If you are confused around the many references and intentions regarding Path to Treaty, an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and other government and political efforts around securing a future that acknowledges our past in efforts to create a better future, you are not alone!
When I last wrote of what Indigenous Land Use Agreements and Native Title meant, I promised to investigate further concerns brought to me, even though most are outside of state jurisdiction, and present this in easy to understand ‘plain speak’.
How naïve I was to think I could untangle the complexity, similar to those Christmas tree lights I wrestle with every year, in one column.
Instead, I will start the journey as I continue researching, including in response to some questions today from our First Nations women which I hope to have answers for in time for International Women’s Day!
The Queensland State Government says via its website, that there is no standard format for treaties, and each is shaped by the unique social, political and historical context that exists between the parties who are negotiating the treaty.
Treaties can be for the whole state, or individual treaties with specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups could be negotiated.
Examples of treaties included the recognition of First Nations peoples as the original owners and custodians of the land, winds, sky and waters, to result in a binding relationship that empowers First Nations people and ensures substantive social justice outcomes.
According to our old pal Wiki, the Voice to Parliament is the proposed new advisory group containing separately elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, enshrined in the Constitution of Australia, which would “have a responsibility and right to advise the Australian Parliament and Government on national matters of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples“.
The request for creating the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was a result of the May 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, delivered by the First Nations National Constitutional Convention which met at Uluru.
Now that all sounds wonderful, shiny and full of good intent, however, as we are already hearing, there are challenges. Whether on news feeds or in Parliaments, the diversity of opinion, even between First Nations Federal Members of Parliament, ranges from that these are a positive, to that enshrining a Voice to Parliament, or treaties, means little on the ground when it comes to better outcomes for our First Nations people.
The narrative against has included Facebook commentary, movements and speeches in Parliament querying the Native Title process, and whether various recognised legitimate claimants are actually legitimate.
Given across the country, Native Title processes have been underway for four decades, there has been plenty of time in this realm. Even from my personal experience in the Northern Territory over 30 years ago when Native Title was negotiated for the property we managed, never had I heard this raised, and I had to ask myself ‘why now’?
When you look back as to where this all started (Mabo – Uluru Statement of the Heart) I have no doubt that at that time there would have been differing viewpoints between our First Nations people about the path forward, however, had presumed, obviously incorrectly, that the wrinkles would be ironed out, and that what we are attempting to do is what was recommended from First Nations Australians themselves.
The question is, have we strayed from their intention, or did we interpret reconciliation from our perspective, instead of theirs? It may be, as one Senator recently requested, that a review on the Federal processes is needed to clear the air, so to speak!
The reality is that along this journey there are some upheavals, with aspersions cast on the processes, claimants and intentions that impacts all of us, including state MPs making determinations on legislation and proposals such as the Cooloola Great Walk, and will continue to into the future if we do not get the clarity sought. This whether in relation to Indigenous Land Use or Management Agreements in our own community, Native Title, the Voice or a map of the Path to Treaty from the Queensland Government.
Lack of clarity or detail filters down the chain, leading to a vast volume of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misinformation on the ground.
As a previous member of the Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee, I was privy to submissions of dissent between First Nations people in another community regarding the terms of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) and an Indigenous Management Agreement (IMA) , and included in my Statement of Reservation in August 2020 that “It is vital that governments of all levels now make provision to incorporate into consultations and beyond a process of mediation, as the journey forward requires unity, respect and collaboration between and within communities. As well, to review why management documents such as an IMA cannot be made available within our First Nations communities as part of building that unity.”
IMAs, like ILUAs, are treated as Commercial in Confidence, however, this may also need to be reviewed, as how do we reduce the incorrect assumptions and misinformation surrounding without being able to access what is actually in them?
Recently I investigated the spreading of a most ridiculous story that I was bussing in Kabi Kabi from Cherbourg to create unrest with Indigenous women who were gathering in a sacred spot at Poona Lake.
In my time as a representative over the last decade, I have had to deal with some bizarre accusations, including that I was a member of the Temple of Satan!
However, this one perturbed me as I have always been clear I do not involve myself in Kabi business, and needed to understand who was pitting Kabi women against an MP who has been openly supportive of Kabi endeavours in our community?
Ultimately, all I could ascertain, woman to woman, was the internal conflict between our First Nations people including who and how legitimate claimants should be rightfully determined by the courts as in Native Title Claims, and a difference of opinion on the path forward.
In essence, it seems that there are those who have worked for many years to better the lives of First Nations people, both Indigenous and non, through working within the frameworks we have, and then there are those who wish for a different system, sovereignty, defined as “a state or a governing body [that] has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies“.
Currently we are trying to move forward under the system we have. Does it need tweaking? Maybe. However, we must work to what unites, not systems that divide or separate.
We are all Australians, and when any Australian is suffering, we all suffer.
It is in everyone’s best interests to ensure the wrongs of the past are righted through truth telling and acknowledgments that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous have suffered through our history, and still do.
However, as with any representative or advisory group regardless of intent, casting aspersions upon each other does not make this journey any easier for anyone. Having firsthand experience as a representative, there are always those who work to see you unelected for their own reasons and seeing this occur between our First Nations people has been unexpected. However, as recently explained to me by a Kabi woman, they are just like us. They have arguments, disagree with a majority consensus including at election time, and even look to oust their representatives, just as we do!
As you have seen for many years now, I continue to fight for an end to misinformation and misunderstandings through respectful communications and debate, objective research and rejecting the nastiness, mistruths and forms of skullduggery that unfortunately continue.
With that in mind, as this is such a complex topic and we have a long journey to go, I have been in contact with the Queensland South Native Title Services and our universities to get the facts around processes such as Indigenous voting, dispersal of funds gained through ILUAs, and recognition of claimants as examples.
These we will post up to Noosa 360 once received, as well extra contact details for any person who has questions relating to these processes, and information on a free legal advice service that is soon to be made available.
Until then, and the expected media release regarding the ILUA for the Cooloola Great Walk (CGW) from Kabi representatives, CABN and the Queensland State government, I ask everyone to come together and find common ground to move forward.
The current Facebook shenanigans, often from outside of our electorate, are detrimental and destructive, at a time where there should be pride in the progress being made, and respect for those who have laboured so hard for decades for reconciliation.
Let me assure you that should at any time I find that the intent of the CGW project is not as originally proposed for the benefit of Kabi and our community, I will be the first to let you know, including whether there is any reason to no longer support the project.
To do otherwise is slowing down efforts for unity, bettering the lives of all Australians, and getting to that day when we can celebrate an Aussie Day all together, simply because we are proud of who we are collectively, and what we aspire to.
Until next time
Sandy
