The State Voice Treaties and Truth Inquisitions: How to Fight Them By James Reed
While the Voice referendum has yielded a No, the states had their versions of the Voice ready to go. South Australia’s Labor government had legislated for the Voice, a treaty and a South African style truth commission, presumably an inquisition of white Australia, what else? You don’t expect to get to the truth about how tax payers’ money is spent on indigenous programs do you? Victoria already has The Treaty Act, even though treaties are normally between federal governments, and the target group. And the Voice and truth inquisition are set to go, as in Queensland. New South Wales and Tasmania are a bit behind, and Western Australia got stung by the backlash to its heritage laws by the farmers fighting back, so it is going careful. The horrible details are below, where you can see the contempt the state leaders have for the results of a referendum. They are dictators that need to be voted out from office.
The South Australian Voice legislation will be challenged by a Bill by the One Nation member, but it will not succeed, given Labor dominance. Nor is it likely that the governor will withhold assent, this is a no-no since Sir John Kerr. As for a legal challenge, as far as I can see, there are no grounds.
That leaves the need to set up grassroots opposition in the form of action groups to undermine the state Labor governments. It can draw on the No campaign, anti-vaxxers and recruit anti-immigration and heritage preservation people, as the Labor government is big on ripping down the old Anglo-Saxon buildings to put up buildings to hold the replacement population and the future New Class. It will be a grassroots resistance against the woke anti-traditionalism of the evil Labor, and it is something that needs to be done anyway. So, let’s get started.
“South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas says a state-based Voice to the SA parliament legislated in March but delayed for six months to allow clear air for the Voice referendum, is full steam ahead and has not been damaged by a resounding No vote.
Mr Malinauskas, a prominent Yes campaigner who spoke at the national launch with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in late August, said on Sunday that elections would proceed as planned in mid-March for representatives to the state-based Voice to parliament, the first by any jurisdiction in Australia.
South Australia is set to introduce a state-based Indigenous Voice while Victoria is pushing for a treaty with First Nations people despite the defeat of the referendum.
SA Premier Peter Malinauskas has legislated the Uluru Statement in full, which includes Voice, Treaty and Truth.
The government is set hold elections for delegates to the state-based Indigenous Voice next March.
But the results of Saturday's referendum has resulted in calls from the opposition for the Malinauskas government to walk back on its commitment.
Australia voted No to the proposed change to the constitution, with every state rejecting the proposal and only the ACT voting Yes as the vote count continues.
SA Opposition Leader David Speirs slammed the premier over his government's push.
South Australians have voted clearly against a Voice to Parliament and it’s now up to Peter Malinauskas to explain where to from here,' he said.
Mr Spiers, who announced his opposition to the national Voice back in July, said the referendum result was 'particularly woeful in the suburbs and regions where people are struggling to pay their bills'.
He was joined by SA One Nation MP Sarah Game who intends to introduce a Bill in the coming week to repeal the state-based Voice.
'An overwhelming majority of South Australians voted no to The Voice,' she said in a statement following the referendum result.
'The division caused by The Voice Referendum has been sad to watch and experience. '
'There is no place for the remnants with the legislated South Australian Voice.'
Ms Game instead called for a 'plan for needs-based support, not race or heritage-based support'.
SA's state-based Voice will be able to provide advice to the government on issues affecting First Nations people.
The body will convene with the government twice per year.
Like the national Voice proposal, the SA Voice will not have the power to veto policies and laws or force Parliament to act.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in SA can nominate a candidate for the state Voice between 22 January 2024 and 12 February 2024.
It will then go to a vote that will be held on March 16.
Meanwhile, Victoria has pushed ahead with its treaty process with First Nations people after Daniel Andrews introduced the reforms.
The state is relatively advanced in treaty discussions, the furthest along in Australia.
The Treaty Act, which is Australia’s first ever Treaty law, passed both houses of the Victorian Parliament in June 2018 and commenced on 1 August 2018.
It has paved the way towards treaty negotiations and established an agreement between the First Peoples' Assembly and the State to develop protocols to give practical application to the guiding principles set out in the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians.
Australia is one of the only Commonwealth countries without a treaty with its First Nations people.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney addressed the nation at Parliament House after the Voice referendum was called.
The Prime Minister acknowledged that while it wasn't the result he had hoped for, he respects the overwhelming decision of the Australian people.
'When we reflect on everything happening in the world today, we can all give thanks that here in Australia we make the big decisions peacefully and as equals, with one vote, one value,' he said.
'I never imagined or indeed said that it would be easy. Very few things in public life worth doing are.'
Visibly emotional after the outcome, Mr Albanese vowed his government would continue to fight to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians by working to 'close the gap' and advance reconciliation.
While Australians may not be ready for an Indigenous voice to parliament, state and territory leaders have pledged to forge ahead with their own treaty and reconciliation plans.
The Indigenous voice referendum was defeated on Saturday, with all states and territories except for the ACT voting the proposal down.
South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said the Australian people have made it clear they are against a constitutionally enshrined national voice, but he has no intention to shelve his state's legislated voice.
He stressed the SA voice, which will be implemented in 2024, did not propose to change the constitution.
"So it'll roll out and I think it'll be largely non-controversial," he told reporters on Sunday.
"It's very different in nature to what was being proposed yesterday in the referendum."
One Nation MP Sarah Game will introduce a bill to repeal the state's voice but without the government's support, it has no hope of succeeding.
Despite calling to restart the state's stalled treaty process in opposition, the Labor government has kept it on hold as it focused on implementing its voice instead.
"We've seen other state governments pursue treaty, what we've committed to is voice," Mr Malinauskas said.
Queenslanders delivered the most emphatic rejection of the voice, with almost 70 per cent voting 'no', but the government will continue down its path toward a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups.
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she was confident that all Australians agreed there was a need to improve the wellbeing of First Nations people.
"We are a generous nation. And we extend our hearts and our hand to all," she said.
"This wasn't the right way. I acknowledge the strong feedback.
"But that won't stop our efforts to bring justice, reconciliation and material improvement to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."
Queensland's parliament in May passed historic laws to help shape future treaty negotiations, with a Truth-telling inquiry to examine the state's colonial past.
The mood is sombre in some parts of the Northern Territory, where land councils have vowed a week of silence to grieve the loss.
"Now is not the time to dissect the reasons for this tragic outcome," the councils said in a joint statement.
"Now is the time for silence, to mourn and deeply consider the consequence of this outcome."
NT Chief Minister Natasha Fyles said she was disappointed in the result but would continue to advocate for Indigenous Australians.
"We will continue to strive to ensure that their voices can be heard at all levels of government," she said on Monday.
NT Aboriginal Affairs Minister Selena Uibo said a new Treaty Unit will work on implementing the recommendations of the independent Treaty Commission after the government controversially abolished the body in February.
Victorian Deputy Premier Ben Carroll said his government would push on with negotiating a statewide treaty with the state's version of the voice, the First People's Assembly of Victoria.
"We have so much more work to do with our First Nations people," he told reporters in Melbourne on Monday.
"Whether it's health, whether it's incarceration rates, whether it's level of education attainment."
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns is yet to commence a treaty process but maintains he is sticking with a $5 million pre-election commitment towards consultation.
"It's important to note that a treaty in NSW would require a treaty with 150 different nations in the state, so it's not a straightforward process," he said.
"This will be a long process."
Tasmania is also working towards a treaty and truth-telling process but Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff says there are currently no plans for the state to implement its own voice.
Western Australian Premier Roger Cook rejected the suggestion his government's controversial heritage laws had a detrimental impact on the 'yes' vote in the state.
Mr Cook said he has no plans to implement a state-based voice and will instead focus on improving the lives of Aboriginal people.
While the referendum on the Voice to Parliament suffered a resounding defeat on the weekend, states are pushing ahead with their own plans to implement one of the other main pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart — treaty.
But while New South Wales has the biggest Indigenous population, it's the only state or territory not to have already started the treaty process.
Treaties have been negotiated with Indigenous people in other former colonies around the world, including Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Greenland and Japan.
NSW Premier Chris Minns has said he remained committed to kickstarting treaty discussions with Indigenous people in the state.
So what might a treaty look like in NSW and what happens from here?
What is a treaty?
A treaty is a binding agreement between two or more parties that is used to resolve differences and set out the responsibilities and duties of each party.
In the colonial era, European powers often used treaties to strike agreements with Indigenous people about a wide range of issues, including trade and military alliances and how land would be shared.
But that never happened in Australia because the British never recognised First Nations people as the owners of the land, instead claiming it belonged to no one.
That's the idea of "Terra Nullius", which was overturned by the High Court in 1992 in the landmark Mabo ruling.
As well as historical treaties, countries like Canada also have "modern treaties" with Indigenous people, which aim to address historical injustices as well as set out a way forward in the future.
It's that modern form of treaty that will be discussed in NSW.
University of NSW constitutional law expert George Williams described these sorts of treaties as "more akin to marriages than divorces".
"They are actually about agreeing on mutual co-existence so everyone in the state has a sense of how we can move forward together with our First Peoples in a way that will lead to economic and social prosperity," he said.
So what might be included in a state-based treaty?
After the weekend's result, Mr Minns was keen to emphasise that a treaty in and of itself was a "blank document" — with the content entirely determined by what's negotiated and agreed between the government and First Nations people.
That sentiment is backed up by Professor Williams.
"Treaties are a negotiated outcome, so there is no definite answer to what is in or out, it's a matter of what's agreed between governments and Indigenous peoples," he said.
"What you commonly find in treaties is you do find issues relating to land, waters, you also find cultural heritage protections.
"And sometimes you do find references to reparations, whereby there is compensation for past wrongs. But these are all things that need to be agreed through a treaty process with all parties involved."
But Euahlayi elder and Aboriginal tent embassy founder Ghillar Michael Anderson said without a federal treaty there were limitations on what state treaties can achieve.
"New South Wales cannot go beyond and negotiate outside of what's in their (state) constitution," he said.
"So whatever the constitutional powers over the New South Wales, that's all they can talk about."
Mr Anderson helped work on a treaty framework for the National Aboriginal Conference that was set up under the Whitlam government and believes there are key issues that can only be tackled at a federal level.
But he wants to see a state treaty address cultural water access to the Murray Darling Basin and coastal rivers, fishing arrangements, ownership and management of national parks, and access to sacred sites.
"Aboriginal people are saying we're not going to take your land off you, but we want access to sacred sites, we want access and we want to protect them," he said.
And he said mining royalties should also be on the table.
"We want royalties of course, if we agree with any type of mining or gas, there's got to be royalties and they have to go to those nations where they're getting it from, not to every Aboriginal person."
Why is NSW behind other states on the issue of treaty?
In 1988 the then-prime minister Bob Hawke promised to make a treaty with First Nations people within two years, but that pledge was never delivered.
In the absence of federal action, over the past decade, other states forged ahead with beginning the process of reaching state-based treaties.
But in NSW, the Coalition government never proposed putting the issue on the agenda — and it was in power for 12 years.
Before it was elected in March, Labor pledged to spend $5 million on a year-long consultation process on treaty.
The state with the most advanced treaty process is Victoria.
What happens next and how long will the process take?
Mr Minns has so far been unwilling to put a timeline of the treaty process in NSW, warning there are "no easy answers" in the wake of the referendum result.”
While all of this is happening, we have the example of the rental crisis destroying Aussie families with one family paying $ 360 a week for a powered site to pitch their tent. So much for land rights for white Aussies!
Comments