Tag Archives: Treaty discussions

Reconciliation Australia’s Two-Faced Activism

Joe Stella, Quadrant, 27 May 2024

Every year, Reconciliation Australia Limited (RAL) marks the period between the anniversaries of the 1967 referendum (May 217) and the Mabo judgment (June 3) as National Reconciliation Week. Last year, the theme was “Be a Voice for generations”, a reference to the looming referendum. This year’s theme, “Now more than ever”, reflects the organisation’s unprocessed shock and denial at the result. According to RAL, “as a nation we stumbled” but “the fight” must continue.

Really? RAL has now been operating for 23 years, more than twice as long as the statutory Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation that preceded it. As I have argued in a new paper for Close the Gap Research, “surely so emphatic a defeat of what advocates called ‘an act of reconciliation’ demands an objective assessment of the continued viability of that process.”

That assessment must begin with a difficult and still largely unexplored question: Is reconciliation what Aborigines actually want? In an address delivered during the last Reconciliation Week, ‘Yes’ campaigner Megan Davis cast serious doubt on this. During consultations in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru Statement, she told a Townsville audience, “our old people kept saying, unsolicited and organically, that reconciliation was the wrong process, that reconciliation was the wrong word.”

We do not know how many of these “old people” there were, much less whether they represent a significant body of opinion among Aborigines. However, Davis’ comments are helpful because they at least acknowledge the diprotodon in the room. Reconciliation has always been promoted as a means to cement national unity. As such, it is inimical to a radical Aboriginal rights agenda centred on the indicia of a separate race-based nationhood: sovereignty, self-determination, international recognition, treaties, embassies and so on.

The Uluru Statement endorses the Aboriginal nationalist program first developed by the National Aboriginal Conference between 1979 and 1981. This includes Aboriginal sovereignty, a treaty (makarrata), reparations and recognition of customary law. The Voice to Parliament, the brainchild of non-Aboriginal academic Shireen Morris, was a novel addition. As later accounts of the convention that produced the Uluru Statement demonstrate, a treaty was the top priority for many delegates. They needed to be persuaded that the Voice was a necessary preliminary measure. This tension is reflected in the final text of the Statement, which characterises a treaty as “the culmination of our agenda”.

Read the rest here . . .

Traitorous Andrews and his traitorous government

On 7 June 2022, The Guardian reported that the Andrews Government was establishing ‘an independent authority to help oversee the nation’s first treaty negotiations between a government and First Nations people. They were to introduce the Treaty Authority Bill after they ‘struck an agreement with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the body elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to help develop a treaty framework.’ In the meantime, one must assume that the authority is in full working order and the Bill is making its way through parliament.

The Guardian also reported that ‘First Peoples’ Assembly co-chair, Marcus Stewart, a ‘Nira illim bulluk man’, said the creation of the authority ensures treaty negotiations aren’t restrained by western concepts.’

Below is a photo of ‘Aboriginal’ Marcus Stewart. Now one would be struggling to find a more European-looking white skinned man than Marcus. Marcus evidently has no problem with the disjunction between his appearance and his claim to be an Aboriginal man. Unblushing, he presents himself everywhere with an animal skin draped around his shoulders. Of course, I’m assuming the animal skin is genuine and not fake like his pretensions.

But the disjunction between appearance and claim is not the only one. There is an even greater disjunction in his rhetoric about decolonization and treaty that leads into betrayal and treason by the Andrews Government.

Marcus explained: “This is about stepping outside of the colonial system. We’ve said to government, if you’re serious about treaty, you’ll do it our way, and to their credit, that’s what they’re doing. This is decolonisation in action.”

“The government is relinquishing some of its control and power and together we are creating new institutions that will be guided by Aboriginal lore, law and cultural authority that has been practised on these lands for countless generations.”

Marcus is guilty of spouting arrant nonsense. First, he invokes the categories of Western/European political discourse to justify the incoherent demand to regard his political faction as a separate nation. Second, there is no existing colonial entity in Australia. Australia (see my definition of what constitutes a nation) ceased to be a colony, de facto in the mid-19th century, and formally at Federation in 1901.

Third, Australia, whose development had absolutely no input from the sparse Aboriginal tribes pre-settlement, is a fully fledged nation with the complex of laws, government, science, technology, and so on, that one understands under the concept nation. Whereas the groups of Aboriginals (a European designation) pre-settlement were primitive tribes that continually warred with each other. Violence was a way of life within tribes and between tribes. Traditional tribal aboriginal life ceased in the 19th century – except perhaps for small groups in Northern Australia.

Finally, the is no direct line of development from pre-settlement Aboriginal life to a group like Marcus’s. Marcus, and those pretend Aboriginals like him, are engaged in crude cultural reinvention and mythmaking. And the Andrews government is supporting it – supporting a virtual insurgency.

White Aboriginals’ apartheid system is closer

White Aboriginal, MP Ken Wyatt, entirely indistinguishable as an Aboriginal, Indigenous, or First Nations person (the title changes according to its perceived political advantage), has announced the Morrison government’s policy on the ‘voice’ in parliament.

Coalition to build Indigenous voice from ground up

Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt had previously said he wanted an Indigenous voice legislated before the next election. Picture: Katrina Bridgeford.
Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt had previously said he wanted an Indigenous voice legislated before the next election. Picture: Katrina Bridgeford.

The Morrison government will start building an Indigenous voice from the ground up after cabinet agreed to form 35 regional and local groups that will be part of a national body.

The Coalition decided not to move immediately to the establishment of a national voice after considering the final report of the Voice’s senior advisory group led by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.

That report, presented to government in July and due to be released on Friday, recommends the regional and local groups should be established first.

It means there is no possibility the Morrison government will attempt to legislate a voice before the next election. Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt had previously said he wanted a voice before the poll.

Instead, the Morrison government will appoint a local and regional voice establishment group to work with government to form the 35 local and regional voice bodies. The government will also hold discussions with states, territories and local governments about their role in establishing and supporting the various regional and local groups.

The current blueprint for the voice is the result of work by 52 prominent Australians, most of them Indigenous, followed by a public consultation period that took feedback and suggestions from 9400 people and organisations.

Three white Aboriginals who we must pretend are black

Read the rest here…

A corroboree of jobbery: Daniel Andrews’ First People’s Assembly

By J.D. Morecambe

This article appeared in a September issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to post it here.

On Monday morning (16 September), voting began to elect the new ‘First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria‘. This ‘voice for Aboriginal communities’ seeks to represent all ‘self-identifying’ Victorian aboriginals in a process which will establish a ‘treaty or treaties’ with the Victorian State Government.

The election will decide 21 of 32 ‘gender-balanced’ seats on the new Assembly, with the remaining 11 set aside for a kind of aboriginal House of Lords, appointed (or ‘self-determined’) by a network of ‘Traditional Owner Groups’ or ‘Aboriginal Corporations‘.

Continue reading A corroboree of jobbery: Daniel Andrews’ First People’s Assembly