Pittock, A. B. --- "The Makarrata - Where are the Radical Demands?" [1982] AboriginalLawB 10; (1982) 1(3) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 12

• The Makarrata-Where Are The Radical Demands?
• The Treaty Of Waitangi
• In Contrast, The Australian Treaty
• Mere Rhetoric?
• The Need For Radical Demands

---

The Makarrata - Where are the Radical Demands?

A. B. Pittock

Since April 1979, when a group of white Australians headed by Dr. H. C. Coombs formed a committee to press for a treaty between white and Aboriginal Australians, the idea of a treaty or similar negotiated agreement has gained wide support. The book It's Coming Yet... by Stewart Harris has had wide circulation and acclaim by critics as a strong and sensitive argument for a better deal for Aborigines and a new beginning in Aboriginal-white relations.

Both the Fraser Government and the ALP have given the idea of a treaty their support in principle, and the National Conference has taken up the idea in tide form of a 'Makarrata', which is an Aboriginal word (from the Yolnu language) to describe an agreement signifying -the end of a dispute between communities or between a community and an individual. Although the treaty was essentially a white initiative, motivated by the felt need of whites to rectify a major blot on white Australian society, many Aborigines are supporting the treaty campaign and are hopeful that it will lead to the securing of greater justice for the Aboriginal people.

Nevertheless, here and there Aboriginal voices have been heard to question the wisdom of the treaty campaign. Notable in my experience have been the strong attacks made by Kevin Gilbert on the NAC's 'Makarrata' proposal, which he characterised in an article in AIM (the Aboriginal-Islander Message, a Sydney-based publication) as a `sell-out', and strong reservations expressed by some Aboriginal activists in Melbourne. As a signatory to the first advertisement for the treaty, I must confess that I now share this sense of disquiet.

The Treaty of Waitangi

In New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, guaranteed the Maoris `the full, exclusive, and undistrubed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties .... so long as it is their wish to retain the same in their possession'. This famous treaty was, however, never ratified by the British and so has no legal force. Nevertheless it became, early this century, a political focus for the Maori people, notably through the Maori nationalist Ratana Movement, which for long periods had four repre, sentatives elected to the New Zealand Parliament pledged to having the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi implemented, As a radical rallying cry the Treaty of Waitangi provided a set of ideals - a goal to be proclaimed and striven for, if not to be realised this year or next.

In contrast, the Australian Treaty

Movement has as yet no clearly defined set of ideals, goals, demands or treaty clauses and a too-ready political acceptance even by the politically conservative,. 'development'/economic growth-oriented Fraser Government. Do we really expect that a government with the record of the National-Liberal Party coalition would endorse the idea of a treaty if it understood this to be a commitment, Australia-wide, to principles-as basic and radical as those embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi? Would a government which has failed to act to support Aboriginal rights at Noonkanbah or Aurukun, and which has such anti-Aboriginal bedfellows as Premiers Court (WA) and Bjelke-Petersen (Queenland), really sign a legal document guaranteeing Australian rights which might well stand in the way of `economic developments' such as more uranium mines, oil drilling, or a Northern Territory railway?

Mere rhetoric?

Surely the suspicion is well founded that the Fraser Government hopes to use the treaty movement to sell the ideal of Aboriginal rights short. Sure, the treaty sounds good but will it be more than fine-sounding rhetoric? And would a Labor Party government be all that much better if it comes to Aborigines standing in the way of `progress', `defence', or `the national interest'? For all the progress towards better conditions for Aborigines under the Whitlam Government, even that government was prepared, in its draft legislation, to water down the ideal of full recognition of Aboriginal land rights, and even they failed to act effectively in Queensland.

What worries me is that the treaty movement originated amongst whites without strong Aboriginal input and seems to have gathered too much superficial support too quickly. Where are the nitty-gritty gut economic issues? Where is the facing up to the economic and psychological cost of granting real equality and real economic power over large areas of land and resources to a race who only a generation ago were not even regarded as citizens? Are We not in great danger of steam-rolling Aborigines into accepting a vaguely-worded, pious-sounding document which has all the appearances of granting Aboriginal rights but concedes nothing of value? Where is the specific detailed spelling out of what these rights mean in concrete terms measurable by the white man's yardstick of dollars and cents? Where are the radical demands, and where are the radical Aboriginal spokesmen and women demanding no-compromise, full-blown ideal terms?

Kevin Gilbert wrote that `The NAC ... agreed to compromise Aboriginal people by not calling for a "Treaty" because a "Treaty" means an agreement between equals - an agreement between men who own their own country and another government, the white government - an agreement between sovereign nations. The white government says we are not rulers, kings in and of our own country, we are not equals. So instead of a Treaty between equals, between rightful owners, between kings, between sovereigns, they call for a "Makarrata", a deal between white government and men with no status, rubbish men, same as the old "Dog License". '

I think Kevin Gilbert has hit the nail on the head. A `Treaty', if it is at all likely to be fair and equal, must be a treaty between equal sovereign peoples. How can a relatively powerless minority group negotiate on equal terms with a powerful national government to produce a just and equitable treaty? As a cold hard question of political realities, is a meaningful treaty really possible? Maybe so - maybe if enough non-Aborigines are really committed to a full measure of justice, even at significant short-term economic cost to them and `the nation', then Aborigines will have enough dinkum allies to negotiate from strength. Maybe - but right now I don't see it. To me it looks like a long, hard struggle in which many of the Aborigines' new-found and self-styled white allies have a lot to learn about the hard, bitter truths of fighting vested interests and economic power.

The need for radical demands

Let us, therefore, inject some hard realism into the treaty campaign along with the idealism. The campaign must not degenerate into a fashionable short-lived effort to achieve an easy but hollow victory, and so to salve white consciences.' Aborigines already have their fill of hollow victories. The 1967 referendum campaign, which gave power to the Federal Government on Aboriginal affairs was just such a hollow victory. Over 90% of the Australian electorate voted for it, but neither the Whitlam nor the Fraser Governments have had the guts or the commitment or felt obliged to use those powers against racist State Governments in Queensland and Western Australia.

What is needed is a treaty which has teeth. It must spell out in clear, unambiguous terms just what is guaranteed to Aborigines, and it must be enforceable by Aborigines through the courts. It must not be a compromise, but the legal fulfilment of a truly basic, radical set of demands. I do not believe such a treaty can be achieved next year or the year after - probably not for a decade or more, if ever. Let us not be unrealistic. Let us not push Aborigines into a hasty compromise or an ill-thought-out agreement which they and their descendants may live to regret. By all means advocate a treaty, but make sure it has guts! Aborigines must not be sold out!

(Reprinted from Message Stick, Vol. 6 No. 1, a publication of the North Queensland Council. A subscription to Message Stick is $12 p.a., and is available from PO Box 1429, Cairns, Qld., 4870.)