Henry Reynolds (1) (1938–)

This is an important book for all Australians.

Reynolds is an historian. I commenced reading his works in the 1990s. His main focus is that of the First Nations Peoples of Australia.

Now in his 80s, this book might be viewed as a bringing together of his life's works but is better viewed (as its title suggests) as a timely, readable contribution to the truth telling called for as one of the 3 planks of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (a Voice to Parliament; a Makarrata (or treaty); Truth Telling about the history of Australia).

Much of what Reynolds writes is confronting, but the writing and the telling is rational and compelling, but neither sensationalist nor alarmist.

The first half of the book is largely about the various claims as to possession, terra nullius, sovereignty and similar topics. Reynolds is an historian, not a lawyer, but it does not stop him from looking at the state of both international and domestic law and philosophy over the relevant period (approx the 1700s through 1900s), as well as the experience is comparable jurisdictions (the USA, Canada, NZ, India etc).

And the conclusion is that on any number of bases, the claims of (or for) Australia as to sovereignty, ownership, possession etc are largely unprecedented. That is they do not accord with (then) contemporary law or thinking, nor the practice as applied in the formation of other countries/colonies etc.

What surprises me most are:
- the number of times when 'right' thinking (think exhortations by London) telling colonisers to seek consent/agreement from the 'natives', but such was ignored/overlooked
- the grant of crown leases to settlers which specifically recognised/reserved rights to be retained by the First Nations Peoples, but which were positively ignored by the lessees (at times violently) without any recourse
- the recognition of laws which should have protected people generally, including First Nations Peoples, which were simply ignored/ not enforced, to the detriment of those Peoples.

The result is that Australia is precariously placed. It is a square that tries to fit into a round hole. Or a house of cards.

Reynolds notes that the famous Mabo decision of the High Court was as to property rights but not as to sovereignty. Indeed, Reynolds notes (but also questions why it is) that the High Court does not have jurisdiction or standing as to matters as to sovereignty. That is the High Court cannot determine whether London 'properly' 'acquired' Australia. or for that matter whether the UK could cede sovereignty of the Australian continent onto the peoples of Australia.

Reynolds questions why this is so. It is an interesting question. But by analogy, it is akin to why a football referee cannot rule on a plea by a player as to why a forward pass is/is not permissible. The referee is given rules within which s/he conducts the game, rather than being allowed to change those rules. In the case of football, there is usually a world governing body which decides such matters. In the case of the ultimate courts of nations, there are some matters which are beyond their remit. And sovereignty is one of them. It might help, if one thinks of sovereignty as akin to the very legitimacy of the existence of the nation itself.

The balance of the book deals with the implications of these conclusions. Such as 26 January. And the status of some to now revered people.

A case in point is Sir Samuel Griffith, a 2 time premier of Queensland, the Chief Justice of Queensland, the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, a significant player in the drafting of the Australian Constitution, and the author of Queensland's Criminal Code. Named after him are a university, a seat in the Commonwealth parliament, an influential periodical, a suburb. (Perhaps not relevant for current purposes) he was also said to be Australia's first translator of Dante's Inferno.

Reynolds demonstrates that at all relevant times:
- the First nations Peoples were British subjects in exactly the same way as settlers
- the law of the land made it a crime for people to take it into their own hands to 'disperse' those who occupied settlers (often unwarranted) occupation of lands and to inflict 'revenge' on those First Nations Peoples who reacted (sometimes violently) to settlers actions
- notwithstanding knowing of these activities, little was done to bring perpetrators to account.

And Reynolds, invoking Governmental responsibility, asks why Griffiths and his peers did nothing. It was as if the government of the day turned its eyes.

As I said, there are some confronting matters.

Reynolds concludes that if matters cannot be resolved, it may be necessary to resort to international arenas. Should could be interpreted as inflammatory or sabre rattling. But I do not read it that way.

Rather, I read it as Reynolds rational extrapolation that if we cannot come to a satisfactory resolution between First Nations Peoples and Australia, one may need to resort elsewhere given as already noted, Australia's High Court may not be able to opine as to all issues.

I encourage all Australians to read and consider this book.

Big Ship

27 July 2022… (meer)