 1.7% in 2023. Threatened assault has declined by 43%, from a high of 4.2% to 2.4% in 2023. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

During the same period, robberies decreased by 67%, from 0.6% to 0.2%.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

Sexual assaults, however, saw an increase of 67% since 2008. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

 

There have been significant declines in almost all other crimes in Australia, which is also reflected across other western nations. In the United States, between 1993 and 2017, violent crime rates fell by 74%, while there was a 69% reduction in property crime rates. During that period, crime rates significantly dropped in other western countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

Timings of the crime rate drops differ from country to country. In Canada and the US, it began in the early 1990s. In the UK, it began in the mid-1990s, while significant declines in homicide in Australia began in the late 1980s. Property crime rates began declining in Australia from 2001 and declines in assault began in 2008. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

There are a variety of factors that have contributed to this. Some theories postulate that the crime drop was a result of the decline in the crack cocaine market. That might explain the United States, but doesn't explain jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There have also been improvements in home security and in tracking stolen goods which may have contributed to a reduction in property crimes. Since 2002, pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers in Australia are legally required to be presented with proof of identity and ownership (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 168). A possible contributor to the reduction in property crime is the rapidity with which products are bought to market and the use of perceived obsolescence. In other words, people want the latest 'things', so the time within which to steal and turn around the sale of stolen goods is dramatically shorter than it used to be (Ibid, p. 194). Generally, people don't want to buy, or at least not pay much for the last model of iPhone or other devices.

Theft of motor vehicles has also declined, which may be attributed to engine immobilisers, labelling of parts with micro-dots and stricter regulation of the used car market, such as through the Written-Off Vehicles Register (WOVR), which records if a vehicle has been stolen (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 174). One interesting theory is that the reduction in stolen vehicles has a knock-on effect in reducing other crimes that are reliant on a stolen vehicle to transport criminals or stolen goods. However, criminals are general inventive and would usually find other ways to conduct their crimes (Ibid, p. 176).

Some have even postulated that crime reduction is linked to legalised abortion, so there were fewer unwanted and neglected children going on to become criminals. The evidence on this is inconclusive.

Declines in assaults in Australia appears to be directly related to the lower consumption of alcohol, which is at its lowest since the early 1960s, with noticeable declines commencing in the mid-2000s. This has been primarily driven by significant reductions in alcohol consumption among young Australians (Livingstone & Pennay, 2015), along with the success of lock-out laws in night-club precincts (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 135).

In Australia, some commentators argued that the decline in crime was because of an unwillingness to report it. However, there has been no evidence that there is an unwillingness by victims to report crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p 24). The exception to this is the reporting of sexual assault, which is a crime that traditionally has had low levels of reporting. Unlike other crimes, sexual assaults are increasing, which could be an indicator that people are more willing to report it than in previous years. The 'Me too' movement may have provided encouragement for victims to come forward. 

Other crimes that have increased, are those associated with technology. Crimes such as identity theft and credit card fraud, either through cloning of cards or internet fraud have increased. The increased use of credit cards, however, has resulted in fewer robberies of people based on cash, which was a desirable target as it negated the need to sell goods (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 159, 238).

Politicians and the public often respond to sensationalist media reporting by calling for harsher penalties. However, punishment is not a significant deterrent. Yes, people should face justice for their crimes, but crime will not decrease through stricter punishments. Firstly, many criminals don't expect to get caught, so the threat of punishment means little to them. Jail is like a university for criminals. All that it teaches criminals is how to be better criminals. It provides networking opportunities, while also stigmatising prisoners so that they are often unable to gain meaningful employment afterwards. Without meaningful employment, they will return to a life of crime ... often just so that they can put food on the table. 

In 1997, mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in response to incessant media reporting of epidemic levels of home break-ins. The year after mandatory sentencing, the break-in rates were even higher (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 15). Even with the guarantee of harsh prison sentences, as opposed to bail or discretionary sentencing, crimes actually increased under the mandatory sentencing regime. Clearly, sentencing is not the deterrent that people think it is. 

Despite the media claiming that the courts are soft on crime, imprisonment rates have risen by 42% in Australia from 2001 to 2017. Almost 30% of this was between 2012 and 2017 (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 223). It is likely that this has contributed to some of the decline, however, it's also important to note that crime rates were already declining prior to this increase in sentencing (Ibid, p. 232).  

Even punishment as harsh as capital punishment provides little deterrent. In fact, there is some evidence to indicate that it may create a 'brutalising effect' and encourage acts of extreme violence, rather than act as a deterrent (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). It will certainly prevent recidivism, but murderers have a very low rate of recidivism anyway (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). Studies indicate that globally, jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty have not experienced any increase in murder rates (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 3). As we saw above, murder rates in Australia have declined significantly since capital punishment was abolished.

Advocates for firearms argue that the right to carry guns reduces crime. This doesn't apply in Australia since the 1996 gun buyback scheme and subsequent ban on certain types of firearms, although there are those here who believe that we should have the right to carry guns. In a study of data over a 14-year period, it was found that violent crimes in the United States were 13-15% higher in states that allowed citizens the right to carry firearms than in those that didn't. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 83).

Media sensationalism of crime has been going on for decades. The following is a list of headlines going back to the 1950s in Australia. They reflect the common trope, 'if it bleeds it leads'. Take away the dates and one would think they were headlines of today.

Brown & Hogg (1996, p. 176)

Politicians, such as Donald Trump and his feckless ilk, have blamed increased migration for increased crime. But as we can clearly see, crime is declining ... perhaps Trump et al should be focusing on maintaining or increasing migration if they think it's directly linked to crime rates. In Australia, the vast majority of our migration program is focused on skilled migration, so there is little need for migrants to commit crimes. Migrants, particularly those from non-English speaking countries, tend to have very strong extended family and community ties and therefore support from a wide network which is a crucial factor in minimising the likelihood of committing crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 59). Additionally, any migrant who is sentenced to a period or periods of 12 months or more detention will be removed from the country. It's imperative to note that they don't need to serve the sentence in full; they only need to receive the sentence to face visa cancellation and removal from the country. They could receive four sentences of three months each, all wholly suspended, and still be removed because the total cumulative head sentence is 12 months. While some migrants do commit crimes, it isn't as widespread as anti-migrant commentators would have us believe. 

In summary, factors that could explain the fall in crime, include (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, Chapters 2 and 3):

• Structural ageing of the population. As we saw above, the largest groups committing crime are aged up to 39. Australia and other western nations have more higher proportions of their population aged over 40 than they ever had. This could partly explain the drop in crime.
• Reduction in use of addictive drugs, such as heroin. Numerous studies have found a causal link between drug use and crime. This is partly due to the cost of drugs. The type of drug can also contribute to crime, e.g., methamphetamine which stimulates the user towards more aggressive behaviour. Heroin use has declined significantly, which could be a contributor to declining crime rates. Clearly, this isn't the only factor because crime has continued to decline after heroin use stabilised. Crime also declined in areas where heroin use was rare. 
• Reduction in alcohol use appears to have been a significant factor in the reduction of assaults (Ibid, p. 239).
• Improvements in home and vehicle security, as noted above, which has helped to reduce opportunities presented to criminals. There have also been security improvements in commercial buildings and street monitoring with CCTVs. By 2017, bank robberies declined by 97% since their peak in 1997, while street robberies declined by 86% at their peak in 2001. (Ibid p. 153). 
• Improved economic conditions, such as higher salaries and lower unemployment rates. A study in the UK found that property offending was three times higher when young people were unemployed than when they were employed (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 188). Another study found that where wages fell by 10% there was a corresponding '4.3% increase in property crime and 3% increase in violent crimes' (Ibid, p. 189). Economic factors could be something to watch as economic conditions start contracting. In Australia, housing affordability is declining, rents are increasing, and we are seeing an increase in homelessness attributed to these factors. If this continues, there could be an increase in crime based on this lack of affordability and availability of necessities, such as housing. 
• Increased policing. There is evidence to indicate that better deployment of police in targeting crime hot spots can reduce crime. However, simple numbers of police have marginal impact, whereas there is more efficacy through improvements in policing. Police are held more accountable now than ever following the various anti-corruption enquiries. Police have access to number plate recognition, drones, CCTV, biometric devices, DNA databases, and other technology that contribute to rapid identification of perpetrators (ibid, p. 207).
• Increases in imprisonment rates. As mentioned earlier, imprisonment tends to have only a small deterrence impact. The amount of money spent on incarceration could be better spent on policing or other measures and would likely result in a greater deterrence or reduction in crime. 
• Decline in the demand for stolen goods, because of lower prices for products and the rapid introduction of new products on the market, as well as greater regulation of the second-hand goods market.

Another contributing factor to declining crime rates is the change in social attitudes. Some commentators may label the current generation as 'woke' or 'politically correct' because of their desire to accept people for who they are (essentially 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'). The current push for so-called political correctness should not be disparaged, because it has resulted in greater respect for other people and a lower tolerance for anti-social and violent behaviour (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 149). The attitude of many now is to 'live and let live', to allow people to live their best lives without interference or criticism from others. It has resulted in people going out and enjoying themselves without tolerating harassment by others. There is less tolerance for violence, for anti-social behaviour and for domestic violence than in generations gone by. This coupled with a decline in alcohol consumption among people under 40, appears to be a significant contributor to the reduction in assaults (Ibid, p. 239).

It's clear that in Australia factors such as capital punishment and the right to carry firearms are irrelevant in explaining the decline in crime, so are not necessary responses to addressing crime in this country.

To truly reduce crime, there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. If we simply put on more cops, they are only going to be pursuing fewer criminals, regardless of what the media may claim. Responses to crime should include programs that proactively address the drivers that lead people into crime in the first place, which we can learn from the drivers of the current long-term crime reduction trends. It should also provide support programs for people once they're released from prison, to assist in reducing recidivism. 

The media should be telling the whole story and not sensationalising or fearmongering. Certainly, they should report on crimes being committed, but this should be balanced with contextualised and responsible reporting that explains why rates of most crimes have declined significantly. 

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020, 27 years of Recorded Crime – Victims data, 16 September, https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data#homicide-and-related-offences, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023, Crime Victimisation Australia - 2022/23, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/crime-victimisation-australia/2022-23#physical-assault, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024, Recorded Crime - Victims, 27 June, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Brown, D, & Hogg, R, 1996, Contemporary comment - Law and Order commonsense, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 8 Number 2, https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1996/31.pdf, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Crime Statistics Agency, 2024, Alleged Offender Incidents, https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-victorian-crime-data/alleged-offender-incidents-2, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Goldsworthy, T, Brotto, G, & Cawthray, T, 2023, Is Australia in the grips of a youth crime crisis? This is what the data says, The Conversation, 30 October, https://theconversation.com/is-australia-in-the-grips-of-a-youth-crime-crisis-this-is-what-the-data-says-213655, viewed 13 July 2024.

Livingston, M, & Pennay, A, 2015, Don’t believe the hype, teens are drinking less than they used to, University of New South Wales, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 21 May, https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/dont-believe-hype-teens-are-drinking-less-they-used, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Macrotrends, n.d., Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024, https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate, viewed 13 July 2024.

Potas, I, & Walker, J, 1987, Capital Punishment, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No 3, https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi003.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Queensland Treasury, 2023, Crime Report, Queensland 2021-22, Recorded crime statistics, https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/7856/crime-report-qld-2021-22.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024.

Sato, K, 2024, Violent crime nearly three times worse since 2020, Queensland statisticians find, and it's not youth, ABC News, 22 April, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/queensland-violence-on-rise-report-shows-not-just-youth-crime/103751192, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Weatherburn, D, & Rahmann, S, 2021, The Vanishing Criminal - Causes of Decline in Australia's Crime Rate, Melbourne University Press, https://www.mup.com.au/books/the-vanishing-criminal-paperback-softback.

--o0o--

Australia Day, 26 January - flying the flag for genocide

Australia Day, 26 January - flying the flag for genocide

by Ranting Panda, 21 January 2024

As Australia Day approaches on 26 January, there is the usual debate raging about the date. 

For many First Nations People it is a day of pain and suffering. It is the date that Captain Arthur Phillip raised the British flag, declaring the land a British colony. The date is not celebrating the establishment of Australia as a nation, but instead is celebrating colonisation, which brought violence, disease, slavery, and genocide to the First Nations population. The date is not one to be celebrated. Who the hell celebrates genocide and colonisation? The date should be changed.

Many other nations celebrate their national day and their national pride on dates in which they were liberated from colonisation. But Australia ... Australia celebrates the day it was colonised. In fact, it's the only country that celebrates its national day on the date it was colonised (Coopes 2023).

If we really want to celebrate the establishment of Australia, then there are other dates. For instance, 1 January 1901 was the date that Australia was formally created as its own nation. It is known as Federation, when the separate six British colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania were unified under one body known as the Commonwealth of Australia. 

Not surprisingly, conservatives who defend the current date, try to justify it in all sorts of ways. For instance, they will argue that those who want to change the date are living in the past and need to let go. Oh, the irony ... as these same conservatives are dying in a ditch to defend a date that celebrates events that occurred more than 200 hundred years ago. Who's living in the past?

The irony of conservatives continues as they carry on about Australia Day being stolen from them while they argue that First Nations People need to get over more than 200 years of theft of life, land and culture. 

There are some who argue that Australia Day does not celebrate the date of colonisation at all, but instead is celebrating the date that the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) came into effect, which was 26 January 1948. This Act created Australian nationality. However, Australia Day existed before this date and has always been about celebrating the colonising events of 26 January 1788. Australia's parliament chose 26 January 1948 to commence the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 specifically because of it coinciding with the date already being held for Australia Day. (AAP Fact Check, 2020). To perpetuate this date as a day of celebration is to perpetuate the celebration of colonisation and genocide. 

As the debate around Australia Day continues, so does the entrenched racism of many non-Indigenous Australians with claims that Australia wasn't invaded, but peacefully settled by the British. Some claim that it could have been worse had it been the Dutch or the Portuguese or the Spaniards who invaded. Except these type of statements white-wash the genocide, massacres, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuses, eugenics and inhumane treatment that the British unleashed on First Nations Peoples.

The British declared the land 'terra nullius', empty land, and then set about systematically claiming the land for themselves while forcibly displacing First Nations Peoples whom they felt were less than human, or at best, were inferior to white people.

Captain Arthur Philip, the first governor of New South Wales, is often portrayed as a philanthropist who befriended the people of the Eora Nation. Philip was initially committed to harmonious relations with First Nations people, however, this didn't last long. Phillip's gamekeeper, John Macintyre was a brutal man who killed dozens of First Nations People. When he got speared by a man named Pemulway, who took exception to Macintyre's brutality, Phillips gave the order to kill six First Nations People in retaliation (Macintyre, 2015).

Contrary to the opinion of some, the 'settlement' or 'colonisation' of Australia was not peaceful. Throughout the 19th century, most white communities considered themselves to be at war with the First Nations people. One coloniser remarked, 'But if ye take their country from them, and they refuse to acknowledge your title to it, ye are at war with them; and, having never allowed your right to call them British subjects, they are justified by the usages of war in taking your property wherever they find it, and in killing you whenever they have an opportunity' (Reynolds, 2000). These wars, of which there were many, have come to be known as the Frontier Wars. If anything gives credence to the claim that this was an invasion, it is the number of wars and massacres that occurred during this time.

Historians have compiled an online map of massacres, with a massacre defined as the killing of more than six people. Between 1788 and 1872 there were approximately 184 massacres, killing an estimated 3,598 First Nations people. The Tasmanian Black War annihilated almost the entire First Nations population of the island (University of Newcastle, n.d.). These massacres do not include the ongoing clashes between settlers and First Nations people where there were fewer than six people killed. Nor did the massacres end in 1872. As late at 1928, massacres were occurring. That year saw the Coniston Massacre in the Northern Territory, in which at least 60 First Nations men, women and children were murdered by police (Sutton, 2013).

The 50th anniversary of colonisation, otherwise known as Foundation Day (the precursor to Australia Day), was held on 26 January 1838. It was marked by a government ordered massacre of around 40 Kamilaroi people at Waterloo Creek. Over the coming weeks, up to 200 more First Nations People were killed. Six months later, the Myall Creek massacre resulted in the murders of 300 First Nations people, many of whom were decapitated and burned by the occupying forces (University of Newcastle, n.d.).

According to former Prime Minister John Howard, 'there was no genocide against Indigenous Australians' (Davidson, 2014). Tell that to Tasmania where almost the entire population was wiped out. Tell it to the thousands of victims of massacres.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, perpetuating the white superiority that Australia was founded on, stated that white 'settlement' was good for Aboriginal people (Thorpe, 2018). Abbott has a long history of racist comments about First Nations People and demonstrating a complete lack of cultural awareness. In 2014, he perpetuated the concept of terra nullius when he stated that when the First Fleet landed, Sydney was nothing but bush. He went on state that from the First Fleet we now have 'one of the most spectacular cities on our globe' (Henderson, 2014). No mention of the exploitation or contribution of First Nations people to Australia's history. Sadly, the colour TVs of modern society came at a high cost. Abbott has ignored the fact that modern Australia was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the First Nations People, who were exploited, raped and murdered at the hands of white settlers.

Colonisation amounted to ethnic cleansing of the land. Much of the First Nations population was forcibly removed and relocated to areas they often had no links with, without recognition of their traditional boundaries, nor of the intricate marriage structures they had in place with neighbouring groups.

It wasn't like the government didn't know what it was doing. For the centenary celebrations to be held on 26 January 1888, then NSW Premier, Henry Parkes, was asked if First Nations people would be included in the festivities. Parkes replied, 'And remind them that we have robbed them?' (Wahlquist & Karp, 2018). Even back then, the centenary celebrations were cause for reflection and criticism because of the date representing the convict past of New South Wales, which some people felt was best not celebrated (Chang, 2017).

Some of the white overlords wanted to 'breed out the coloured population'. Over the years, white people began breeding with First Nations People. Not all of this was consensual. The white settlers often raped the women. It was noted by a number of influential people, such as AO Neville, Western Australia's Chief Protector of Aborigines (an Orwellian misnomer if ever there was one), that Aboriginal people would eventually be bred out, which he articulated in his 1947 book, Australia's Coloured Minority: It's Place in the Community' (Museums Victoria Collections, n.d.). It was common belief that pure-blood First Nations people were of inferior genetic stock and would eventually die out (Eugenics Archives, n.d.).

In what amounted to eugenics, for decades the white overlords controlled who First Nations People married, stole their mixed-blood children and aimed to encourage breeding with white people to 'breed the colour out'. The government claimed that the children were removed because of abuse in their family situations. However, the white idea of abuse was often the perception that pure-blood First Nations people were considered to be inferior to white people and incapable of raising mixed-blood children. Additionally, the government did not want traditional customs to be taught to children. For that matter, they didn't want First Nations people practising their culture at all. One of the aims of forced removal was to teach mixed-blood children the ways of western civilisation (Buti, 2000).

It was common for First Nations females (adults and children) to work as domestic servants in white households, usually only being paid with food and accommodation. Many of them were raped and bashed by their white masters. First Nations men were forced to work on their own lands that had been taken over by the colonisers. The men were also paid with food. From 1897, numerous pieces of legislation  gave the Queensland government power over the wages and savings of First Nations people. Other states had similar legislation. This meant that money earned by First Nations people was held in trust, however, it was rarely, if ever, returned to the people who earned the money (Kidd, 2000). This lasted until 1972, when government control over wages ceased. Even then, First Nations people were still being paid less than non-Indigenous people. Wage equality wasn't finalised until 1986. Since then, there have been numerous legal challenges to recover the money held in trust. In 2002, the Queensland Government created the Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparation Offer, which was capped at $55.6 million. This was only for living workers and was not designed to be paid out to families of deceased workers. In 2004, the New South Wales government apologised for stolen wages. There is a class action underway at the moment regarding stolen wages (Korff, 2018).

Far too many Australians believe that these issues concluded 200 years ago and that First Nations people should just 'get over it'. However, more than two centuries of government policy and social prejudice have formalised institutions that still exploit and abuse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to this day. They are over-represented in the court systems, often being arrested for crimes white people will never be arrested for. They are over-represented in deaths in custody. They suffer with sub-standard health care and education. Why should First Nations People be required to forget the sacrifices that their people made and the horrors that they endured? Australia remembers historical events on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. Most countries remember significant wars and battles, so why shouldn't Australia commemorate the Frontier Wars and honour the sacrifice of the First Nations People? No-one would tell Jews to get over the holocaust. Why should Australia's First Nations people 'get over' the genocide that they suffered? Besides, there's a difference between getting over something and remembrance. Some Jews have moved on from the holocaust, some haven't; but either way they still remember and commemorate it. Some Australians have not yet gotten over the cruelty of the Japanese in World War II. This was evidenced during the 2003 Rugby World Cup, when Townsville embraced the games played by Japan. Some locals were horrified that other locals were carrying Japanese flags and wearing Japanese jerseys. Either way, the city remembered and commemorated the anniversary of Battle of the Coral Sea and other events from the War in the Pacific. 'Getting over it' doesn't mean forgetting it or that there can be no remembrance or commemoration. 

As a way of celebrating Australia Day 2018, the Liberal Party in Victoria (then sitting in opposition), promised to ditch the cross-curriculum priorities of teaching students about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories in favour of teaching 'Australian values' and ... wait for it ... the Orwellian-titled 'principles of Western enlightenment' (SBS News, 2018). We've seen the Australian values that the extreme right-wing of the Liberal Party embrace: genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial purity, racism, xenophobia.

Contrast this with New South Wales, where the Labor Party (also then in opposition) promised to sign a Treaty with First Nations people which would recognise the historic wrongs of the past (Wahlquist, 2018b).

Australia Day has become a battle-ground between nationalist white Australians who feel First Nations people should just get over it, and those people who see it as Invasion Day, signifying the beginning of colonisation. Of course, there are Aussies who are not at either end of the spectrum, who are just happy to celebrate being Australian. A recent study found that most Australians don't care what day Australia Day is held (Gartrell, 2018). There are also First Nations People who are not in favour of moving Australia Day, while some are. However, most First Nations People, whether they want to move Australia Day or not, are in agreement on the need for acknowledgement and recognition of the atrocities their people have suffered, and continue to suffer. It is this lack of recognition that is one of the most hurtful issues.

Institutionalised racism perpetuates the argument over the date for Australia Day. In 2018, an article tried to argue that Australia wasn't invaded because if it was, then Native Title wouldn't apply. This is because United Nations Resolution 3314, the 'Right of Conquest', doesn't consider the descendants of the conquered and the conquerors as being two separate peoples if they are both equal under the law prior to World War II (Sufi, 2018). This article ignores the plain fact that First Nations people were not equal under the law prior to World War II. It completely glosses over, in fact ignores, the massacres and genocide, the ethnic cleansing, the eugenics, the institutionalised racism. This article argued semantics while ignoring dispossession. Further, Resolution 3314 specifically is discussing aggression between States. One could hardly argue that the First Nations People constituted a State, as there were hundreds of separate nations, no formal government and no head of state. Further, Article 7 of this Resolution states:

Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.
(United Nations General Assembly, n.d.).

Sadly, people swallowed the 2018 article and shared it across social media, as though it completely shot down any claim of Australia's genocidal past. It is pure ignorance and empowers far too many people to continue the lack of recognition or understanding of the impact of colonisation on First Nations people.

The Australia Day holiday hasn't always been held on 26 January. Other dates included 24 May, which was introduced in 1905 as Empire Day and happened to be Queen Victoria's birthday. In 1915, Australia Day was held on 30 July. The Australian Natives Association lobbied for years for Australia Day to be held on 26 January. Don't get too excited about the name of this association, it was not an association of First Nations people. It was an association of white men with the aim to provide medical, sickness and funeral benefits to people born in Australia of European descent. The Association lobbied for federation, which was achieved in 1901. In the 1930s, it lobbied for 26 January being recognised as Australia Day. In 1935, this was achieved when all states agreed on the date. It wasn't until the 1940s that Australia Day was formalised as a national holiday. However, prior to 1994, the holiday was usually held on the nearest Monday to 26 January so that Australians could enjoy a long weekend. 26 January has been a day of controversy for First Nations People, a day that marks the invasion of their land, genocide, displacement, disadvantage, inequality and ongoing racism.

Protests against 26 January are not new. On 26 January 1938, the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, First Nations leaders met in Sydney for a Day of Mourning to protest the displacement and abuse that they had suffered since 1788 (Darian-Smith, 2017).

Meanwhile, the government showed how inclusive 1938's Australia Day was by forcing 25 First Nations people from Menindee Mission in far west NSW to perform in a re-enactment of the First Fleet. They were to play the part of retreating First Nations people and were told that their families would starve if they didn't do it (Volkofsky, 2018).

A variety of dates have been used for Australia Day (Chang, 2017)

The attitudes of two former Prime Ministers, Tony Abbott and John Howard, show that Australia has a long way to go in overcoming centuries of racism. Both of these men, by the way, claim to be Christians, defending Christian values. Apparently, ignoring genocide and institutionalised racism fits well with their version of Christianity.

Telling First Nations people to 'move on' because this 'happened 200 years ago', clearly shows that the same attitudes of 200 years ago still prevail in sections of the white community. Perhaps it is they who need to move on from their racist and ignorant views and accept that it is their very attitudes and approach to First Nations issues that are perpetuating the inequality First Nations People experience to this day.

For three days in May 2017, First Nations leaders from around the country met at Uluru to discuss whether a constitutional change was required to recognise First Nations People. This followed six months of consultations with First Nations people across the country. At the end of the three day summit, the leaders presented the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which included a recommendation to establish a permanent First Nations body in federal parliament enshrined in the Constitution. This was a lengthy and democratic process that culminated in a pragmatic consensus of First Nations leaders and representatives. Yet the federal government rejected it. Prime Minister Turnbull said no. He said no to the wishes of the majority of our First Nations people (Brennan, 2017).

In 2023, then Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese (Labor), held a referendum to amend the Constitution to provide for a Voice to Parliament for First Nations People. The Liberal Party and various conservative groups embarked on a fear-mongering campaign to defeat the proposal. After more than 200 years, First Nations People are still not being listened to ... and the centuries-old racist views still prevail in many areas of modern Australian society. 

Australia Day has been subject to a white-washing of history. It is not a 'black arm-band' view of history to tell the truth about what happened and is still happening to this day. It is about recognition and honesty. Truth-telling is exceptionally important for reconciliation.

Move Australia Day to a day that is not linked to the bloodshed and dispossession of First Nations People. Choose a day that is less divisive and doesn't represent the invasion of this land.

While some First Nations People want it to stay on 26 January, two quotes by First Nations people explain why it should be moved (Wahlquist, 2018a):

Karen Mundine, chief executive of Reconciliation Australia, stated, 'Asking Indigenous people to celebrate on January 26 is like asking them to dance on their ancestors' graves'.

Richard Weston of the Healing Foundation states, 'For most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, January 26th is a reminder of the pain and loss caused by 230 years of dispossession, dislocation and mistreatment. It is impossible to celebrate when it brings to mind the deep hurt borne by our ancestors and how that suffering continues to impact us today'.

Of course, another solution could be to have a day of recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Australian Capital Territory has announced that 28 May 2018 will be the first Reconciliation Day public holiday. Each year the holiday will be held on the Monday on or immediately after 27 May (Public Holidays, n.d.), which is the anniversary of the 1967 referendum in which Australians voted to amend the Constitution to allow First Nations people to be counted in the census and to access better services (State Library of Victoria, n.d.)

There are better dates that can be selected for Australia Day.

• 1 January - Australia only became Australia on 1 January 1901 when the state colonies federated into one nation.
• 13 February - the date in 2008, when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations.
• 20 March - the date in 1913, that Canberra was selected as the Australian capital city.
• 9 May - Australia's Federal Parliament was first opened on this date in 1901. It was the day that Australia's newly proclaimed Constitution truly took effect, with the new Parliament operating under it (Ketchell, 2023).
• 11 April - the date in 1973 that the White Australia policy (Immigration Restriction Act 1901) was abolished and replaced with the Migration Act 1973.
• 19 April - the date in 1984, when Advance Australia Fair was proclaimed as the Australian national anthem. The National Australia Day Committee recommended that the song be reduced to two verses and have modifications to the lyrics, as they still sung about England. The lyrics of the first two verses that have been adopted, now talk of the multicultural nature of Australia. 
• 27 May - the date of the 1967 referendum that resulted in Australia's First Nations people being granted Constitutional rights, including the right to vote and to be included in the census.
• 3 June - the date of the Mabo decision in 1992 that overturned the colonial concept of terra nullius and recognised land rights for First Nations people. 
• 9 July - the date in 1901 that Queen Victoria consented to the Constitution of Australia
• 17 September - the date in 1900 that the Commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed.
• 3 December - the date in 1854 of the Eureka Stockade being attacked by British forces, while the locals fought for their liberty. Incidentally, the Southern Cross flag flown at the Eureka Stockade has since been appropriated by nationalists as a flag for white Australia, however, on 30 November 1854, Rafael Carboni, a writer in Ballarat described the real purpose of the Southern Cross flag, when he wrote: 'Irrespective of nationality, religion and colour, I call on you to salute the 'Southern Cross' as the refuge of all the oppressed from all countries on earth' (Carboni, 1854). It is the flag that best represents the multi-cultural country of Australia, it is the flag of the refugee and the migrant, of all who have contributed to making Australia the nation it is today.

Whether Australia Day is moved or not, and certainly while it remains on 26 January, we must stop ignoring the issues past and present. As a start, at least acknowledge and recognise these matters which still affect First Nations People to this day. This isn't about wallowing in the past, it is about remembrance ... and it isn't the only day of remembrance held.

Consider that the First Nations population of Australia in 1788 was more than 777,000, by 1900 it had fallen by 85% to around 117,000 (Korff, 2023). More than 650,000 were killed by military action, murders by settlers, and disease. Imagine if Australia of today, with a population of 24 million, was invaded by a foreign force and subject to similar death rates; it would experience more than 20 million people dead. Surely there would be a day of remembrance! Why should this be any different for First Nations People?

By today's definition, it was genocide. While the term didn't exist until the 20th century, the definition of genocide under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which applies in both times of peace and times of war, is (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (United Nations, n.d.). Each of these actions were undertaken against First Nations People, whether it be by the violent actions of the military and settlers, government policies that dehumanised First Nations people, the eugenics discussed above, the slave-like conditions they were forced into, the stolen wages, and of course the Stolen Generations. No other people group would be expected to forget this or told to just 'get over it'.

'Getting over it' doesn't mean forgetting it or that there can be no remembrance or commemoration. 

Telling First Nations people that these things belong in the past is to ignore the fact, that those actions of the past are still felt to this day. For instance, almost every Aboriginal community that the government is fond of criticising, was created by the government as it relocated different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups to common areas, which they then also used for shipping Pacific Islanders to (remember the Pacific slave-trade, then known as black-birding? Another shameful moment in Australian history).

Campaigns to change the date are not new. First Nations people have been protesting against 26 January since at least 1938. This isn't the result of the modern phenomenon of 'political correctness gone mad', that some people like to use as some sort of ubiquitous boogey-man to hide their racism and ignorance.

Why forget the sacrifices of the First Nations people of the past? Why forget about the racist behaviours and policies that empowered the abuse of First Nations people? As Italian philosopher, George Santayana wrote, 'Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it'. The anger by many Australians about the calls for a change of date, and even just to remember First Nations history, vividly demonstrates why it is imperative that we do not gloss over or forget the past abuses and the present issues faced by First Nations People.

No-one is being held accountable for the massacres of the 19th century, however, we are all accountable for the institutionalised racism and ignorant, racist views of people today, some of whom are political leaders who have their heads in the sand about First Nations history and current affairs ... which is also part of Australia's history. If they are so keen to celebrate Australia, then they should understand and recognise all of Australian history ... the good and the bad. 

Lest We Forget!


References

AAP Fact Check, 2020, No, this is not ‘the real reason’ Australia Day is celebrated on January 26, AAP Fact Check, 24 January, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-this-is-not-the-real-reason-australia-day-is-celebrated-on-january-26/. Viewed 21 January 2024. 

Brennan, B, 2017, Indigenous leaders enraged as advisory board referendum rejected by Malcolm Turnbull, ABC News, 27 October, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/indigenous-leaders-enraged-by-pms-referendum-rejection/9090762. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Buti, A, 2000, Unfinished Business: The Australian Stolen Generations, Australasian Legal Information Institute, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, December, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2000/45.html. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Carboni, R, 1855. 'The Eureka Stockade', chapter XXIX, location 642, Kindle version. Amazon Digital Services, Inc, ASIN B004TP1N5I, 24 March 2011. (Digital version of original book published in 1855).

Chang, C, 2017, Debunking the myth of Australia Day, News.com.au, 29 August, http://www.news.com.au/national/debunking-the-myth-of-australia-day/news-story/e8bea4ede13fabb9f303b75dcdc50a69. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Coopes, R, 2023, Changing view of January 26th, Stronger Smarter Initiative, 24 January, https://strongersmarter.com.au/changing-views-of-january-26th, Viewed 21 January 2024.

Darian-Smith, K, 2017, Australia Day, Invasion Day, Survival Day: a long history of celebration and contestation, The Conversation, 26 January 2017, https://theconversation.com/australia-day-invasion-day-survival-day-a-long-history-of-celebration-and-contestation-70278. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Davidson, H, 2014, John Howard: there was no genocide against Indigenous Australians, The Guardian, 22 September, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/john-howard-there-was-no-genocide-against-indigenous-australians. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Eugenics Archives, n.d., The Stolen Generations, http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/53d8321a4c879d0000000012. Accessed 21 January 2024.

Gartrell, A, 2018, Most don't care when Australia Day is held, poll finds, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-dont-care-when-australia-day-is-held-poll-finds-20180116-h0j0w9.html. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Henderson, A, 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott describes Sydney as 'nothing but bush' before First Fleet arrived in 1788, ABC, 14 November, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-14/abbot-describes-1778-australia-as-nothing-but-bush/5892608. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Ketchell, M, 2023, Welcome to May 9 – the true Australia Day, The Conversation, 9 May, https://theconversation.com/welcome-to-may-9-the-true-australia-day-204555. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Kidd, R, 2000. Black Lives, Government Lies, UNSW Press.

Korff, J, 2018, Aboriginal culture - Economy - Stolen Wages Timeline, Creative Spirits, 4 November, https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/stolen-wages/stolen-wages-timeline. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Korff, J 2023, Aboriginal population in Australia, Creative Spirits, https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-population-in-australia. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Macintyre, 2015, Chapter 2 Newcomers, c. 1600 - 1792. A Concise History of Australia: Edition 4, Cambridge University Press.

Museums Victoria Collections, n.d., Book - AO Neville, 'Australia's Coloured Minority: Its Place in the Community', Currawong Publishing Co, 1947, Item HT 24038, https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/1496210. Viewed 21 January 2024.

On this Day, Australian History Timeline, https://www.onthisday.com/countries/australia. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Public Holidays, n.d., Reconciliation Day, https://publicholidays.com.au/reconciliation-day/, viewed 21 January 2024.

Reynolds, H. 2000, Chapter X - Confronting the Myth of Peaceful Settlement, Why Weren't We Told?, Penguin.

SBS News, 2018, Victorian Liberals vow to teach students 'Australian values', SBS News, Source: AAP, 24 January, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victorian-liberals-vow-to-teach-students-australian-values. Accessed 24 January 2018.

Sivasubramanian, S, 2016, Eight alternative days to celebrate Australia Day that are not January 26, The Conversation, 22 January, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/eight-alternative-days-to-celebrate-australia-day-that-are-not-january-26/ulb26ycps. Viewed 21 January 2024. 

State Library of Victoria, n.d., The 1967 Referendum, Ergo, http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/fight-rights/indigenous-rights/1967-referendum. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Sufi, S, 2018, Inconvenient fact: Native title can only exist if Australia was settled, not invaded, WA Today, 20 January, http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/inconvenient-fact-native-title-can-only-exist-if-australia-was-settled-not-invaded-20180119-h0l9hb.html. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Sutton, R, 2013, Remembering the Coniston Massacre, SBS News, 9 September, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/remembering-the-coniston-massacre/7lwdujx6n, viewed 21 January 2024. 

Thorpe, N, 2018, 'He's an idiot': Abbott's First Fleet 'good' for Aboriginal people comment met with outrage, SBS, NITV, 22 January, https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/01/22/hes-idiot-abbotts-first-fleet-good-aboriginal-people-comment-met-outrage. Viewed 21 January 2024.

United Nations, n.d., Genocide, Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml. Viewed 21 January 2024.

United Nations General Assembly, n.d., Resolutions Adopted By The General Assembly During Its Twenty-Ninth Session, 3314 (XXIX) Definition of Aggression, http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/GAres3314.html. Viewed 21 January 2024.

University of Newcastle, n.d., The Centre for 21st Century Humanities, Colonial Frontier Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788 - 1872, https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres. Accessed 21 January 2024.

Volkofsky, A, 2018, 'We thought we were going to be massacred': 80 years since forced First Fleet re-enactment, ABC News, 25 January, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/eighty-years-since-forced-first-fleet-reenactment/9358854. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Wahlquist, C, 2018(a), Celebrating Australia Day on 26 January like dancing on graves, says reconciliation body, The Guardian, 18 January, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/18/celebrating-australia-day-on-26-january-like-dancing-on-graves-says-reconciliation-body. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Wahlquist, C, 2018(b), NSW Labor plans to sign treaty recognising Indigenous ownership, The Guardian, 25 January, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/25/nsw-labor-plans-to-sign-treaty-recognising-indigenous-ownership. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Wahlquist, C & Karp, P, 2018, What our leaders say about Australia Day - and where did it start, anyway?, The Guardian, 19 January, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/19/what-our-leaders-say-about-australia-day-and-where-did-it-start-anyway. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Wondracz, A & Pidgeon, E, 2019, The Australia Day massacre nobody talks about: How up to 300 Aboriginals were slaughtered at Waterloo Creek, Daily Mail Australia, 28 January, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6638835/The-Australia-Day-massacre-talks-known-Waterloo-Massacre.html. Viewed 21 January 2024.

Original article published 25 January 2018. Reprinted and revised 27 January 2024.

Genocide in Palestine

Genocide in Palestine

By Ranting Panda, 13 November 2023

Yet again, Israel is portraying itself as the innocent victim and justifying its genocidal campaign in Gaza. 

Certainly, the attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023 targeting Israeli civilians and tourists were reprehensible. Unfortunately, these attacks were only ever going to result in one thing: Israel's disproportionate retaliation. The predictable Israeli response was swift, brutal and inhumane. The Israeli retaliation includes multiple war crimes. It has displaced more than one million people, and the deaths of more than 10,000, many of them children. 

Is Israel innocent in this? Israel claims it has a right to defend itself. This may be true if attacks by Hamas or other Palestinians were unprovoked, however, Israel has been murdering innocent Palestinians almost every single day of this year, and throughout every year since its illegal creation in 1948. In fact, prior to the Hamas attacks, 2023 had already been the deadliest year on record for children in the West Bank, with Israeli military forces murdering 38 children there (ReliefWeb, 2023a).

Israel has massacred more than 4000 Palestinian children in four weeks

How can Israel call this self-defence?

How can the world stand-by and tolerate Israel's crimes against humanity?

If Israel has a right to defend itself, then so does Palestine. 

Israel claims that it is only targeting Hamas and that any killings of Palestinian civilians are incidental. Yet, in the four weeks since Israel's retaliation, more than 4237 children in Gaza have been murdered by Israel (Defence for Children International 2023). Those are not incidental killings, they are not accidental killings. Israel's attacks on Gaza are deliberate and indiscriminate. Children represent almost half of the genocidal attack on Gaza, with more than 10,000 people massacred by the murderous Israeli regime. 

Israel prevents food and humanitarian supplies from entering Gaza. It deliberately punishes all of Gaza for the crimes of Hamas. This is collective punishment, which is a war crime (Human Rights Watch, 2023). 

The war crimes committed by Israel far outweigh anything being done by Hamas. Israel is also deploying white phosphorous in Gaza and Lebanon (Human Rights Watch, 2023). White phosphorous is a powder that sticks to skin, burning it off. The pain is excruciating and the injuries last a lifetime.  White phosphorous is illegal under international law. Israel has been using white phosphorous for years on civilians in Palestine without criticism from the international community. 

Any other country would be sanctioned and even find themselves before the Hague. More people have been murdered in Gaza in the last four weeks, than were killed in the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. Srebrenica resulted in numerous officers of the Bosnian Serb forces being found guilty of genocide and war crimes at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Former Yugoslavian president, Slobodan Milosovic was found guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, following the war between 1992 and 1995, which included the massacre at Srebrenica. 

When it comes to Israel's genocide in Palestine? Tumbleweeds from the international community. Netanyahu has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, while overseeing the ongoing displacement of Palestinians and theft of their lands for the purposes of moving illegal Israeli settlers in. This is a flagrant violation of international law, particularly article 49 of the Geneva Convention, and constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Amnesty International, 2019). Numerous UN resolutions have been issued against Israel for these ongoing crimes, but the international community does nothing to stop Israeli aggression and war crimes (ReliefWeb, 2023b). 

The international community ignores Israeli aggression

Israel accuses Hamas of using Palestinians as human shields, however, when these allegations have previously been investigated by human rights organisations, there were found to be false. Israel, on the other hand, puts its own people in harm's way (Peled, 2023). Israel uses its illegal settlers as human shields. It empowers them to steal land from Palestinians in the West Bank, to murder Palestinians without legal repercussions, to destroy or steal Palestinian homes. When Palestinians strike back ... Israel knows it will be the settlers who will be targeted because of their occupation
and theft of Palestinian areas. 

None of the excuses used by Israel resonates with any modern definition of human rights. Israel was founded on a Zionist lie that Palestine was a 'land without a people' and that the Jews were a 'people without a land'. Complete rubbish. Palestine had existed under that name for thousands of years. The Palestinians have millenia of heritage, and this included some of the Jewish tribes living in Palestine. However, the Zionist invasion that began in the late 19th century, was not from indigenous Jewish groups, but from European Jews whose ancestors were not from the Middle East. European Jews were predominantly descended from Ashkenazi Jews who had settled in Central and Eastern Europe, spreading into Russia and most of the European continent. They were not the Oriental Jews of the Middle East. Their ancestors were not from Palestine or any part of the Middle East. There is evidence many of them were descended from converts in Europe and Central Asia. The idea of a Jewish 'race' is fabricated with the only common denominator being their religion and their scriptures. Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, refer to their scriptures to justify modern Israel. Most of those scriptures are pure mythology. There is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Ancient Egypt. There is little evidence to support the existence of King David, who at best, was a minor tribal leader. There is no reliable evidence that King Solomon existed. For someone who was supposed to be so wealthy and powerful, surely there would be clear evidence of his existence. There is no evidence that Palestinian Jews were exiled by Rome. Some may have been moved to other parts of the Roman empire following the various rebellions, but there was no wholesale exile of all the Jews in Palestine.  

And even if todays Israelis were from the Middle East and even if the scriptures were true, so what?

It doesn't justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It doesn't negate millenia of history of people living in Palestine. 

There's no excuse for genocide. Not religious. Not political. No excuse!

Israelis and Zionists will claim that it is to ensure there's never another Holocaust ... all the while, they are unleashing their own Holocaust on Palestinians, massacring thousands of people every year, displacing millions. While no-one wants to see another Holocaust unleashed against Jews, we don't want to see it perpetuated against anyone. 'Never again' extends to all people.

End the Occupation of Palestine!

End the war crimes, end the ethnic cleansing, end the genocide in Palestine.

Free Palestine!

References

Amnesty International, 2019, Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law, 30 January, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law, accessed 4 November 2023.

B'Tselem, Statistics, https://www.btselem.org/statistics, accessed 4 November 2023.

Defence for Children International, 2023, 4,237 Palestinian children killed as Gaza becomes “graveyard for children”, 7 November, https://www.dci-palestine.org/4237_palestinian_children_killed_as_gaza_becomes_graveyard_for_children,  accessed 11November 2023.

Britannica, Bosnian War, https://www.britannica.com/event/Bosnian-War 

Britannica, Srebrenica massacre, https://www.britannica.com/event/Srebrenica-massacre

Human Rights Watch, 2023a, How Does International Humanitarian Law Apply in Israel and Gaza?, 27 October, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/27/how-does-international-humanitarian-law-apply-israel-and-gaza, accessed 4 November 2023.

Human Rights Watch, 2023b, Israel: White Phosphorous Used in Gaza, Lebanon, 23 October, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon, accessed 11 November 2023.

Masalha, N, 2018, Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History, Zed Books.

Peled, M, 2023, Thoughts from Amman, Jordan, 3 November, https://www.patreon.com/posts/thoughts-from-92204866, accessed 5 November 2023.

Reliefweb, 2023a, 2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank, 18 September, https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank, accessed 4 November 2023.

ReliefWeb, 2023b, Settlement Expansion in Occupied Palestinian Territory Violates International Law, Must Cease, Many Delegates Tell Security Council, 27 September, https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/settlement-expansion-occupied-palestinian-territory-violates-international-law-must-cease-many-delegates-tell-security-council, accessed 4 November 2023.

Sand, S, 2009, The Invention of the Jewish People, Verso Books, 1st Edition.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2023, Data on casualties, https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties, accessed 4 November 2023. 

---o0o---

Hear the Voice, not the dog-whistle

Hear the Voice, not the dog-whistle

By Ranting Panda, 22 April 2023

The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart brought together Indigenous people from all over the country. In consultation with hundreds of First Nations groups across Australia, it presented a unified statement. Of particular significance, was the comment: 'In 1967 we were counted. Now we seek to be heard'. 

One of the proposals to come out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, was the inclusion of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution. As with all constitutional change, this will require a national referendum in which there must be a double majority, that is, the majority of voters and the majority of states must vote for it.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart requested three things:

1. Voice

2. Treaty

3. Truth

The upcoming referendum is solely concerned with establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The other two items, Treaty and Truth are the subject of a Makarrata Commission. 

Following the release of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was appointed. The Committee considered the Uluru Statement and constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. In November 2018, the Committee handed down its Final Report. The 272-page report includes recommendations for the establishment of the Voice to provide advice to the government on legislation, policies and proposals that would impact Indigenous people. It should be noted, that this was not a Labor government initiative. In November 2018, the Liberal Party was in government and the feckless Scott Morrison was Prime Minister. The report details the process of consultation, the benefits of a Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, and examples of models that it may take. It is proposed to consist of two main streams, (1) Local and Regional Voices, and (2) a National Voice. The following image demonstrates how the Voice would operate.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice - Final Report
https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report

Rather than organisations representing Indigenous people, local and regional Indigenous people would be heard directly. They would vote on the composition of the National Voice, which is proposed to be comprised of 24 people covering 35 different regions. In this model, five of them would be from remote communities and three from the Torres Strait. The National Voice would work with local, state and federal governments. 

The Liberal Party has been demanding that the Labor government release details as to the workings of the Voice before the referendum is conducted. While it is understandable that people will want to know the ins and outs of the legislation, it has to be kept in mind that the Constitution doesn't work like that. The Constitution gives powers to government to make legislation in certain areas, such as defence, currency, and immigration. The Constitution does not detail what that legislation will look like. The change to the Constitution to allow for laws to create an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, will therefore be relatively short. As an example, in relation to making laws regarding taxation and the defence force, it states: 

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: 

(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States

(iv) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth

Taxation is the most complex legislation in Australia's vast body of laws. Yet, the Constitution confines it to one short statement. The Constitutional clause on the defence force doesn't even mention the air force. 

So, when people ask for more information about the Voice, they clearly don't understand how the Constitution works. The amendment to the Constitution will not set up the operation of the Voice, it will merely give Parliament the right to make laws regarding the Voice. Therefore, the government is unable to categorically state how the Voice will operate because those laws can't be enacted, or even proposed, until the Constitution is amended. As with all legislation, any proposed laws for the Voice will be subject to the parliamentary process before being enacted.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed that the proposed wording to be added to the Constitution if approved by the referendum, will be:

129  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: 

(i)  there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(ii)  the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(iii)  the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Nonetheless, all these calls for more information on the workings of the Voice show just how out of touch the opposition is. 

Having a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution provides much greater recognition of the rights of Indigenous people than merely relying on legislation that will be subject to the whims of the government of the day. The composition and operation of the Voice will be determined by separate legislation.  

Contrary to the Liberal Party's dog-whistling, The Voice does not create an additional tier of government. It is an advisory body, not a third chamber of parliament. The aim is not to divide Australia, but to ensure the rights of all are protected and heard. It is unifying, not divisive. Of course, the Liberal Party has a history of division and racism for political gain, whether exploiting xenophobia regarding refugees or homophobia regarding marriage equality. It can be expected that the Liberal Party will use fear and ignorance in the community to undermine the referendum for the Voice. It's one thing to have a genuine concern about amending the Constitution, it's another to exploit unfounded fears for political purposes.

Dutton's hyperbole was exposed as nothing more than dog-whistling when a report was released by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General on 21 April 2023. The report revealed that the Voice to Parliament would not create any impediment to Executive Government, nor would it 'clog up the courts' as Dutton has been suggesting. The report pointed out that it was already common for legal action to be taken against government decisions. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General has found that the proposed wording for the Constitutional amendment places no obligation on the Government to either seek, consider or accept the advice of the Voice. 

An example of the complete and utter rubbish that the Liberal Party is espousing, is the ludicrous and utterly false claim by Deputy Liberal leader, Susan Ley, that the Voice could veto traditions such as Anzac Day and Australia Day. The Voice has no such power. Ley, like Dutton, is attempting to whip up racist hysteria with bogus claims that can only appeal to the most base of racists in the community; people who clearly lack the critical analysis skills to challenge far-fetched garbage, simply because they are more willing to listen to lies that solidify their own small-minded, bigoted worldview, rather than listen to the truth.

There are some Indigenous people who oppose the idea of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice being enshrined in the Constitution. Like other groups, Indigenous people are not of one hive-mind; they have differences of opinions just like everyone else. Some view the referendum as Indigenous people having to beg for recognition from non-Indigenous people. Since European settlement, Indigenous people have been the victims of genocide, massacres, rapes, persecution, and discrimination. Therefore, having a national vote for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is anathema to many who have been victimised and persecuted by non-Indigenous people for generations. Nonetheless, there was significant consultation in the preparation of the Final Report on establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice - Final Report
https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report

Additionally, many Indigenous people fear that amending the Constitution to allow for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will not achieve anything; that it will just be another example of words without action. For instance, Kevin Rudd's apology in 2007 was long-overdue. Unfortunately, little was achieved. We then saw what happened under the Liberal government that came after the Labor government. The Liberals engaged in their usual fear-mongering and racism. They demonised Indigenous people, particularly those in the Northern Territory. Instead of consulting with the local Indigenous population, they sent in the Army. The Army! They engaged the military to assist in ostensibly restoring law and order to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. The military has no judicial powers, they can't charge people for crimes, they inflame the situation, not fix it. Because of their lack of judicial powers, the military provided logistical and administrative support to civil authorities. However, the impression that this 'Northern Territory Intervention' gave, was that the government had unleashed the military on Australian civilians, specifically, Indigenous people. The Liberals had justified this on disproven allegations about an organised paedophile ring in the Northern Territory, as well as high levels of abuse and neglect of children. The claims were found to have been either fabrications or misrepresentations of the actual situation, and certainly didn't justify a military response. In fact, it was found that it justified a consultative, cooperative response that engaged Indigenous people in developing solutions ... something such as the Voice.

These sort of draconian actions have oppressed Indigenous people since European invasion of this country. It's because of this that many Indigenous people want a Treaty, rather than simply a Voice. However, those who support the Voice, see it as a pathway to Treaty. On 23 February 2023, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, introduced into Parliament the Path to Treaty Bill 2023. The Bill was referred to the Community Support and Services joint parliamentary Committee for detailed consideration. The Committee considered the Bill and embarked on a period of public consultation, handing down its report on 21 April 2023. The Path to Treaty includes truth-telling and healing, which correlate with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which included Treaty and Truth. Queensland's Path to Treaty will eventually result in a signed Agreement between the Queensland Government and Indigenous people being able to come together as equals and 'write our future together'. Treaty is far more integrated than the Voice will be. The Voice is an important step on the roadmap to Treaty, which was identified in the Uluru Statement's three key requests, Voice, Treaty, Truth.

Dutton and other opponents of the Voice have claimed that there is a lack of transparency and information. Yet, the Final Report consisted of 272 pages explaining the process and recommendations. Additionally, there are numerous Reports, Fact Sheets and Newsletters available publicly: 

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/resources. 

If opponents of the Voice feel there's a lack of transparency, imagine how Indigenous people have felt over the years having no say or representation in the laws and policies that have directly impacted them. Just a few of these include the White Australia Policy, Stolen Generations, Indigenous stolen wages, Cashless Welfare Cards, and the Northern Territory Intervention. The Voice aims to correct this by providing for Indigenous people to be heard. 

There have been several members of the Liberal Party who have resigned their membership because of the racist diatribe of party leaders and other members. Dutton was quick to criticise Prime Minister Albanese for making a quick trip to Alice Springs amid a crime crisis, while comparing this to the time the prime minister spent at the Australian Open. Dutton then visited Alice Springs for two-days of photo opportunities, in which he perpetuated misinformation about the level of crime in the town. Dutton was challenged by Catherine Liddle, chief of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care to present evidence of his claims about rampant sexual abuse in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Dutton was unable to substantiate the claims.  

Professor Anne Twomey, Constitutional Lawyer, has stated that a Voice for Indigenous people does not negate the right of anyone else to be heard. The Voice is a mechanism to ensure that Indigenous people are heard in a country where they have often been wilfully silenced, ignored, suppressed, oppressed and vilified.

The Voice is one important step towards Treaty & Truth-telling that will attempt to address wrongs of the past, while providing a mechanism for equality, justice, reconciliation and an improved future for Indigenous people. The opposition's go-to mantras of fear-mongering & falsehoods have already been exposed as puerile misinformation and racist propaganda. 

Don't listen to the dog-whistling fear-mongering from far-right groups, hear the Voice of Indigenous people. Vote 'Yes' to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

References

ABC News, 2023, What will Australians be voting on in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum?, 23 March, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/what-is-voice-to-parliament-referendum-what-will-i-be-voting-on/102136842

ABC News In-Depth, 2023, Everything you need to know about the Indigenous Voice Referendum, 11 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCnv3G0rDLo

Albanese, A, 2023, Address to the Chifley Research Conference, 5 February, National Press Club, accessed 5 February 2023, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/address-chifley-research-conference 

Allam, L, 2022, Anthony Albanese reveals 'simple and clear' wording of referendum question on Indigenous Voice, The Guardian, 30 July, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/29/anthony-albanese-reveals-simple-and-clear-wording-of-referendum-question-on-indigenous-voice

Allam, L, 2023, Marcia Langton attacks 'relentless scare campaign' waged by opponents of Indigenous Voice, The Guardian, 23 March, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/13/marcia-langton-attacks-relentless-scare-campaign-waged-by-opponents-of-indigenous-voice

Andrews, A, 2021, Stolen Wages — The multi generational financial abuse of Indigenous Australians, Verve, 8 July, viewed 22 April 2023, https://vervesuper.com.au/change/stolen-wages-the-multi-generational-financial-abuse-of-indigenous-australians/

Australian Government, 2023, Referendum question and constitutional amendment, https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment

Butler, J, 2023, PM says solicitor general’s advice on Indigenous voice refutes ‘absolute nonsense’ from Dutton and Joyce, 21 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/21/pm-says-solicitor-generals-advice-on-indigenous-voice-refutes-absolute-nonsense-from-dutton-and-joyce

Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report, November 2018, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report

Latimore, J, 2023, Dutton’s Alice Springs stance takes inspiration from NT intervention playbook, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.smh.com.au/national/dutton-s-alice-springs-stance-takes-inspiration-from-nt-intervention-playbook-20230414-p5d0g7.html

McIllory, T, 2023, Legal advice undermines Dutton's claim on Voice 'clogging up' courts, Australian Financial Review, 21 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/voice-won-t-impede-executive-government-solicitor-general-20230421-p5d28b

National Indigenous Australians Agency, 2021, Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process - Final Report to the Australian Government, July, https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report#

Queensland Government, Community Support and Services Committee, 2023, Report No. 30, 57th Parliament - Path to Treaty Bill 2023, 21 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-Committees/Committees/Committee-Details?cid=165&id=4236. Report: https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tp/2023/5723T538-2F1D.pdf

Queensland Government, Path to Treaty Bill 2023, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/bill.first/bill-2022-016

Queensland Government, Path to Treaty, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.qld.gov.au/firstnations/treaty

Warren, C, 2023, Alice Springs shows why the media struggles to fact-check moral panic, Crikey, 17 April, viewed 22 April 2023, https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/04/17/alice-springs-peter-dutton-jacinta-price-moral-panic/

Updated 10 July 2023