Queensland Labor Determined to Push on With a Treaty

The treaty process begins with division as a foundational premise. And it continues codifying division from there

Queensland Premier Steven Miles has confirmed that his government will persist with plans for a treaty between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

This despite 70 per cent of Queenslanders voting ‘No’ to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament last October.

Australians don’t want to be divided by race. Could the message have been more emphatic?

Bullied by politicians, harassed by corporations, guilted by sporting organisations, and gaslit by celebrities … 60 per cent of people nationally still voted no.

But the Labor Party insists we will be divided nevertheless. Why should people’s votes get in the way of what political elites have already decided.

The Queensland State Government’s own document on treaty say that treaties are “shaped by the social, political, and historical background that exists between the groups negotiating the treaty”.

“The groups”? Really? The treaty process begins with division as a foundational premise. And it continues codifying division from there.

Here I was, all this time, believing my Aboriginal neighbour was a fellow traveller. Now I discover I was wrong to do that. He has been, all along, in conflict with me and we cannot have peace without lawyers getting involed.

The Queensland Labor Party, already up their eyeballs in debt, have put aside $300m to kick off the treaty process. And what a process it is.

It begins with what they call truth telling - something largely absent during the Voice referendum.

The truth telling exercise - it’s officially called “A Truth Telling and Healing Inquiry” which makes the conclusion sound more than a little pre-determined - is expected to take three years or more.

This is important, the government says, because a treaty must be based on truth.

I wonder if they’ll start by telling the truth about Welcome to Country. (Ernie Dingo says hello)

And what chance the truth telling inquiry will insist on evidence-based testimony rather than on uncorroborated hearsay passed down through the years? If it weren’t so politically incorrect, I’d say ‘fat’ chance.

The government insists that a treaty does not necessarily mean reparations. Also, I have a bridge to sell you.

For some Indigenous groups, we are told, a treaty could simply be recognition of a particular massacre or violence inflicted on a community during the colonisation of Australia.

Truth telling, they say.

Come on. The entire point of the inquiry is to establish blame to enable a claim.

For others, the government says, it could be an opportunity to have a say on specific health and social justice outcomes.

No, no, not like voting for your local MP who then takes your concerns to Canberra. That’s for non-indigenous people. Indigenous people will get extra special representation that defies the one man one vote principle of equality. Just to emphasis how equal we all are, of course.

Treaty assumes Australians are divided, and then entrenches that division forevermore. Politicians and activists call his reconciliation.

The rest of us, who are already paying tens of billions of dollars every year in taxes to ‘close the gap’ call this a rort.

The Government estimates that it may require more than 100 treaties with different Indigenous ‘nations’ around the State. That’ll be fun, for lawyers I mean.

If this entire charade is to go ahead, as the government insists it must, may I offer just one suggestion?

I think there should first be a national census establishing people’s genealogy. Anyone with less than 50 per cent Indigenous heritage would be automatically excluded from the entire process.

I wonder how many would support that?