Thank you for this sad, angry, poetic, heartfelt piece, Kris. This - 'It asks everything of the wounded and nothing of the state that did the wounding.' That's a profound observation.
I wasn't aware that Tasmania had shelved treaty until I read this. And this statement that I just dug up from Ms Petrusma - "Truth-telling is a necessary step which must run its course, so accordingly, the government will no longer progress treaty," Sorry, accordingly? That does not logically follow. Morally reprehensible breach of trust and policy.
Thank you, Kerry. Like so many things, it’s easier to demand grace from the wounded than accountability from the powerful.
As for the statement... yes. “Accordingly” is doing a hell of a lot of work there. Like a waiter who sets your table on fire and then says it’s part of the dining experience.
I, of course, can’t comment on certain decisions. But I can nod meaningfully while looking into the middle distance.
Good question, Steve. Thing is, I said at the time: when you're negotiating with someone who holds all the power, “consultation” isn’t power, it’s choreography. A Voice without teeth is just another polite nod before business as usual resumes.
Let’s be honest, asking powerless people to politely advise their colonisers was never going to fix anything. A Voice without power is theatre. Worse, it risks being used to launder the status quo.
Thanks for writing this on the eve of NAIDOC Week. I voted Yes because I didn't think it was my place to say No. I am Tassie born but live in WA, and while the WA Government is the only state in Australia (as of 2024) who has not committed to 'talking treaty', they do like to claim Noongar Native Title agreement as 'Australia's first treaty' despite the fact the agreement doesn't recognise the Noongar People's right to self-government. There is a positive - Noongar Settlement shows that treaty can be achieved within the existing public legal system, but Australia (state by state) still has a long way to go.
Thanks Lisa. I’m just a working-class boy who got lucky, really, I still don’t understand why so many people refuse to stand alongside First Nations people. History’s done a number on this country’s head. WA claiming “first treaty” while ignoring self-government says it all.
On your comments, Lisa, I worked in native title and Aboriginal heritage and I've seen it in action, first-hand. I hear you. One atrocity after another. I also worked on Woodside Pluto B. Soul destroying. WA has a disgraceful track record. I will say, however, on the South West Native Title Settlement, references to it as a treaty originally came from Hobbs and Williams - Law School UNSW - they described it as 'Australia's First Treaty'. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2018/1.html There are good legal grounds to view it as such.
It's worth a read.
I will also say that WA are one of only two states to implement a Stolen Generations Redress Scheme. Basically, compensation. Still coughing up money in the absence of systemic cultural change feels hollow to me, but it is ownership of fault.
Despite what's said on ANTAR, the Settlement does have self-governance structures and includes some of the following (listed below), which is a shitload more than I can say for Tasmania. That said, I think in many ways it offers some sort of treaty without truth. Or that's how it feels to me. And yes, WA are the only government, I believe, that have not engaged in any form of treaty discussions or negotiations across the State. I am not surprised - WA initially tried to override the High Court in Mabo with the Land (Titles and Traditional Usage) Act.
The Settlement -
Recognition through an Act of Parliament - the Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016.
Noongar Boodja Trust - a perpetual trust, receiving yearly instalments of $50 million for 12 years.
Noongar Corporations - the establishment of six Noongar Regional Corporations and one Central Services Corporation, with funding support of $10 million a year for 12 years, and $6.5m to establish the offices.
Transfer of 320,000 hectares of land to the Noongar Land Estate - 320,000 hectares of development and cultural land held by the Noongar Boodja Trust.
Co-operative and joint management - of National Parks and the South West Conservation Estate.
Land Access - to certain crown lands for customary activities.
Noongar Standard Heritage Agreement - standard processes for determining when and how to carry out heritage surveys on Noongar Lands.
Noongar Heritage Partnership Agreement - collaboration framework for identifying, recording, protecting and managing Noongar Heritage values and sites.
Noongar Housing Program - transfer and refurbishment of 121 properties to the Noongar Boodja Trust and $10m to develop and refurbish the properties.
Economic and Community Development - through development frameworks to assist Noongar businesses and improve Government service delivery to the Noongar community.
Capital Works Program - funding to contribute to the establishment of a Noongar Cultural Centre and office space for Noongar Corporations.
Noongar Land Fund - up to $46,850,000 over ten years for land-related projects
Noongar Cultural Centre - $5.3m and up to two hectares of land towards the development of a Noongar Cultural Centre.
It's just a lead that I thought might interest. On my 'hollow' comments, I was just having a flick through it myself. Perhaps a little too cynical but hard not be in the State of Mining fuck out everything.
'In the second reading speech, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Peter Collier, acknowledged the deep injustices that had been done to the Noongar people since the British arrival in 1826. He recounted the ‘one-sided struggle over land and resources’, the ‘devastating spread of introduced diseases’, the hardening of attitudes towards Aboriginal people at the turn of the 20th century and the ‘repressive and coercive system of control’ mandated by the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA), the impact of which ‘still resonates throughout Western Australian society’. And yet, despite this ‘history of oppression and marginalisation’, the ‘Noongar people have survived’ and continue ‘to assert their rights and identity’. During debate over the Bill, parliamentarians frequently reiterated the significance of this acknowledgement. Antonio Buti, MLA noted that it indicated that the Government ‘has understood that it is important to recognise the legal, historical and moral rights of traditional owners’, while David Kelly MLA lauded the Bill and called for further negotiations across the State.'
Thank you for this sad, angry, poetic, heartfelt piece, Kris. This - 'It asks everything of the wounded and nothing of the state that did the wounding.' That's a profound observation.
I wasn't aware that Tasmania had shelved treaty until I read this. And this statement that I just dug up from Ms Petrusma - "Truth-telling is a necessary step which must run its course, so accordingly, the government will no longer progress treaty," Sorry, accordingly? That does not logically follow. Morally reprehensible breach of trust and policy.
Thank you, Kerry. Like so many things, it’s easier to demand grace from the wounded than accountability from the powerful.
As for the statement... yes. “Accordingly” is doing a hell of a lot of work there. Like a waiter who sets your table on fire and then says it’s part of the dining experience.
I, of course, can’t comment on certain decisions. But I can nod meaningfully while looking into the middle distance.
I wonder what the referendum count would’ve been like if the question was “will the voice work?”
Good question, Steve. Thing is, I said at the time: when you're negotiating with someone who holds all the power, “consultation” isn’t power, it’s choreography. A Voice without teeth is just another polite nod before business as usual resumes.
Let’s be honest, asking powerless people to politely advise their colonisers was never going to fix anything. A Voice without power is theatre. Worse, it risks being used to launder the status quo.
Thanks for writing this on the eve of NAIDOC Week. I voted Yes because I didn't think it was my place to say No. I am Tassie born but live in WA, and while the WA Government is the only state in Australia (as of 2024) who has not committed to 'talking treaty', they do like to claim Noongar Native Title agreement as 'Australia's first treaty' despite the fact the agreement doesn't recognise the Noongar People's right to self-government. There is a positive - Noongar Settlement shows that treaty can be achieved within the existing public legal system, but Australia (state by state) still has a long way to go.
Thanks Lisa. I’m just a working-class boy who got lucky, really, I still don’t understand why so many people refuse to stand alongside First Nations people. History’s done a number on this country’s head. WA claiming “first treaty” while ignoring self-government says it all.
And Tassie? Don’t get me started.
On your comments, Lisa, I worked in native title and Aboriginal heritage and I've seen it in action, first-hand. I hear you. One atrocity after another. I also worked on Woodside Pluto B. Soul destroying. WA has a disgraceful track record. I will say, however, on the South West Native Title Settlement, references to it as a treaty originally came from Hobbs and Williams - Law School UNSW - they described it as 'Australia's First Treaty'. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2018/1.html There are good legal grounds to view it as such.
It's worth a read.
I will also say that WA are one of only two states to implement a Stolen Generations Redress Scheme. Basically, compensation. Still coughing up money in the absence of systemic cultural change feels hollow to me, but it is ownership of fault.
Despite what's said on ANTAR, the Settlement does have self-governance structures and includes some of the following (listed below), which is a shitload more than I can say for Tasmania. That said, I think in many ways it offers some sort of treaty without truth. Or that's how it feels to me. And yes, WA are the only government, I believe, that have not engaged in any form of treaty discussions or negotiations across the State. I am not surprised - WA initially tried to override the High Court in Mabo with the Land (Titles and Traditional Usage) Act.
The Settlement -
Recognition through an Act of Parliament - the Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016.
Noongar Boodja Trust - a perpetual trust, receiving yearly instalments of $50 million for 12 years.
Noongar Corporations - the establishment of six Noongar Regional Corporations and one Central Services Corporation, with funding support of $10 million a year for 12 years, and $6.5m to establish the offices.
Transfer of 320,000 hectares of land to the Noongar Land Estate - 320,000 hectares of development and cultural land held by the Noongar Boodja Trust.
Co-operative and joint management - of National Parks and the South West Conservation Estate.
Land Access - to certain crown lands for customary activities.
Noongar Standard Heritage Agreement - standard processes for determining when and how to carry out heritage surveys on Noongar Lands.
Noongar Heritage Partnership Agreement - collaboration framework for identifying, recording, protecting and managing Noongar Heritage values and sites.
Noongar Housing Program - transfer and refurbishment of 121 properties to the Noongar Boodja Trust and $10m to develop and refurbish the properties.
Economic and Community Development - through development frameworks to assist Noongar businesses and improve Government service delivery to the Noongar community.
Capital Works Program - funding to contribute to the establishment of a Noongar Cultural Centre and office space for Noongar Corporations.
Noongar Land Fund - up to $46,850,000 over ten years for land-related projects
Noongar Cultural Centre - $5.3m and up to two hectares of land towards the development of a Noongar Cultural Centre.
Thanks for the clarification. I will check out the Sydney Law Revue.
Interesting read, and seeing that part of Peter Collier’s speech, I had forgotten about him. He was certainly not without controversy.
It's just a lead that I thought might interest. On my 'hollow' comments, I was just having a flick through it myself. Perhaps a little too cynical but hard not be in the State of Mining fuck out everything.
'In the second reading speech, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Peter Collier, acknowledged the deep injustices that had been done to the Noongar people since the British arrival in 1826. He recounted the ‘one-sided struggle over land and resources’, the ‘devastating spread of introduced diseases’, the hardening of attitudes towards Aboriginal people at the turn of the 20th century and the ‘repressive and coercive system of control’ mandated by the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA), the impact of which ‘still resonates throughout Western Australian society’. And yet, despite this ‘history of oppression and marginalisation’, the ‘Noongar people have survived’ and continue ‘to assert their rights and identity’. During debate over the Bill, parliamentarians frequently reiterated the significance of this acknowledgement. Antonio Buti, MLA noted that it indicated that the Government ‘has understood that it is important to recognise the legal, historical and moral rights of traditional owners’, while David Kelly MLA lauded the Bill and called for further negotiations across the State.'