Macklin / Time the whitefellas started talking

Share Canberra's trusted news:

I DON’T wish to be alarmist, but unless we sign a treaty with our Aboriginal compatriots soon our continued occupation of the Australian continent will be in jeopardy.

Robert Macklin
Robert Macklin.

The treaty negotiations have yet to begin. Our Aboriginal leaders are trying to develop some kind of poetic preamble to the Constitution with their own people. It will then go to the government where the conservatives will water it down so much that it won’t really matter if it’s passed by referendum or not. Only then will they turn their attention to a treaty that finally formalises our legal right to the occupation of the continent. But unfortunately time is running out… fast.

On March 29, that vandal in the White House signed an order reversing his predecessor’s measures to tackle climate change at home; and his henchmen reaffirmed America’s decision to renege on the Paris agreement, which Trump says is “a Chinese hoax”.

This means that massive global disruption is now inevitable. Australia can say goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef and prepare for many more massive cyclones, fatal bushfires and terrible heatwaves that take our most vulnerable folk – young and old – before their time.

But our country is so big that large parts of it will get lots more rain and this will actually increase our agricultural output. Whacko, you might say; we’re still the Lucky Country.

However, that’s just the climate change preamble. As the seas rise and the deserts expand exponentially in other continents, literally millions of refugees will be on the march. And the very idea of national boundaries will be called into question. Even then, you might say, we’ll still be okay because we don’t share a land border with anyone.

True. But we’re surrounded by water and the most vulnerable country to sea rise is Bangladesh where no fewer than 30 million souls are in the ocean’s rising highwater line. Their Indian neighbour has built a huge fence around three sides to prevent their escaping into Indian territory. The other side is the sea and the Bangladeshis have many thousands of boats that could well provide their only possible escape route.

The Indians won’t let them land there; nor will the neighbouring Burmese. The Indonesians have problems of their own, as do the other countries en route to that great big continent with only 24 million folk living the life of Riley. And it won’t be just Bangladeshis on the move but people from all those affected by sea rise and desertification, not least India itself.

So here’s the rub: the whitefellas that own and run Australia occupied it by dispossessing the original inhabitants without even a “by your leave”. In international legal terms they retain it by force majeure. This means that in the great global conferences that will inevitably follow – and in the international court of public opinion – we would not have a leg to stand on unless we can demonstrate our right, by treaty, to the Great South Land.

Of course, we could ask our navy and air force to blow the refugees out of the water. But even if our servicemen and women agreed, what kind of country would we have become? The consequences don’t bear thinking about.

It is entirely possible that in the decades ahead we will have to come to some kind of accommodation with the displaced people of the climate-change catastrophe. But we can do so either from a position of strength or weakness. The choice is ours.

Who Can You Trust?

In a world beleaguered by spin and confused messages, there's never been more need for diverse, trustworthy, independent journalism in Canberra.

Who can you trust? Well, for more than 25 years, "CityNews" has proudly been an independent, free, family-owned news magazine, serving the national capital with quality, integrity and authority. Through our weekly magazine and daily through our digital platforms, we constantly and reliably deliver high-quality and diverse opinion, news, arts, socials and lifestyle columns.

If you trust our work online and believe in the power of independent voices, I encourage you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support will be invested back into our journalism so we can continue to provide a valuably different view of what's happening around you and keep free.

Click here to make your donation and you will be supporting the future of journalism and media diversity in the ACT.

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Previous articleOpen garden / Emma’s garden where the children play
Next articleMoore / Worried pollies chase cures for health neglect
Robert Macklin
Journalist and author. Contact


  1. Brilliant. Gets to the heart of the error at law in the “invasion” or “settlement” of a continent whose original people’s have not ceded our Sovereignty. This error at law must be corrected. It is why the Sovereign Yidindji Nation through its highest law body, tribal council, formed the Sovereign Yidindji Government. They offer the Unlawfully occupying people, represented by “Australia”, an offer to settle the past & secure the future, addressing the issues that are raised about Australia’s security in international law. Australia has had much experience in acting as an administrator of foreign territories, in colonising & decolonosing eg Nauru, PNG Etc. UN member states can see the logic, generosity and lawfulness that underpins the offers of treaty and recognition made by the Sovereign Yidindji Government. It’s time to raise the bar on the discussion of Australian national identity / at international law and as individual members of that significant relatively new nation state. Many Australians want to feel that pride in achieving justice for the original inhabitants of this continent, as well as a secure future for us all in one of the worlds wealthiest and most peaceful nations (let’s exclude the wars that Australia participates in and history of genocide for now). Macklins article correctly identifies a pivotal moment in the formation of a modern identity, coinciding with the global crisis of population. What future “Australia” ?

Leave a Reply