Treaty 1 is only the start. Just don’t tell John Howard

I remember the moment many years ago when, after climbing the side of Mount Parnassus on a hot summer’s day in Greece, the ruins of Delphi finally came into view.

Behind me, two pink-faced English backpackers had been labouring up the hillside and were disappointed with the ancient wonder before them. “Is that it?” said one to her friend. “It looked much bigger in the postcard.”

“It looked bigger in the postcard.” The Temple of Athena Pronaia at Delphi.Credit: iStock

When Victorians, black and white, finally set eyes on the state’s historic first treaty with Indigenous people later this year, they might ask the same question.

Is that it?

Although the completion of a treaty between Australia’s First Peoples and the Crown will be a profound moment in the political and social life of this state, the contents of the agreement may seem underwhelming. Perhaps even small.

This could be a good thing for the Allan government and First Peoples’ Assembly who negotiated it. It could also spell all sorts of trouble.

That will depend on two things – whether the assembly can convince its own constituents, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this state, that the agreement will lead to tangible improvement in their lives, and whether Allan and her ageing government can hold things together long enough for one more election win.

Premier Jacinta Allan listening to testimony at the Yoorrook Justice Commission in April 2024.Credit: Justin McManus

The Victorian opposition has already made clear its plans to dismantle whatever new structures the treaty builds.

There is perhaps no word in Australian politics that gives older, conservative whitefellas the willies quite like treaty.

Ever since Bob Hawke committed himself to treaty at the 1988 Barunga Festival in the Northern Territory, the T-word has evoked stories of Indigenous people laying claims over suburban backyards and white Australia losing control over our quarries, farms and rivers.

Then-opposition leader John Howard opposed Hawke’s treaty on much the same grounds as he opposed the Voice two years ago, arguing it would aggravate racial divisions in Australia rather than bring us together.

Northern Land Council chair Galarrwuy Yunupingu hands the Barunga Statement to then-prime minister Bob Hawke in 1988.Credit: Age Archives

As Fred Chaney, a former minister for Aboriginal affairs, Native Title Tribunal member and chair of Reconciliation Australia, told the ABC during the 2023 referendum campaign: “It just seems to me that the word treaty is the thing that some people find poisonous – and some people of John Howard’s generation think is going to be the end of the world.”

It is for this reason that the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in an attempt to win conservative support for their cause, left the T-word out of their final statement in favour of a less triggering reference to “agreement-making”.

When Yothu Yindi and Paul Kelly wrote their Treaty anthem in 1991, Hawke had already broken his promise to treaty within two years. The opening verse was laced with cynicism.

Words are easy, words are cheap

Much cheaper than our priceless land

But promises can disappear

Just like writing in the sand.

Yothu Yindi performs in Sydney in 2000.Credit: Dallas Kilponen

Treaty 1, as the First Peoples’ Assembly refers to the statewide agreement it is close to finalising with the Victorian government, is unlikely to inspire another song.

At a time when Indigenous communities are confronting significantly poorer health outcomes, lower education rates, greater rates of family violence, homelessness, incarceration and suicide, and lower life expectancies that white Australians, the treaty is preoccupied with the future power and authority of the body negotiating it.

The assembly’s likely powers will include decision-making on matters of cultural heritage and indigeneity, making First Nations appointments to government boards and running NAIDOC Week events.

This is jarring for Indigenous people who had greater aspirations for what such a historic agreement might look like, and it offers little – at least, in the immediate term – for communities experiencing chronic disadvantage in places like Mooroopna, Lake Tyers and Framlingham.

Even the lyrical genius of Paul Kelly would struggle to pen a catchy tune about the creation of new Indigenous bureaucracy.

The assembly makes no qualms about the focus of Treaty 1. In its most recent update on negotiations, it made clear its view that securing agreement on an empowered, enduring assembly is a crucial first step towards future agreements on things that directly impact the lives of First Nations people.

“We aren’t stopping here,” the assembly wrote last month. “In fact, this is the beginning of a new Treaty era.”

A member of the assembly unauthorised to publicly discuss treaty negotiations said the elected Indigenous leadership, rather than present an ambit claim, was playing a longer game about what it was likely to secure now and what it hoped to gain through future agreements.

“We are not going to get everything but whatever we do, we have got to make sure we have the body to continue the process,” they said.

To return to the question posed by our English backpacker on the Greek hillside, no, this isn’t it.

The treaty expected to be completed by November is planned as the first of multiple state treaties which will negotiate greater self-determination for Indigenous people in policy areas like health, housing and eduction. It will also be followed by separate treaties between the government and each of Victoria’s 38 recognised First Nations.

Despite the narrow focus and deferred ambition of Australia’s first treaty, the nearing of its completion stirred the usual arguments and dark predictions about where it would lead. Whatever you read or hear in the coming fray, rest assured that your backyard and BHP shares are safe.

The greatest achievement of Treaty 1 may be to finally show older whitefellas we have nothing to fear.

Chip Le Grand is state political editor.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.