Dr Davy is currently hyper-fixated on the three minute address he recently tried to deliver to Central Coast Council, in which the non-Aboriginal Davy was calling on Council to ignore the wishes of the Aboriginal Community, AND the Independent Aboriginal Advisory Committee (thankfully this did not happen, but not for lack of trying from the GuriNgai Cult).

The Aboriginal Community requested that Central Coast Council’s official Acknowledgement, acknowledge the name of the land upon which Council sits:

“We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we live, work and play.

“We pay our respects to Darkinjung country, and Elders past and present.

“We recognise the continued connection to these lands and waterways, and extend this acknowledgement to the homelands and stories of those who also call this place home.

“We recognise our future leaders and the shared responsibility to care for and protect our place and people.”

This updated Acknowledgement of Country now references the Country itself, whereas the previously used version did not.

Having spoken at length with Dr Davy I came away with some additional knowledge:

1. Dr Davy sees the world through a ‘political science’ lens, does not recognise this, and does not recognise the flaws in only being able to understand/view/appreciate a singular perspective.
2. Dr Davy has not studied Law and has only a rudimentary understanding of Australian Law and the Legal System.
3. Dr Davy is heavily emotionally invested in Tracey Howie and the GuriNgai Cult, despite having no real understanding of the group itself or the people involved (eg he believed Kay Williams was operating behind Tracey Howie’s back rather than following her commands to the letter).
4. Dr Davy did not know about the three-part test of Aboriginality.
5. Dr Davy is unable to legally, or in the day-to-day identify Authentic Aboriginality.

I bring these up as background as Dr Van Davy believes he has identified a conflict between State and Federal laws and has been engaged in a letter writing campaign to anyone he believes may notice what he believes he has discovered.

The reality however is that no matter how much he believes in his discovery, it’s not real, he hasn’t made a discovery, he’s made a series of unfortunate mistakes that he is not equipped to notice.

This is a very important issue for Dr Van Davy – yet it does not exist outside of his head. There is no vague legal conflict that is somehow the inciting incident of the GuriNgai Cult’s 21 year racist campaign against Aboriginal people, Culture and Community and there never was.

Dr Davy is simply not legally trained, not Aboriginal, and not firing on all cylinders. I’ll do my best to make this explanation as painless as possible.

Section 109 of the Constitution provides that when ‘a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid’.

What this means is that each and every time a ’conflict’ occurs, the rules of Australia say the Commonwealth rule applies.

So IF there is a conflict, the conflict is immediately resolved.

If a party to a legal dispute believes the wrong law was applied in a decision or in a case, then the matter is dealt with in the Courts, and precedent is set and built upon (Common Law).

Common Law is not created by randoms in a public forum at Central Coast Council.

No systems, organisation or decisions, be they local council, state or federal ever need to be put on hold to settle an inconsistency, because as already stated there is no inconsistency, and because that’s not at all how our entire legal and/or governmental system operates.

So with that primer in mind, lets see what Dr Van Davy is compelled to share with the world in his bizarre attempt at ‘Aboriginal Affairs’.

<The Italics are Dr Van Davy, the Bold Font is my analysis.

“Good evening Mr Administrator

I make a submission to you in 3 parts

[a] delete “Darkinjung” … now the Acknowledgement reads well and without a direct indigenous provocation and conflict

I’m cautiously optimistic what Davy is trying to say is ‘remove the word Darkinjung from the Acknowledgement’.

‘direct indigenous provocation and conflict‘?
This inflammatory and offensive language only holds meaning to believers of the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai Cult.

[b] your Council should now initiate discussions with NSW and C/W governments with a view to bringing 1980’s NSW Land Council legislation into alignment with the 1990’s Mabo High Court ‘traditional owners’ decision, and Native Title legislation

Not the topic at hand (Acknowledgment of Country).

Not anything Dr Davy has any experience or familiarity with.

Not something that makes any legal or parliamentary sense, at all.

[c] Council explain to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee that Council will not act until conflicting legislation is aligned.

Demanding, as a non-Aboriginal Person, that Central Coast Council completely disregard both the Aboriginal Advisory Committee, AND the wishes of the Aboriginal Community.

Mr Hart, in support of this submission I make 3 points in my 3 minutes:

First … the Darkinjung Land Council exists on 1980’s NSW Legislation. In the 1980’s the British edict of Terra Nullias permeated the legal base of Australian land ownership. The lie of Terra Nullias was the operating ‘given’ at that time. At the time of the NSW legislation Australia was deemed to have been devoid of inhabitants at time of conquest.

‘Permeated the legal base of Australian land ownership’ is gobely-goop that has no actual meaning in any sense. Same goes for ‘the operating given at that time,’ it’s just verbose nonsense filler phrasing with no legal meaning.

‘At the time of the NSW legislation Australia was deemed to have been devoid of inhabitants at time of conquest’ is untrue and has zero relevance to whether Central Coast Council should follow the wishes of its own Aboriginal Advisory Committee. I’m not a fan of invasion and colonisation being described as ‘conquest’ either.

At the time of the NSW legislation on which Darkinjung Land Council is based, there was no Mabo case, no High Court decision, and no Commonwealth legislation addressing the major issues arising from the High Court decision: traditional ownership, and Native Title.

Again, this makes zero legal sense. An organisation set up at a certain time, has to comply with CURRENT legislation, regardless of when it was created!
In addition to everything already wrong and problematic, it’s really not the place of a non-Aboriginal, not legally trained, anyone to be telling us “the major issues arising from the High Court decision(MABO)”.

This guy who is incapable of recognising that his PERSPECTIVE is not REALITY, who is a wealthy Northern Beaches retiree may not really have the best take, nor the ability to pause and reflect on this.

This reality is reflected in the Darkinjung Land Council’s Constitution where no provision, not a mention, is made of traditional owners in the Council’s objectives, in the Land Council’s membership, in the Land Council’s Board, or in the Land Council’s paid officers.

WTF? I don’t know what’s in the Constitution of any of the thousands of clubs and organisations I am not a member of. Dr Davy does not know what is meant by the term ‘traditional owner’ yet is incensed it is not included in the founding documents of an Aboriginal Organisation run by Aboriginal People, for Aboriginal People.

Traditional ownership simply wasn’t seen as an issue in the 1980’s and this ignorance remains embedded in the constitution and operations of the Land Council.

What does he mean by traditional ownership? How was it not an issue in the 1980s? To whom was it not an issue? Aboriginal People were not aware of this issue? Now it’s an issue we are not aware of, but Dr Davy is, and so ‘ignorance remains embedded in the constitution and operations of the Land Council’. Yeah that’s pretty cooked AND racist.

Second … the 1990’s produced the Mabo claim for his native title, the High Court’s ruling and reasons in Mabo’s favour, and later , the C/W government’s Native Title legislation which swept away the Terra Nullias lie, and established legislated rights for ‘traditional owners’. The concepts of traditional owners and Native Title entered the legal domain for the first time.

Consequence: These two pieces of legislation are conflicted.

No.
Section 109 of the Constitution provides that when ‘a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid’. What this means is that each and every time a ’conflict’ occurs, the rules of Australia say the Commonwealth rule applies.

And, Mr Administrator, there are two groups of people in your Council area who are organised around each of these legislative elements … they are in conflict.

No. This is an example of the ‘false choice’ logical fallacy, otherwise known as false dilemma, false dichotomy, binary thinking – there are a lot of names because it’s basic and as common as racists in this place.
There are no groups in the Community ‘organised around each of these legislative elements’ there is the Aboriginal Community, and there are non-Aboriginal People who falsely claim Aboriginality as part of their Cult.  The problem is one experienced by Aboriginal People exclusively, and it has nothing to do with Native Title Legislation, or Mabo, or pseudo-legal humbug – that’s just the rationalisations of a man whose world doesn’t make sense.

They MUST be in conflict, and WILL be in conflict, until the legislative bases are brought into alignment … presumably consistent with the High Court’s Judgement on traditional owners and Native Title.

See above – the GuriNgai have been demonstrably proven to be a non-Aboriginal fraudulent enterprise that meets all the criteria to be defined as a Cult.

It’s understandable that those associated with the well-resourced, full-time officer strength, Board-organised and paid, business and politically connected wealthy Land Council, will defend their position.

The Aboriginal Community are accustomed to people who look like, sound like, and often are Dr Van Davy, pigeonholing us, scrutinising us and our habits, our spending, our wages etc.
Dr Van Davy was literally a union rep for decades AND studied a PHD in Political Science AND was himself a candidate in State elections, but members of the Aboriginal Community should not be able to have these same rights, responsibilities and dare I say privileges?

I make no slanderous comment about that. The claims of the Guringai, Awabakal, and Darkinoong peoples are generated by a knowledge of the Mabo, High Court, and Native Title trilogy.

No offense, but it’s not for you to decide which comments you make are slanderous, and your judgment is greatly impaired.

Trilogy? Go back to Star Wars.

The claims of the Guringai, Awabakal, and Darkinoong peoples are a direct threat to those controlling the current Land Council, none of whom have ancestral blood-lines to the country claimed by Guringai, Awabakal.

The claims of proven non-Aboriginal frauds that have been a blight on this community for 21 years are false, demonstrably false, transparently false.

The retort from the Darkinjung Land Council is that no successful native title claim has been completed and they then extend that argument to make the demonstrably ludicrous claim that the Land Council is traditional owners and the real traditional owners are fakes. [reference provocative ” DARKINJUNG COUNTRY” signs throughout Central Coast Council’s region].

What Davy describes as a retort, is the application of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 1983 (ALRA).
The people purporting to be the GuriNgai are not Aboriginal, so in that sense they are ‘fake’, regardless of who is accurately describing them as ‘fake’.
The ” DARKINJUNG COUNTRY” signs were installed by NSW Roads, a State Government Department, under a State Government initiative.

Third, It should be remembered that the C/W Native Title legislation is only 25 years old.

The GuriNgai Cult is 21 years old.

Unlike the relatively wealthy Land Council, the local traditional owners are not resourced … they have no ‘Council’, no Board, no funds, no land, no paid officers, no relationship with local politicians, no connections to the powerful business lobby … their political position is weak and unfunded, and unorganised.

Again he refers to ‘traditional owners’ when the term does not apply, and he uses it to refer to the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group.

This is changing. Their strength will grow as the Truth becomes known. But, in the meantime, they are being slandered and demeaned as fake … these people who ACTUALLY have ancestral roots here on the Central Coast and who, as a consequence suffered the deprivations all indigenous Australians suffered, but MORE INTENSELY because they were/are closer to Ground Zero Sydney.

He capilaises the ‘t’ in truth, but never the ‘A’ in Ancestral, or ‘I’ in Indigenous. Dr Davy’s understanding of ‘slander’ matches his understanding of Native Title and Aboriginal Affairs.

He also repeats the common GuriNgai Cult belief that they somehow experienced a worse fate than other (genuine) Aboriginal groups across this continent.

More dead [80%] from the British-carried pox epidemic of 1789, more raped, more murdered, more massacred, more ‘assimilated’ in genocidal attempts to ‘breed them out’ … and these people who we now insist produce documented proof of their ongoing relationship to the land, to survive the genocidal government policies, were forced into camouflage, into flight, into white families … they were banned from speaking their language, from participating in cultural events and ceremonies … these are the people we now insist produce poof of existence as if they were dutifully recorded by their friends or officials.

You’ll find similar messaging from members of the GuriNgai Cult going all the way back to Warren Whitfield in 2001.

They were hiding, fleeing, camouflaging, pretending not to be Aboriginal … their quest for justice and recognition should be assisted, not blocked, denied, and slandered.” – end quote-

–