Tasmanian government to fund truth-telling commissioners but drop treaty process
The Tasmanian government will no longer pursue a treaty with Tasmanian Aboriginal people, instead funding the establishment of truth-telling and healing commissioners.
The decision came four years after former premier Peter Gutwein announced the commencement of a truth-telling and treaty process.
It led to the 2021 government-commissioned report, Pathway to Truth-Telling and Treaty, which made 24 recommendations, including that truth-telling and treaty work be done concurrently.
However, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Jacquie Petrusma said the government would now focus solely on the truth-telling process.
"Truth-telling is a necessary step which must run its course, so accordingly, the government will no longer progress treaty," Ms Petrusma said in a statement on Tuesday.
This week's budget will include $880,000 over two years for the appointment of independent commissioners to guide an Aboriginal-led truth-telling and healing process.
Ms Petrusma described it as a historic moment of recognition, respect and self-determination for Tasmanian Aboriginal people.
"It is a critical and necessary step towards recognising past injustices, gaining a greater understanding of the contemporary challenges being faced by Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and making real progress in healing the wounds of the past," she said.
She said the government would now work with Tasmanian Aboriginal people to appoint the commissioners, and on the process beyond that.
The funding announcement has been welcomed by some Aboriginal organisations, but the decision to not progress with a treaty has disappointed others.
Rodney Dillon, who is on the Tasmanian Aboriginal Advisory Group for Truth-telling and Treaty, said the move to appoint Tasmanian Aboriginal commissioners was the right approach.
"We've had 200 and something years of colonisation and this is the first time we've taken that step, so that's how big and how significant it is," Mr Dillon told the ABC.
"I think it's a good step for Aboriginal people."
He said it was important to go through the truth-telling process before moving to a treaty.
"Some people will want a treaty first and I can understand that," he said.
"But I don't think you can have a treaty without some truth-telling first and the reason why you need a treaty.
"And I think that you can take a look around the country, and perhaps around the world where we've had treaties and never put anything in front of them, a lot of them have fallen over.
"So I think this is a good foundation to go ahead in the future."
The funding for truth-telling commissioners was supported by the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Communities Alliance (TRACA).
The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania (ALCT) also expressed its support for the funding.
"For more than 200 years, Tasmanian Aboriginal people have endured and resisted policies of dispossession, forced removal and cultural suppression," ALCT chair Greg Brown said in a statement.
However, Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre chief executive Heather Sculthorpe said she was disappointed the government would no longer follow through with a treaty.
She accused the government of "playing tricks".
"I cannot see any way our community is going to buy that," she said.
The government's budget includes a total of $4.4 million over four years for Closing the Gap commitments, including continued funding for peak Aboriginal organisations, as well as additional funding for the ALCT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
What the US warning on China means for our defence
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump is demanding America's allies massively boost defence spending. His Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be imminent. And one of our closest allies, the UK, is rushing to invest billions of dollars in its defence force to make sure it's war-ready. Today Peter Dean from the United States Studies Centre at Sydney Uni, on what that all means for us, and whether our defence force is fit for purpose. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Peter, we better start with these comments from the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, at the Shangri-La meeting in Singapore. He has warned that China poses an imminent threat to Taiwan. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: To be clear, any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. We hope not, but it certainly could be. Peter Dean: Yes, so Secretary Hegseth I believe is referring to here is comments made by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and by other members of the Chinese leadership, where Xi Jinping in particular has said that the Chinese military are prepared to use force and to achieve specific capability goals by the dates of 2027 and the dates of 2029. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: We know, it's public, that Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. The PLA is building the military needed to do it, training for it every day and rehearsing for the real deal. Peter Dean: This is about requirements that Xi Jinping has set for the development of the People's Liberation Army and its subsequent Navy and Air Forces as well. So this is about its development of specific capabilities, but also its command and control systems, its ability to conduct exercises and its ability to conduct the types of high-end warfare to undertake, for instance, a strike across the Taiwan Strait. Sam Hawley: So what has China then, Peter, had to say about all of this, that it will imminently attack Taiwan? Peter Dean: Well, I mean, what Xi Jinping has said is that he reserves the right to use force to solve what the Chinese argue is a domestic political issue. They, of course, refer to Taiwan as a rogue state. They don't recognise the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have. And of course, they don't recognise the will of the Taiwanese people, who overwhelmingly identify now as Taiwanese and do not wish to be reunited with the mainland. Sam Hawley: Well, China's foreign ministry does say that the US is overstepping its bounds and stoking flames in the South China Sea in response to those comments from Pete Hegseth. Sam Hawley: Let's consider, Peter, now then China's military build-up and defence spending by Western nations. Now, our Defence Minister, Richard Marles, he also addressed that conference in Singapore, noting that Australia can't rely on the US alone to counter China's military strength in the Indo-Pacific. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: There is no effective balance of power in this region absent the United States, but we cannot leave it to the United States alone. Other countries must contribute to this balance as well, and that includes Australia. Sam Hawley: And he also pointed to that huge military build-up by China. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build-up in a conventional sense by any country since the end of the Second World War. Peter Dean: So I think what Richard Marles is putting out there is basically reaffirming Australia's strategic approach and that this is not just something that we can rely upon the US to do on its own. It doesn't have the requisite levels of capability to respond to China in this way. It must be by a community of nations within the Indo-Pacific. And as a status quo power, Australia and the United States and others are attempting to maintain the free and open Indo-Pacific that we currently have and stop any state from being able to dominate that region and impose a sort of hegemonic control over the Indo-Pacific. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Donald Trump, of course, and Pete Hegseth have urged US allies in the region to increase their defence spending. They want Australia to raise our contribution to 3.5% of GDP, but let's face it, we are nowhere near that at the moment, and that would cost a lot of money, wouldn't it? Peter Dean: Oh, yes. You're looking in the realm of somewhere around $41 billion additional to go into defence spending to raise that level of money. I think what's really key here is GDP as a measure of defence spending has become a bit shorthand in recent decades for sort of commitment towards defending your own country or contributing to collective defence. There is no magical number that the Australian government can get to that would make our country safe. And if you remember way back when Tony Abbott was vying to become Prime Minister, when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were running the country, then there was a whole debate about achieving 2% of GDP, which we currently have. Now the debate has moved on to is it 3 or 3.5% of GDP. But of course, as I said, most importantly, this number is being used internationally as a proxy by both the Trump administration, but by other states around the world, relative to an individual state's commitment to both its own sovereignty and security, but also the collective defence of the region it lives in. Sam Hawley: Yeah, well, Anthony Albanese says we will determine our own defence policy. And he notes that Australia is on track to lift defence spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2033-34. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: We're provided an additional $10 billion of investment into defence over the forward estimates. We're continuing to lift up. That adds up to 2.3% of GDP. Sam Hawley: A long way, as we said, to 3.5% that the Americans actually want. But nations like the UK are now moving more quickly, aren't they, Peter? The British leader, Keir Starmer, he has promised to increase annual spending to 3% up from 2.3%. They seem pretty worried in the United Kingdom. Peter Dean: Yeah, look, the UK government has made a firm commitment to move to 2.5% of GDP in the next couple of years and 3% of GDP in the near future. This is off the back of their strategic defence review. News report: Under the AUKUS security pact with Australia and America, 12 new nuclear-powered submarines will be built to protect Britain's waters. Six new munitions factories will be constructed across the UK and thousands of long-range weapons will be manufactured on British soil. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready. Peter Dean: Particularly in response not only to the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia, but of course, most recently from the changing posture of the United States under President Donald Trump. And what we can see there is Keir Starmer, along with Emmanuel Macron from France and other key leaders in Europe, are working assiduously hard to provide for greater defence of Europe based on European needs. Sam Hawley: Well, the British leader Keir Starmer says the UK must be ready to fight a war. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come. Sam Hawley: What weaponry does he want? Peter Dean: Well, what Keir Starmer has announced is that he wishes the UK military to field a force of at least 7,000 long-range missiles. Now, if you look at what's happening in the war in Ukraine in particular, but also the war in Gaza and the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, what you've seen is the explosion of the use of long-range precision fires in each of those conflicts. Sam Hawley: Well, the UK plans to pay for all of this by, in part, cutting international aid, just to note that. What's it really worried about then? Is it just Russia or does China come into this as well for the UK? Peter Dean: Look, I think it's both. I mean, what we're seeing is a fundamental changing of the strategic order of the world that we live in. The world is becoming much more dangerous. As our own government has said, we live in the most perilous times. We're seeing the rise of revisionist powers, in particular China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. And of course, the Russian illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine has been really at the centre of this. This is the first time since the end of the Second World War that Europe has seen a large major power conduct a full-on invasion of another state in Europe. That is an ongoing war, as we see today. And it looks like President Trump's efforts at brokering a peace deal are faltering at the moment. So that war is going to continue on. Sam Hawley: And the concern is, of course, that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he has other plans after that, right? Peter Dean: Well, exactly. And Putin, again, I think we need to actually believe what the rhetoric is coming out of some of these leaders from some of these states. I mean, Putin made it very clear in the lead up to the war in Ukraine that he believes that Ukraine shouldn't exist as a sovereign state, that it belongs as a part of a revitalised Russian empire that he sees. And he committed similar acts in states such as Georgia and other parts. And of course, in Ukraine itself, where he conducted limited incursions. And of course, what we see in the South China Sea and the East China Sea is ambient claims from China that are not recognised by international courts or international law. And the Chinese consistently using coercion military force against the Philippines, against Vietnam, against Indonesia, against Taiwan and against Japan in various parts of those seas to push their own sovereign claims, even though they are not recognised in the international community and not recognised by those other states. And of course, we add in the layer here of the cyber domain and cyber dimension, that while we're largely in strategic competition with these states across the globe in areas such as cyber, we're in day to day limited conflict as we receive an onslaught of assaults in the cyber domain from states such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Peter, as you say, we're living in a less stable world. But what do you think is our approach when it comes to defence, the right one? Are we war ready like the UK wants to be? And if we're not, do we actually need to be? Peter Dean: I think we're definitely not war ready at the moment. If you look at the Defence Strategic Review in 2023, it made it really clear that the ADF was not fit for purpose. The government is in the process of lifting defence spending to try and achieve some of the outcomes that were set. We don't have 10 years anymore to wait to prepare our forces. Now, what's been happening in Australia has been a long discussion in recent years over the requisite levels of defence spending. This was happening well before Donald Trump was elected for his second term of office. And if you look back to last year, you'll see some very eminent commentators and experienced people in this debate, people such as Sir Angus Houston, the former chief of Defence Force and one of the two independent leads of the Defence Strategic Review, former Secretary Dennis Richardson, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo, have all called for increasing of defence spending to around about three percentage of GDP on defence. So this is a national debate that's been happening for quite a while. And now it's become much more direct, given that our US alliance partner has directly made the request to Australia to increase defence spending. Sam Hawley: All right, and what about this imminent threat that Pete Hegseth talks about that China will invade Taiwan soon? If that was the case, and we're not saying that it is, of course, but what would that mean for us? Peter Dean: This would mean you have the two largest economies in the world going toe to toe militarily with each other across the Taiwan Strait and in East Asia. It would always inevitably suck in states like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. And in all the estimates we have, not only would it be the extreme loss of life that would occur by the states involved in the conflict, you would spiral the global economy into a major recession, if not depression. You're talking about the most dynamic economic region in the world being consumed by conflict. And we will be putting ourselves in the risk not just of a global economic recession and a major war, but of course, we're talking about a war here between major nuclear armed states. The government's not wrong when it says we live in this really dangerous strategic age. And of course, Donald Trump is not helping that, right? He's not helping stability and security. He's, you know, in many senses, creating a source of additional instability in the global strategic order. Sam Hawley: Peter Dean is the director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
SBS Australia
3 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Pathways Melbourne, a silver lining for vulnerable Jewish youth and those leaving ultra-orthodoxy
In their conversation with SBS Hebrew Leah Boulton and Dassi Erlich also revealed Pathway's expansion and partnership with the Lighthouse Foundation in new initiatives to deliver culturally sensitive, trauma-informed support to vulnerable Jewish youth facing homelessness, abuse, or family estrangement. Through this collaboration they are establishing Orly House, a safe haven for children and teenagers at crisis points. Dassi Erlich (Author and justice campaigner)
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Terri Irwin unleashes on Katter Party crocodile culling bill in savage, 14-page long response
Terri Irwin has penned a scathing response to the Katter's Australian Party's latest bill to cull crocodiles in North Queensland. Describing the recently amended proposal as 'lazy and sloppy', the animal conservationist and director of Australia Zoo warned it was a 'recipe for disaster' that would 'turn the clock back to the dark and destructive days prior to the 1970s.' The bill cites a massive increase in crocodile numbers - something Irwin disputes - as justification for removing and euthanising crocs found in 'populated' waterways, and enabling hunting safaris on Aboriginal-controlled land. 'North Queenslanders are angry about losing more of our recreational waterways to the increasing crocodile population,' KAP MP Shane Knuth said when speaking about the bill state parliament last month. 'The constant threat of attacks, recent deaths and near-death experiences are dramatically affecting North Queensland's outdoor lifestyle. We never had to worry about the threats of crocodiles in our recreational waterways and beaches until the last two decades.' Irwin said the amended bill is a copy paste of the original and described one section - which imagines currently croc-infested waterways being used recreationally - as 'reckless, ill-informed and dangerous on so many levels'. The section in question reminisces about the 1970s, 80s and 90s when 'there was always that little bit of risk [of encountering a crocodile], but we didn't have to worry about seeing all these croc signs and we did not have to worry about swimming in that nice little saltwater creek.' 'That is all we are trying to achieve – that is, to bring it [the risk of swimming in these waterways] back so it is an acceptable risk,' the proposal continues, before going on to concede that even after crocodiles are 'removed' from the aforementioned waterways, some swimmers will 'still get taken by a croc'. In her 14-page long submission, Irwin argued the proposals are likely to actually increase crocodile-related deaths by creating a false sense of security. 'The removal of crocodiles, either through trapping or culling, will instead increase the likelihood of crocodile attacks as people believe the lie that once a crocodile is removed from a waterway then there will be no crocodiles,' she wrote. 'Research has consistently shown that when a crocodile dies or is removed, then another crocodile immediately comes in to take over that territory. Because of this reality, the Bill will not eliminate or even greatly reduce the risk of crocodile attacks.' She also shot down claims that crocodile numbers have dramatically increased, saying there is no Queensland data that confirms that and that the bill's cited increase does not account for multiple sightings of the same croc. 'It is the Irwin family and Australia Zoo's belief that individual culling and relocation are not effective ways to manage crocodile/human coexistence; rather, research and educating people are the key,' she said. 'The best course of action is for people in crocodile territory to be 'Croc-wise', reduce risk wherever possible and take sensible steps to minimise human-crocodile interaction.' She also cited the work of her late husband Steve 'Crocodile Hunter' Irwin, saying 'his capture and study techniques remain world's best practice to this day.' His legacy has meant that 'Australia Zoo, in partnership with the University of Queensland … now manage the largest and most successful crocodile research project in the world,' and she claimed that neither of those institutions or their research were consulted in the preparation of the bill. Another proposal within the bill recommends that Indigenous landholders be given the opportunity to offer safari-like hunting experiences to 'high end clients' as a source of income. Irwin also strongly rejected this idea and said, 'even with the best of intentions, it is a recipe for disaster and will increase the number of attacks and deaths caused by crocodiles by increasing contact with crocodiles by safari shooters who have limited or no experience with crocodiles.' Crocodiles are protected in Queensland and are listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.
