Treaty is a Recipe for Separatism

John Howard

The Hon. John Howard, MP, is Leader of the Federal Opposition.

When the proposal of a treaty was put forward by the Prime Minister in June 1988, Mr Howard rejected it out of hand, arguing that a treaty could only divide, not unite, black and white Australians.

THE Liberal and National Parties remain committed to achieving policies which bring Aboriginal people into the mainstream of Australian society and give them equal opportunity to share fully in a common future with all other Australians.

Consequently, we are utterly opposed to the idea of an Aboriginal treaty, partly because it will do nothing to assist in these aims.  It is an absurd proposition that a nation should make a treaty with some of its own citizens.  It also denies the fact that Aboriginal people have full citizenship rights now.

The whole idea of a treaty makes nonsense of the statement made by the Prime Minister on Australia Day that there can be no hierarchy of descent in Australia and that commitment to Australia is everything.  The Prime Minister at that time rejected any policy based on racial difference, and we do the same.

In proposing a treaty the Hawke Government has set itself on a path of creating expectations amongst Aborigines that such a treaty would facilitate the provision of national land rights and enable claims to be made for monetary compensation based on prior ownership of land and past injustices.

This has certainly been the experience overseas.

NEW ZEALAND

In New Zealand enormous repercussions are now being discovered in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi signed between representatives of the Maori peoples and Queen Victoria in 1840.  Because of a 1987 Act by the New Zealand Parliament, the Treaty has become a part of the New Zealand legal framework.  The Waitangi Tribunal, which advises the New Zealand Government on land claims made by Maori groups, recently approved and recommended to the Government a claim by the Mariwhenua people, a group of five Maori tribes, for all the fishing rights in Northland on the North Island of New Zealand.  Further Maori claims for land and compensation are currently being considered by the Government.

The New Zealand Government has also been prevented from transferring Crown land to its new State-owned enterprises under the State-owned Enterprises Act.  The Maori Council brought an action in the New Zealand Court of Appeal to prevent Crown land being transferred to the new enterprises on the grounds that it would no longer be subject to claim by Maori groups.  The action was upheld and the implications for the rest of New Zealand law are likely to be great.  Do we really need such problems in Australia?

COMPENSATION AND LAND RIGHTS

A treaty between Australian Aborigines and other Australians must inevitably lead to claims for national land rights and massive compensation.  Otherwise, what is the point of such a divisive document?  In the past few months a number of Aboriginal groups have done preliminary work on what they think a treaty should contain and they now have high expectations that they will be given enormous chunks of Australia.

A draft treaty has been prepared for the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations which makes outrageous claims concerning the need for annual compensation for loss of Aboriginal lands to the tune of $1 billion, initially.

Another group of Aborigines who met the Prime Minister at Barunga in June this year asked for "compensation for the loss of use of our lands" and "a national system of land rights".  This is the basis of the treaty that these people want.

But what will be the basis of other treaties?  Any group may come up with a treaty and raise their own agenda of issues.  It is a recipe for disaster.  The treaty requested for consideration by the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations was commented on favourably by a person who is now an advisor to Mr Hand.  He said the treaty was "philosophically spot on".  But where will other treaty documents come from?  Indeed there are already indications that Aboriginal people themselves have doubts about the whole concept of a treaty.

Which group of Aborigines will want the treaty to be negotiated next and who will they wish it to be negotiated with?  For example, I recently received an invitation to attend a meeting that was designed to be the first stage of a proposed treaty between the Torres Strait Islanders Corporation and the Aboriginal people of South-East Queensland.  Are there to be further treaties between the Torres Strait Islanders and other Aboriginal groups or are there to be treaties between the Aborigines of the North and the Aborigines of the South?  We are all Australians and there can be no thought given to dividing the nation in this way.

AREAS OF REAL NEED

Aboriginal people already have the right to manage much of their own land and programs.  They have already indicated that this is where priority should be.  These priorities will not be met by the devotion of time and effort to such treaties.

The breaking-away from dependence can only come from closer co-operation with other Australians and by Aboriginal people taking responsibility themselves, not by creating a new growth industry for the Aboriginal bureaucracy.

Protracted negotiations over a treaty will only divert attention from the real issues and problems faced by Aboriginal people.  These areas of need are clearly and demonstrably expressed by Aboriginal people themselves whenever I meet with them.  They are also communicated clearly to my Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Chris Miles.  These areas are housing, health and welfare and the provision of assistance in maintaining cultural and religious life.

Funds should not be wasted on treaty negotiations when these pressing social and economic problems must be addressed.  Our policies will address these matters, especially through the removal of the duplication of services that has bedevilled Aboriginal programs.

We will move the responsibility for programs closer to the Aboriginal people themselves by giving self-management and self-control over expenditure wherever possible and where control is exercised by Canberra, where appropriate moving it to the State or local level.

We will create more jobs in Aboriginal communities by assisting the development of Aboriginal enterprises and investment.  We will do this by supporting the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy and create employment opportunities in national parks and by revitalising the Aboriginal Development Commission or its equivalent.  We welcome the increased expenditure on Aboriginal employment in the last budget but we believe that better targeting and administration is necessary to make this employment expenditure more effective.

We will encourage post-school job training through a variety of means including the Community Development Employment Program which has proved so successful in Aboriginal communities.  Effective programs and policies are the way to improve the situation of Aborigines, not the useless and divisive notion of a treaty.

ONE AUSTRALIA

While a treaty may give some people a warm inner glow of satisfaction, it cannot and will not result in the development of compassionate and sensible policies so desperately needed to overcome the situation faced by many Aboriginal people.  On a recent visit to Alice Springs I met the Chairman of the Central Lands Council, Wenten Rabuntja.  In the course of our conversation he said that "we are all one mob but some of us have bigger problems than others".  This, to me, epitomises my ideal of One Australia and the way that we should work together to overcome areas of real disadvantage and not focus on the things that divide us, separate us and lead to a lack of understanding.

I regard a treaty as a recipe for separatism.  I believe that those Aboriginal people who have served in the Australian Armed forces are proud of their achievements and would be insulted by the notion of having to turn around, like an alien people, and sign a treaty with their former comrades.

As I do not believe that a treaty is something that would be widely accepted I have no great fears that it will continue to be an issue of debate unless the Hawke Government decides for political reasons to continue with it.  I hope this will not be the case as it can be to no Australian's advantage.