Victoria's 'truth-telling' inquiry and treaty proposals ignore elephants in the room

Is it not absurd to be promoting multiple treaties with Aboriginal groups, which in almost all cases would place husband and wife in different camps? A treaty may have had merit up until the 19^th century or maybe a bit later, but such treaties have passed the point of relevance here in the twenty-first century. Remote areas are the only places that might be an exception.

The issue of redress is also problematic. Putting aside the wrongs of the past, it is clear that the descendants of Australia's original inhabitants are now much better off in absolute terms than they would have been, if colonists had never set foot in Australia. In no place is this truer than in Victoria. Another consideration is that persons descended from both Indigenous ancestors and subsequent colonists are effectively descendants of both victim and possible perpetrator, while recent immigrants (and indeed present generations) had no involvement themselves in past wrongs.

Julia Gillard left us the (super-expensive) NDIS as her legacy. Jacinta Allen seems to want to leave the proposed Treaty, a redress scheme, and permanent Indigenous advisory body (with decision-making powers) as her legacy to Victorians, in addition to Victoria's growing state debts.

According to Aboriginal leader Waren Mundine, "it is a slippery slope. We know that because we know that when people ask for something, and it's only a small minority of Aboriginals, you know, more radical Aboriginals…… they ask for more, and they ask for more."