Part of the proposed Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament is a national truth-telling commission.

Normally, the study and interpretation of past events is left to historians. Witnessing the differing treatment of Keith Windschuttle and Bruce Pascoe it’s not as if there is a lack of anti-colonial, leftist perspective in the history wars.

A truth-telling commission would be like creating Orwell’s Ministry of Truth with Pontius Pilate, Molotov, and Goebbels as members advised by Charles Ponzi. The commission’s (likely) purpose is to form an unchallengeable historical narrative of unmitigated guilt and violence that will define how we think of ourselves and therefore shape the future. There will be moral equivalence drawn between Empire colonialism and historic genocides. Because this narrative will be formed and approved of by the establishment, any challenge to its so-called truth will be tantamount to heresy. With the likelihood that ‘misinformation’ will soon be criminalised, people who write truthfully about Australian history and challenge the black-armband version of the past may face time in jail.

In a post-truth Australia, Windschuttle won’t be in the jail cell alone. Jacinta Price has openly (and wrongly) been accused of hate and disinformation so she will be be there, along with her mother Bess and father David whose pen is as sharp as his mind. Dr Anthony Dillion may join them, as his courage is matched only by his eloquence. We cannot forget Dr Gary Johns, who is especially hated as he was a Labor Minister, and even anthropologist Peter Sutton who has recently fallen afoul of the wanna be ‘truth tellers’ for telling the truth.

The stifling of debate by the bullying ideology of cancel culture and selective funding isn’t new. This anti-fact, anti-reason, Woke relativist movement has been going on for some time. On page 3 of the research papers of the Criminology Unit of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which ran in the 1980s, it says:

‘The hostility towards the work of the Criminology Unit reached a climax only a few months after the work started, when it became clear the research showed Aboriginal persons in either police or prison custody were no more likely to die than non-Aboriginal people. This general finding was interpreted by some significant elements of the staff as undermining the very foundations of the Royal Commission. To even hint that such a conclusion was possible was seen as disloyal, misguided and obviously wrong. At one stage the very existence of the Criminology unit within the Royal Commission was threatened. It was able to continue its work, however albeit with smaller staff.’

Clearly, those ‘significant elements’ didn’t see the Commission’s role as one of finding facts to address a serious issue, but as a weapon in an ideological war. The old adage, the first victim of war is truth proved true. It appears that pressure may have been put on evidence gatherers and interpreters. Think about the courage those criminologists showed. God only knows what happened behind the scenes.

The implications for a ‘truth-telling’ commission more than 30 years after are clear, but it’s unlikely nowadays that finders and interpreters of facts would even need to be pressured and reminded that their first duty isn’t to the truth, but the culture and history war. Being ideologically committed, any future commission would know what they must find and what conclusions they must come to. But even if someone untainted by Woke ideology – some politically and ideologically unsound academic who was genuine about examining history rather than formulating a narrative of perpetual shame somehow managed to jag one of the juicily paid, high profile, virtue signalling positions on the commission – they won’t have access to facts.

The Tandanya Adelaide Declaration, for example, limits what archival records can be accessed or released. In effect, these records no longer belong to the State.

 ‘…defending intangible cultural heritage must be placed in the stewardship of the elders, knowledge keepers and Indigenous representatives from the communities where the ‘practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and skills originated, not the nation states responsible for the assimilation and erasure of their cultures…’

Is this an indication that objective truth is seen as a Western colonial value?

‘Such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in particular, at guarding against the development of revisionist and negationist arguments.’

So the only legitimate use of archives is the creation and perpetuation of a collective Indigenous self-image. Anything that may challenge that self-image will not be released:

‘…recognise the right to culturally mediated memory keeping and the right to control self-representation in public cultural heritage institutions and other platforms of public representation.’

The declaration doesn’t only justify or excuse the suppression of historical fact, but could require it in some circumstances. It is unlikely the less favourable and more violent parts of history would be released including the abusive treatment of women who were traded between tribes.

What further complicates matters is that oppression, suffering, and racism existed. We were founded as a penal colony. While simplistic characterisations are distortions, it can’t be said those things didn’t exist. The question is how indicative these things are and do they accurately characterise the colonisation of our nation.

We’ve seen the lies, distortions, and omissions in school history lessons without a commission. My kids weren’t taught that William Wilberforce and other committed Christians led the anti-slavery movement which pressured the government and through the British empire, which – at great cost of both blood and treasure – ended world slavery. It is somewhat of an omission that may influence the characterisation of the Empire within which modern Australia was founded. This recent study asserted a meaningful relationship between experiences of racism and justice involvement in Australia have not been established. There have been many historical fabrications since then. These realities escaped the attention of those who perceive themselves as fearless fact-finding truth-tellers keen to assist Australian society to ‘work on itself and know the truth of its own history’.