Akerman: Indigenous ancestry should not be enough to give privileged access to government

Having an Aboriginal ancestor one, two or more generations back should not be grounds for additional benefits or privileged access to government, writes Piers Akerman.

In a desperate attempt to claw back waverers, media supporters of the Voice to Parliament campaign are highlighting those who have switched their prospective vote from No to Yes. But would anyone really follow Melbourne activist Tarneen Onus Browne on his journey to Yes remembering Browne has also told an Invasion Day rally of hopes Australia would “burn to the ground”?

Perhaps vacuous virtue-signallers such as teal MP Allegra Spender might explain how they can rationalise being in the same camp as Browne or foul-mouthed independent Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe, even Noel Pearson, in backing a near-permanent change to the Constitution. Another twig Yes supporters are clutching at is the fact the Uluru statement was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for 2021-22.

Professor Dr Megan Davis, one of the authors who acknowledged it is not just a single document (though she recanted once the damning background documents with their demands for reparations were revealed) has brandished the prize as though it was some great honour.

Megan Davis campaigns for YES in Melbourne. Picture: Arsineh Houspian

One of the taxpayer-funded ABC’s many activists, Radio National presenter Patricia Karvelas, is another who has trumpeted the award as proof of something or other when it has been overwhelmingly given to those who support the Left-wing other.

Past Sydney Peace Prize winners have included the #MeToo movement, which so severely rebounded on women, many companies expressed reluctance to employ attractive women and have been found more likely to exclude them from social interactions because of an increased fear of accusations of sexual discrimination.

Black Lives Matter protesters in Sydney, in 2020. Picture: NCA Newswire Gaye Gerard

Then there is the Black Lives Matter organisation, whose Marxist goals included the abolition of the family, queer-affirming and trans-affirming, and whose own financial report claimed it raised $93m in 2020 though there is just $60m in its bank account while its founders have gone into hiding. Oh, and BLM also wants to abolish the prison system and the courts. Expatriate Leftist polemicist John Pilger, for whom the conservative wit Auberon Waugh, coined the word “pilgerism” to describe the writer’s reliably Left-wing stance on everything, has been another winner.

Elitist inner-urban Yes proponents offer nothing but the vibe and the vague promise any concerns raised by the prospect of a huge change to the Constitution separating Australians into two classes – those who claim to have an Aboriginal ancestor no matter how distant, and the rest – will be dealt with in the future.

The No campaign is on firmer ground with its view that all Australians should be treated equally under the Constitution and that race should be irrelevant in our multicultural society. That was the hope of the greatest leaders of genuine peace movements of the past century – Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. I’m cautiously optimistic the No vote will prevail on October 14.

When the dust settles, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney should actually listen to the voices of courageous Indigenous leaders such as Northern Territory senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and her constituents.

They have long called for the practical solutions that are needed to overcome the disadvantages of those Aborigines trapped in dysfunctional remote communities and have rejected adding another layer of Canberra-based bureaucracy entrenched in the Constitution.

Having an Aboriginal ancestor one, two or more generations back should not be grounds for additional benefits or privileged access to government any more than dressing in drag should make a man a legitimate substitute for a woman.