Anthony Dillon: Three reasons why Victoria’s Treaty will fail Aboriginal people
Like many other Australians I am keen to see my Aboriginal brothers and sisters thrive but Victoria’s Treaty isn’t the way forward. Here’s why.
The Victorian government recently passed a statewide Treaty Bill for Aboriginal Victorians. Given that this has been described as “groundbreaking” by some, it is worth starting a dialogue, particularly one that considers potential problems that treaty enthusiasts may not have considered or are unlikely to consider.
Central to any such dialogue should be the question: how will a treaty help any Aboriginal people?
I, like many other Australians who are keen to see our Aboriginal brothers and sisters thrive, seriously question whether a treaty will help them.
I offer three reasons in this article why.
First, while supporting documentation for the Victorian legislation contains feel-good statements about treaties — like “they will help build strong, resilient communities” and “through Treaty, we build a better future for all” — it lacks sufficient detail on how a treaty will achieve these goals.
There’s enough detail to stir some excitement, but without a plan, it’s just excitement which will certainly sour into disappointment.
Second, while the concept of ‘self-determination’ features prominently throughout the supporting document, it is problematic.
But surely self-determination is a good thing? Well, it depends on what meaning you give it.
The Australian Human Rights Commission states that at its core, self-determination “is concerned with the fundamental right of people to shape their own lives”.
Very few would disagree that as individuals, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, we should have this right.
But for Aboriginal people, the Victorian Treaty Bill states that self-determination “encompasses the collective right of Indigenous peoples to decide their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
Here lies the problem. What does a “collective right” mean in this context?
Based on three decades of surveying Aboriginal affairs, I believe that when used by treaty advocates, a collective right refers to the belief that Aboriginal Australians are significantly different from other Australians.
One assumed difference is that Aboriginal Australians possess some special knowledge that makes them the best ones to understand and help Aboriginal Australians.
This is made clear by the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, which states: “Treaty recognises that Aboriginal people are the experts when it comes to our Country, culture and communities” and that “if we want to see improvements in health, education and housing for our people, the practical solutions need to come from us”.
Would anyone take seriously the assertion that to see improvements in health, education and housing for non-Aboriginal people, the practical solutions need to come from non-Aboriginal people themselves?
The obvious question here is: how collective are Aboriginal Australians?
How similar are they to each other and how different are they from non-Aboriginal people?
My answer is not very.
While I am happy to be proven wrong, consider that last year, the ABC reported that fewer than 10 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballot in the SA First Nations Voice election.
Further, with regard to the Victorian Treaty, it was reported in 2019 that just 7 per cent of eligible voters turned out for the historic poll to elect the state’s First People’s Assembly.
Based on those reported statistics and my own personal experience, I believe most Aboriginal Australians are less committed to essential difference than what most treaty advocates would like to think.
Now for those Australians who identify as Aboriginal and truly believe that their needs are best met by other Aboriginal people and organisations, then pursue that option. There are many such organisations that do a good job. But these organisations operate without a treaty.
Finally, in response to the treaty, Jacinta Allan delivered an apology on Tuesday. Apologies are all very well, but they definitely are not necessary in order for “all Victorians to move forward together”, as stated on the Premier’s web page. The reality is that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Victorians are free to move together anytime they want, which indeed many are already doing.
I’m not saying the apology should not have given, but only that it will likely have as much real impact on Aboriginal lives as the apology delivered by Kevin Rudd in 2008.
So where to from here? Fortunately, there is still much that can be done to close the gap while details of the treaty are being nutted out.
The First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria states: “Our people have a history of leaders and trailblazers.” Space doesn’t permit me to name them all, or even a fraction of them, but consider David Unaipon, Alison Bush, Neville Bonner, Lionel Rose, Marcia Langton and Stan Grant for starters.
They are all high achievers by any standard and have achieved without a treaty. So how did they do it?
They did it by pursuing individual self-determination and seizing the opportunities available to them. Here in Australia, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are, so long as you have initiative, there is always someone to help you grab those opportunities — that’s what it means to be Australian.
Anthony Dillon is an honorary fellow at Australian Catholic University
Originally published as Anthony Dillon: Three reasons why Victoria’s Treaty will fail Aboriginal people
