Why this book?

Well, why this book and why Australian Apartheid, which is the title, because you recall the referendum of The Voice.

That was an attempt by the elites in this country, government, CEOs, churches, NGOs, to divide us by race.

I mean, Paul Aydin didn't call it race always.

He'd talk about cultural First Nations.

But they were dividing Australians on a basis other than our common citizenship.

So we brought together 15 to 16 authors to explain the many ways in which Australia is being Aboriginalised.

What is the alternative? Why would the alternative be better?

Where do we go from here? Maybe you can outline a little bit of how you think things can be and should be improved.

Yeah.

Consistently, we read about the horrible lives of Aboriginal children and women and men, mainly in remote communities, not exclusively, but mainly in remote communities.

We also observe that most of them are sitting on some form of land title, whether it's native title or Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act, et cetera, et cetera, other bits and pieces in Western Australia and Queensland.

And we say, well, land rights have not worked well for you.

Are there other ways around this? Well, one is I'm suggesting that in terms of native title, the Commonwealth could buy out your native title.

At least you get something in the hand or where there's disturbance of native title rights, this sort of native title 2.0, money should be put in a pot for children to get out.

What do you think the prospects are for real change in accordance with sort of the recommendations in your essay and also others that others have made in the book?

So for people that are interested in the book, Talk to me a little bit about the solutions of how we could possibly fix this situation that we're in and why should people purchase your book to learn more about this?

Well, I think from memory there are a dozen solutions.

Some of them are an appeal to doctors themselves to say, get along to your next Royal College of GPs or Royal College of Physicians or whatever meeting.

Have a look at the code of ethics.

and put a resolution to say, I do not support that code of ethics, right? So begin to wipe out the wokeness that sits in these colleges.

So you have to fight back for oppositions, and maybe governments, have a look at your public health acts because they provide the powers which prevented this country from operating.

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to respond to pandemics, but the nonsense in those acts are extraordinary.

Is that your assessment of the country at the moment?

APPLAUSE

Beautiful.

Deborah, thank you very much indeed.

It worries me that I was sitting at the end of a table all by myself.

I was at it.

Thank you.

Thank you indeed.

How do you compare our current proper parliamentarians to when you served in parliament?

So are there advocates that are getting more airplay, for example, than others, and then therefore they have that power and influence and therefore become conceited?

Yeah, well, it's almost a mystery in the sense that why do we make such big errors in public policy? And, for instance, in the COVID response or, for instance, now in the overweening sort of attempt to wipe out tobacco smoking that's ended up in placing much of the market for tobacco smoking in the hands of crooks.

And, for instance, you know, when a child who is unsure of whether they're in the right or the wrong body tells a psychiatrist that they want to transition and change bodies, the psychiatrist says, oh, okay, I'll go along with that.

It's the only area where the doctor takes the prescription, if you like, from the patient.

So, yeah, your question is, how do we make such bad decisions? It's a bit of a mystery.

But at the conclusion of the book, we say, well, if you have a look at the, for instance, codes of ethics that the various colleges of medicine sign up to, I reckon that most members, whether it's Royal College of GPs or physicians or whatever, would have no idea that there's all of this social justice nonsense being loaded up into their ethics statements.

They're busy getting on with doctor-patient relations.

in schools but also the flow-on effect as you rightly point out through the health sector so again are we beholden to the states in which we live and the federal government is just a cash cow

What is the aim of it?

The key thing is to wake people up to say, look, Aboriginal people of course have a place as citizens in Australia and they can celebrate their way of life, their culture, all they like.

But they are not to separate us.

They're not to say that they're somehow more important to us.

Can I give you a little illustration? Yesterday, I sat in the back of an old parliamentary committee on racism, which is doing the rounds.

They berated Dr Peter Bellin, a fellow who flew up from Adelaide to Brisbane, because he simply said, my view about racism is that people should be treated with equal dignity.

Now, Senator Lydia Thorpe got stuck into Eamon, asked him whether he would acknowledge that he was sitting on stolen ground and would he pay the rent and so on and so forth.

I thought we were all, you know, we all bled red, whatever the skin colour was and whatever heritage we claimed to have.

I was curious today that I felt like I got a better explanation of why Pauline Hanson and One Nation are evil than I did what the Labor government intend to do about the cost of living, for instance.

Oh, yeah, and to repeat, I mean, there is no agenda.

Labor has no further agenda.

They've never reformed anything.

They simply raise taxes to buy votes.

So that's a given.

So...

Yeah, well, I think the PM has been clever, and I don't think anyone would dispute that he's politically clever, to lump the Libs, One Nation and the Nationals all together because now Angus Taylor has to argue he's not One Nation instead of doing what he should be doing, which is attacking the government.

Why has it been so important to maintain the Stolen Generations story to what is so important to the Aboriginal industry?

Well, I think there are some very large organisations now.

There's one, SNA ICC Snake, which is the voice of Aboriginal people, and it insists on the Aboriginal child placement principle, for instance, so that a child should never be taken from an Aboriginal family or kith or kin unless as a last resort.

What it means is that people are constantly looking to keep a child in the community of culture, no matter if they're being beaten.

So I see in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government very sensibly is downgrading, if you like, that culture.

child placement principle and placing at the very top of the order the best interests of the child.

So you can take into account the context of a child's life.

The damage done to our pride, that also is a cost, isn't it?

I mean, when they say they're members of the socialist left, I mean, do they... at nighttime, do they dream about, you know, a one party state and, and, and, you know, the government owning all the means of production and that sort of thing?

It's not so, it's not an industrial type idea.

It's, it's an idea based around social justice, right? And particularly in an era when we concentrate on minorities, you know, women, Blacks, gays, et cetera, um, we can see it come through in the defense of those minorities.

So, you know, you've got a law and order problem in Victoria, and, uh, uh, this, the wild-eyed socialist left will say, um, "Those kids are from an oppressed minority, so they can never be subject to the law of law-abiding people." You know, they just provide an excuse.

So it's more that social justice mix rather than, you know, the old industrial measures of, uh, socialism.

I mean, I mean, should we be surprised about that?

Well, yes and no. You've gone back to the Cain-Kirner era, haven't you? You know, when, when th- they literally ran out of money.

Uh, they were paying public servants with borrowings and so on.

I mean, when they say they're members of the socialist left, I mean, do they, at nighttime, do they dream about, you know, a one party state and, and, and, you know, the government owning all the means of production and that sort of thing?

It's not so, it's not an industrial type idea.

It's, it's an idea based around social justice, right? And particularly in an era when we concentrate on minorities, you know, women, Blacks, gays, et cetera, um, we can see it come through in the defense of those minorities.

So, you know, you've got a law and order problem in Victoria, and, uh, uh, the, the wild-eyed socialist left will say, um, "Those kids are from an oppressed minority, so they can never be subject to the law of law-abiding people." You know, they just provide an excuse.

So it's more that social justice mix rather than, you know, the old industrial measures of, uh, socialism.

I mean, I mean, should we be surprised about that?

Well, yes and no. You've gone back to the Cain-Kirner era, haven't you? You know, wh- when th- they literally ran out of money.

Uh, they were paying public servants with borrowings and so on, and you're back there again.