.

Dear SteeleRedux,

.

You wrote :

« If it fails at the referendum then it will be legislated in one form or another … I think the exercise has been great in getting people to discuss Indigenous affairs … It will certainly strengthen the push for treaty … »
.

The Uluru Statement calls for a Makarrata Commission to be established "to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations”.

While there's no mention of “treaty’ in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, I understand that “Makarrata" is a complex Yolngu word that can be used to describe a process of conflict resolution, peacemaking, and justice. It seems it can also be a synonym for treaty.

While I have no problem with the former (a process of conflict resolution, peacemaking, and justice), I find the latter (concluding a treaty) somewhat incongruous.

The so-called “first settlers” should have concluded a treaty with the indigenous peoples when they arrived here. That was 235 years ago, but they failed to do so. It’s too late to do it now. None of those people are around anymore. That was ten generations ago. The world has changed since then. We can’t roll back history and establish a treaty that should have been concluded in 1788.

We are now all citizens of one and the same country with equal rights and duties legally, politically, socially, and humanely. Many of our First Nations peoples wish to preserve their traditional culture which is perfectly understandable, and they should be free to do so.

In my view, irrespective of whether the Voice succeeds or fails, any dispositions that need to be clearly and irrevocably established in favour of our indigenous compatriots should be dealt with by appropriate legislation of the state and federal parliaments.

Treaties are agreements among and between nations. Treaties have been used to end wars, settle land disputes, and even establish new countries.

Whereas we are one nation, not several, and the High Court decided in 1992 that our indigenous peoples have a continuing connection and rights to land through Native Title.

.

Steele believes the Voice will solve these situations.

"For me it is indecent that in a rich country like ours trachoma is still endemic in some Indigenous communities.

For me it is indecent that in a rich country like ours we can have Indigenous Australians living 20 to a 3 bedroom home.

For me it is indecent that in a rich country like ours we can have the leader of our country put troops on the ground in over 70 Indigenous communities with zero consultation.

For me it is indecent that Indigenous kids are more likely to go to prison than to university.

These are facts."

He does not state how the Voice will correct any of these situations. The opportunities already exist to correct these situations and it means changing culture and lifestyle and integrating into Western lifestyle. Those that have intermarried out of culture and adopted Western values overcome these situations. Get out of the dirt and smoke and wash regularly with soap to keep bush flies out of your eyes.
_______________________________________________
The causes of Trachoma include:
Infection caused by subtypes of bacteria Chlamydia trachomatis
Spread through contact with eyes, eyelids, nose and throat secretions of infected people
Spread through handling of infected objects
Spread through eyeseeking flies
The risk factors include:
Age - more common in children between the ages 4 to 6
Crowded places
Poor sanitation
Sex - women are more prone to develop Trachoma than men
_______________________________________________________
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) found that “the high rates of Aboriginal deaths in custody was directly related to the underlying factors of poor health and housing, low employment and education levels, dysfunctional families and communities, dispossession and past government policies… [it] concluded that the most significant contributing factor bringing Aboriginal people into conflict with the criminal justice system was their disadvantaged and unequal position in the wider society”[iii].

Aboriginals are being told they belong to the land, and it was stolen - so they feel justified in stealing, they are by nature violent [I have witnessed after employing some], so assaults are commonplace.

It's rare that I agree with SR.

He wrote: "If it fails at the referendum then it will be legislated in one form or another."

But Albanese has promised that if the referendum fails he WON'T legislate it.

It seems that SR and I are in agreement that Albanese is a liar.

Albanese is a liar; but the real problem is the drongos who believe his lies and who will vote yes.

The Uluru Statement calls for - Voice, Treaty, and
Truth.

In other words these are the aspirations intended
as a sequence of reforms that advance towards a
just settlement with our First Peoples.

The British did not engage in treaty talks in Australia.
Instead they claimed the land belonged to no one and
they took it for themselves. It was a penal colony at
the time with a strong military force there was no
need to negotiate or perhaps the racist attitudes of
the day were influential.

As a result many people today believe that the moral
and legal basis of the nation is a little shaky.

We've all heard the arguments that a treaty would be
dangerous and would lead to the break-up of a nation.
That doesn't make sense. A treaty as others have
pointed out is a marriage not a divorce. A treaty is
about bringing communities together and building
strong relationships based on self determination.

Australia has signed up to a range of international
legal instruments that concern the rights of
Indigenous people. There is a long history of treaty
making all over the world.

It is important to note
that modern treaties differ from those negotiated
in colonial periods. They are more technical and
legally complex and are negotiated against a long
history of unequitable relationships.

However we need to remember that they will also
be subject to Australian law.

Progress has been taken in state and territory levels
by governments in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria,
NT, Tasmania and ACT.

Every treaty process has its own challenges and complications
and it is too early to tell whether these processes will
result in meaningful settlements. Nevertheless they do
demonstrate that treaties are a matter of political will, not
legal impossibility.

Looking towards the referendum the existence of treaty
processes across the country suggests Australians may be
ready to deal with the unfinished business of colonisation
and its consequences

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You may well find the idea of treaty "incongruous", but here in Victoria treaty negotiations are well progressed and other states are initiating theirs.

In other British colonial countries treaties continue to be used in righting past wrongs.

"Beginning in 1976, the Nisga’a and the Trudeau government entered into treaty negotiations. Fourteen years later, in 1990, both parties reached a preliminary agreement, and also welcomed the Province of British Columbia into the negotiations. In 1996, the three parties finalized the agreement, but it was not until 2000 that the Nisga’a achieved self-government."
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-treaties

This is counter to notion that it is "too late now".

Wikipedia defines treaty as "A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement between actors in international law. It is usually made by and between sovereign states, but can include international organizations, individuals, business entities, and other legal persons."

Your narrow application of the word is in the eye of beholder I'm afraid.

There is absolutely no reason why a treaty at a Federal level can not be initiated and progressed now.

Thorpe's fears about the Voice diluting the sovereignty goals achievable through a treaty process are valid and I think for no voters it may well be a case of be careful for what you wish for.