Cirrus@Austlit

'The idea of a treaty is good. It could settle all outstanding disputes between indigenous peoples and the government. Prime Minister Howard has already rejected the idea of a treaty. He argues that as Aborigines are also Australians, people cannot make a treaty with themselves.' (Introduction)

'With the re-emergence of a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as a focus for the Indigenous rights debate, there is much expectation about what such an agreement may achieve. The utility of a treaty is something that has been discussed by the Aboriginal leadership for over two decades.' (Introduction)

'In this paper I seek to examine the concept that there is ‘unfinished business’ and how this business is central to the process of negotiating a treaty or treaties.' (Introduction)

'This paper is a contribution to the national debate about agreement making and the potential for a treaty between Indigenous people and settler Australia. The paper will draw out the significance of agreement-making for present-day Australian circumstances in order to inform the debate on the negotiated settlement of disputes over resource use, service delivery and other citizenship entitlements in the Australian context.' (Introduction)

'Indigenous Australians continue to affirm their rights to ownership of their land, resources, cultural expressions, knowledge and legal systems. Although colonisation and the assertion of British sovereignty placed enormous pressure on the active practice of the customs and traditions, Indigenous Australians continue to declare rights to all aspects of cultural heritage and cultural life on the basis of their status as original owners of land, law and culture. Indigenous cultural and heritage rights include rights to cultural resources, arts, songs, stories and knowledge.' (Introduction)

'The argument in this paper was played out on 2 June 1997, in my own Aboriginal community of Narungga, at Bookayana (Point Pearce Mission, Yorke Peninsula). A meeting was called to settle our grievances with the then South Australian Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET). This occasion is known amongst our people as the Bookayana Education meeting. The meeting was held in the Jack Long Memorial Hall, which seemed fitting as Kauwawa (Uncle) Jack3 was an Elder who spoke of the testimony of several Narungga people demanding selfdetermination at the 1915 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Affairs. My people have a strong and proud tradition in calling for our right to be self-determining. In every generation Narungga peoples have asserted our rights to sovereignty and jurisdiction over our own affairs (see Wanganeen 1987; Mattingley and Hampton1988). As a continuation of this legacy, the Bookayana education meeting called for greater Narungga control over education to improve the educational opportunities for our children. To address the crisis in education for the Narungga, there was an urgent need to resolve the following key issues.' (Introduction)

'I was a young teenager when Yothu Yindi released their single ‘Treaty’.6 I remember listening to it and feeling proud that it was a song performed by an Aboriginal band. I remember hearing it on the radio and watching the film clip. I don’t remember thinking too much about what the song was actually referring to. I don’t remember turning my mind to what exactly ‘treaty’ was or what it meant for Aboriginal people. Nowadays it seems ‘treaty’ is on the lips of Aboriginal people for a reason totally apart from musical appreciation or popular culture. In recent times the notion of a treaty has emerged as the centrepiece of the Indigenous rights agenda. Treaty is a major talking point of current Indigenous rights political discussion and the focus of academic deliberation. How would a treaty work? Would it be a treaty or treaties? What is the constitutional framework under which a treaty would be implemented? Is it the most effective way forward for Indigenous Peoples? Treaty is so much a part of the current Indigenous affairs agenda that the peak Indigenous representative body, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has highlighted ‘treaty’ as a major priority in the advancement of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Geoff Clark, the current chairman of ATSIC has said “I make no apology for placing the pursuit of a treaty at the top of my political agenda.”7 With the convening by ATSIC of treaty workshops around the country for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to discuss treaty issues, Mr Clark’s sentiment can hardly be ignored. Undoubtedly it would seem, ‘treaty’ is the catch cry of future debate surrounding the Indigenous rights campaign.' (Introduction)

'Aunty Lilla Watson, respected Elder of the Brisbane community, has shared with us the following story. We believe this story is critical to our place and time in history as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

…See the impact of colonialism has been huge…we Aboriginal people are spiritual people and we are still recovering because of colonialism… There’s not a lot of understanding about that on the part of white Australia because they have this misguided belief that colonialism doesn’t affect them. Of course it does! It’s made them into the people they are today, which means they cannot hear what Aboriginal people are telling them… Many are trying to run away from their own history… As they get older and more mature [chuckles], hopefully they’ll have a better understanding… You see, that mouth of the snake… our people are in pathological grieving. Our people have retreated into the belly of the snake… it’s our consolidation of our Aboriginality, a renewing of our identity. Only recently have we begun emerging from the mouth of the snake with renewal and consolidation of who we are…' (Introduction)

'The Australian common law’s recognition of native title by the High Court in the Mabo case of 1992 signalled a ‘retreat of injustice’ from which no turning back seemed possible. This recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights as the first peoples of this land contrasts sharply with the history of the common law which was marked instead by a blatant infringement of human rights: the colonial parliaments and legislatures effected many discriminatory laws aimed at the ‘natives’, laws that were shaped by official policies such as segregation and assimilation. These laws would appear abhorrent in Australian life today: laws that prohibited the intermarriage and association between Aboriginal and white or Asian, laws that permitted the theft or removal of children from their mothers, laws that allowed for the ‘indenturing’ or slavery of men, women and children to the burgeoning pastoral and pearling industries.

'This paper surveys the developments following the 1992 recognition of native title by the common law, and also highlights the importance of Indigenous people’s fundamental claims to justice: sovereignty, self-determination and treaty.' (Introduction)

'The international law of human rights will play a vital role in any domestic dialogue regarding the development of a treaty for indigenous Australia. The international human rights framework established through the United Nations provides a valuable source of human rights standards and jurisprudence that could be used in the discussion about the content of a treaty. These international human rights standards will be useful in relation to many potential areas of negotiation such as the right to equality, an entrenched prohibition of racial discrimination, and issues of resource and access capacity in key areas of concern for indigenous people like education, employment and health. Such standards are even more authoritative considering the developments of the past three decades of an emerging body of international law relating specifically to indigenous peoples.' (Introduction)

'Overcoming disadvantage, strengthening or rebuilding governance and recognising Indigenous rights through negotiated agreements or treaties are all fundamental issues in Indigenous affairs. These issues are part of a broad Indigenous strategy to address the issues of social and economic disadvantage, acquire more autonomy and control and achieve the recognition of Indigenous rights. This paper looks at the common thread between these issues and discusses and examines the characteristics and causes of Indigenous disadvantage...' (Introduction)

'This chapter, like others in this book, contributes to the conversations underway within the Treaty Think Tank. It draws from experiences in the Torres Strait with the aim of speaking to some of the issues raised by members of the Think Tank and other contributors to Treaty conversations.33 Whilst the Torres Strait context provides no clear way through any of the issues it does perhaps provide substance to the issues involved in negotiating and developing models for political autonomy or governance in a regional context. The Torres Strait example illustrates how the issues, as discussed and understood by both parties (Islanders and governments), are anchored both in principles (for example rights) and practicalities (for example how to achieve better representation and determination of Islander interests, better control over local resources and better delivery of externally funded services into the region). But it is the task of developing processes and mechanisms to deliver both and satisfy all interests that is the real difficulty in the Torres Strait and with the current Treaty process.' (Introduction)

'This year was the tenth anniversary of the High Court’s Mabo decision. It has created a valuable opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved in Indigenous Affairs over the last decade, and whether or not Indigenous Australians have really reaped the rewards the High Court opened up to us in this landmark case.' (Introduction)

'I am ATSIC’s Treaty Ambassador and I believe in a treaty because without one there is no true recognition of Aboriginal interests in this country.' (Introduction)