Victoria's Treaty

[pmccarthy]

As you may know, Victoria has gone alone in establishing a treaty with the original inhabitants. Some parts of our administration are paralysed, particularly Parks Victoria which is progressively surrendering control.  Here is my own story, not related to Parks Vic. My daughter was partly burnt out by the bushfires in January and has been waiting for her block to be cleared. On the road outside her property is a gum tree which has old steps cut into it. The neighbour told her he cut them himself about 40 years ago. However, the Dja Dja Wurrung have identified it as a sacred tree. Thus, the land around it for a 10m radius is protected. The 10m radius comes one metre into my daughter's block. Contractors cannot enter her property until the property has been "blessed" by the Dja Dja Wurrung. She contacted the council to find out about the delay. They told her that lots of people are suffering the delay because the Dja Dja Wurrung are not doing blessings at present. It is nearly four months since the fire.

[old man emu]

The indigenous people of Victoria seem to be the most aggressive people in relation to demanding rrights based on cultural claims. Is that their interpretaion of "reconcilliation"?

[pmccarthy]

I should have made the title Victoria's Secret, because not many people know how serious it is. In a way it will be a good thing, because the other states and the Feds will have a chance to see how a treaty really works. 

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion, some of the so-called leaders are just in it for what they can get for themselves and close family. Some have criminal records or are known drug dealers. Some, perhaps many, have a tenuous claim to aboriginality. At present there is a fight to see who comes out in control or with veto rights on public lands. At the same time, as in the greater society, probably 90% are good people wanting to get on with their lives, but they are not the high-profile activists.

 

If you ask me for hard evidence I probably don't have any, just my own experiences and observations and those of people around me.

[willedoo]

Sometimes the anthropologists on projects can be a problem, more so the inexperienced young ones fresh out of uni and on their first job in the real world. I remember in 1983 when the pilot survey line for the Moonie/Jackson pipeline was going through and it got held up at Cunnamulla. The job ground to a halt for four days because the young anthropologists has found some axe cuts on some tree roots where the pipeline was to cross the Warrego River. They were metal axe cuts and generations of local whites had camped and fished there as well as the local aboriginals, so it was anyone's guess whether a white or black person had used the axe. The anthropologists thought they were doing the right thing by checking with their bosses in the city but it was in the days before mobile phones and email, and head office had closed up on Friday afternoon for the long weekend. Eventually when their office opened the following Tuesday and contact was made they approved the crossing. It cost some companies a lot of down time money, but the anthropologists thought they were doing the right thing. Their inexperience was a bit of a problem in that area.

 

The issue with a metal axe is that any object made by non aboriginals that aboriginals use is deemed to be a post contact artifact. That's where the grey area comes in. A shard of a broken beer bottle that some ringers left on the ground can be taken to be a possible knife used by aboriginals. The archaeologists I've worked with have generally been a fair bit more sensible than some of the anthropologists, probably because their field is more defined and direct and less guesswork involved.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 16/04/2026 at 11:57 PM, pmccarthy said:

I should have made the title Victoria's Secret, because not many people know how serious it is. In a way it will be a good thing, because the other states and the Feds will have a chance to see how a treaty really works. 

A treaty should work as it has been agreede to; If the treaty has agreed that around any sacreed artefact there is a 10m (I assume metrre) protected ground, then so be it. 

 

Of course, that  was (intentionally) harsh and not necessarily heart felt by myself. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good - even noble intentions. And often there are unintended consequences - and sometimes they are not. 

 

But, one of the problems is people to these negotiations are usually not willing to accept the world changes, and, in the case of Australian first nations, to get to true reconciliation will require compromise - on both sides. 

 

And both sides have to undestand they may not culturally comprehend where the other side is coming from. 

 

For example, does evey sacred site have to be protected by a 10m radius? Is there a different level of sacredness? How is the object/location/landmark determined to be sacred? Often, these sorts of questions are overlooked on any negotiation about anything.

 

The world changes and with most changes, there are going to be winners and losers - and this is not absolute. In this case, your daughter has presumably lost the right to have different people enter a 10m arc on her land without having the local mob/clan bless it. She has not had a total loss to the land or the right for people to enter it; it just as a condition that is at the moment quite invconvenient. Is that loss disproportionate to the loss of a cultural aspect of the local mob/clan? To your daughter,  I woudl suggest it is disproprtionate. To the local clan/tribe - they may have wanted more. Who knows? But, can we say your duaghter is that disadvantaged? Can we say that the mob/clan should have whatever cultrual right to that tree reinstated? It will come down to a judgement call?

 

Would it be reasonable to have a carve out under certain circumstances? And even, what happens to the sacred site if the treee dies or is burnt down (in a bushfire, of course)? If the site is damaged, does the sacredness of that site extinguish, for example?

 

I am all for a treaty, but it has to recognise the past wrongs to be righted, how righting those will affect a way of life established since, and it also has to recognise the changes that will come with the future. The world doesn't stay still, and it should be abot ensuring everyone get's fair treatment going forward. A treaty is an acceptance there has been significant change and accomodates how that change will be mangaged going forward.

 

Of course, where there are dependencies such as obligations to be performed, then both parties have to be held accountable for performing them in reasonable time, after which, where possible, it can be deemed to be done by default. 

 

My point with the above rambling is that treaties can be complex to accomodate every possible outcome, but there should be circuit breakers for both sides when things clearly are not working, or there are emergency/urgent imperatives.

 

Things have changed a lot since I left Australia. It is going to be an experience coming back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

I once found what appeared to me to be a stone axe in an area where the type of stone did not exist. However theat type of stone did exist within a few kms of where I found the axe. I wonder if I had reported my find I would have put a stop to the real estate development that occures a few years later.