Utopia? Or ‘their’-topia? New indigenous rights are shrouded in secrecy

Roger Pescott I 3 August 2024 Spectator Australia

Why do political activists usually get it wrong? Utopia is a place of ideal perfection, a place that doesn’t exist. Arcadia. Heaven on Earth. The original Greek meaning is ‘no place’. It is a human dream.

For the activist it is often very frustrating. In the case of advancing the Aboriginal cause in all three tiers of government in Australia, secrecy has played a major role. One can only wonder if activists are choosing secrecy over transparency.

Prime Minister Albanese let down all Aborigines because he refused to say what would happen if the Voice referendum had been successful. How did he expect that all voters would just go with the flow if they didn’t know where the flow would take the nation? Instead of secrecy, he should have set up a system of consultation so that at least some of the things needed to help broaden the number of First Peoples sharing the development of Australia would be covered.

At the state level, Victoria takes the cake. An arrogant government uber-keen to show the rest of Australia that it knows how to get things moving. A suite of improved railway crossings and stations are now in position at huge state cost for the benefit of a small percentage of the voters who live nearby. For the rest of the state, families are now paying through the roof for an appalling drop in the standards of basic education and health facilities – and a chaotic housing shortage.

Contrast this with an extremely secretive series of so-called negotiations with a plethora of indigenous committees and expert panels all promising utopia.

The current ‘negotiations’ between the atate and an Aboriginal land council are following the path set out in a Recognition and Settlement Agreement covering an area half the size of Tasmania. This is a legal document signed by both parties which binds the ten local governments in the agreement area to participate implementing something they were not formally involved in.

When asked at a public meeting why the financial costs of this agreement were redacted, a senior member of the Premier’s department replied it was because the indigenous peoples asked for this to remain confidential – i.e. secret. The bureaucrat said such an agreement was allowed because the indigenous ‘are different’.

In his most recent budget, the Victorian Treasurer said $237 million was being ‘invested… in First Peoples’ self-determination and support building on our existing $1.9 billion commitment’. This included ‘$41 million to enable increased Traditional Owner access to water and decision making in water management’ and ‘$42 million to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage’. Other expenditure was included in the $1.9 billion.

What other community enterprise can say it is ‘self-determined’ when it is fully funded by the state? Details of some of the small print are not readily available – adding to the blanket of secrecy. The government argues that it has a mandate to spend all this money because of various legislation passed in the parliament. Yet even in parliamentary debates detail is missing.

As the third tier, local government in Victoria is to some extent a creature of the state. It exists because of an Act of the Victorian parliament. The state government regulates its financial rules and the councils’ governance. In the process of giving Aborigines the opportunity to regulate the responsibilities they are to control, the government has given a freedom and funds unheard of anywhere in Australia. The government has made no tangible attempt to keep the 97 per cent of the Victorian population which does not identify as Aboriginal informed about how the future will look.

Furthermore, it has shifted the normal toing and froing between the three tiers so that the real action is being thrust upon local government, the weakest link in the democratic chain. Councils are being pushed into the limelight in a way never before seen in this country. They are being told to be the vanguard of changes envisaged in the shifting of power into the hands of indigenous people. This is a factual description, not judgmental posturing.

Amongst a long and detailed list, Clause 3.6 in the 2022 Agreement envisages:

– All new and existing roads, bridges and public spaces be given indigenous names (just like the Chinese removal of Uighur names for 630 villages in Xinjiang, and removing the deletion of references to religion, Uighur history and cultural practices. 3,600 village names have been changed since 2009),

– Self-determination principles to be part of council planning and decision-making,

– Indigenous rights and perspectives to be incorporated into Council Plans and Visions on equal footing with councils,

– Indigenous say on water plans and policies and ultimately sole managers of ‘their’ waters and waterways,

– Indigenous say on new rating strategies and policies and to minimise all rates and levies for indigenous organisations,

– Indigenous review of local laws to ensure ‘appropriate alignment’ with indigenous rights and interests,

– Indigenous to play a role in the creation of the council plans and policies and be paid for their involvement,

– Preferential employment, contracts and procurement of indigenous people, any goods and services including equipment hire,

– Preferential purchasing of carbon offsets from the indigenous,

– Indigenous involvement in the management of council controlled lands and waters – ultimately for the indigenous to be the sole managers of ‘their lands and waters’,

– Each planning scheme to align with indigenous interests,

– Local government revenue to pay for the implementation of the plan.

The whole agreement was signed and in place before the public was informed.

More broadly, the state has already agreed to hand over several parcels of land to the indigenous peoples – and to find even more land be it private or public – to pay their GST and to support an exemption from local government rates. The state is also keen to exempt the indigenous from land tax or stamp duty, to enable revenue-sharing with local councils, indefinite state funding, and include timber, silver, gold, metals and mineral operations in the definition of ‘natural resources’ that the indigenous can take from ‘their’ land.

Activists may well find a community backlash comes their way. At the current rate, this can hardly be avoided. Secret deals like this have a way of annoying the public. Even today, the public has not been invited to express an opinion.

Last, but not least, the Victorian government has established a Self-Determination Fund in keeping with the Treaty Act which has the following purposes:

‘Supporting First Peoples to have equal standing with the State in Treaty negotiations’; and ‘Providing a financial resource, independent of the State, that empowers First Peoples to build capacity, wealth and prosperity’.

And the...

‘Self Determination Fund will be a flexible and adaptive financial resource that First Peoples can access in line with their Treaty negotiations needs and their broader priorities and aspirations’.

The Fund is to be paid an amount of not less than $65 million in the first three years from October 2022 and thereafter funded in perpetuity.

This is an extraordinary fund using taxpayers’ money outside any normal control by the Parliament, the Auditor General or Ombudsman. Surely this enshrines secrecy at its best. A cowboy’s dream.

Author: Roger Pescott