Abstract
As several Australian jurisdictions embark on Australia’s first treaty processes there is growing recognition of the extent to which treaty will recast Indigenous-state relations. The negotiation of treaties means the recognition of other sovereign authorities—not authorities to be created (as these have existed for millennia) but authorities that will require space to be exercised alongside the state. Bureaucracies that have understood their role as primarily one of service delivery to First Nations will have to reorient themselves to become treaty partners with First Nations seeking to exercise greater control and autonomy. While we cannot yet predict the outcome of these negotiations, nor is it appropriate for us to attempt to articulate First Nations’ priorities, it is likely that, over time, treatied First Nations will seek to rewrite the policy relationship with government, pursuing autonomy and self-governance in the place of state authority and control. This chapter explores the possibilities and challenges of transforming public policy-making through treaty, arguing that it will take time to re-write the partnership manual and enable genuinely Indigenous-controlled policy to become the new political norm.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The false belief that the dominant culture in a geographical area is the only one. In fact, there are only a few examples of states comprising one national identity (Iceland, Vanuatu and Korea are examples). Most states are ‘multinational’, governing multiple nations within their territories and representing them with one voice in the international community (Bruce, 2015; Nietschmann, 1994; Ryser, 2012). Recent estimates suggest there are approximate 5,000–6,000 nations around the world, making up approximately 18 per cent of the global population (Ryser, 2012, p. 68).
- 2.
Terra nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no-one’ or unoccupied or empty lands. The legal concept was used to justify colonisation of Australia and North America, via the Doctrine of Discovery. While the 1992 Mabo case overturned Terra nullius in Australia, its influence in contemporary Australian law remains. Neither Canada nor the United States have revoked the Doctrine of Discovery.
References
Alfred, T., & Corntassel, J. (2005). Politics of Identity—IX: Being indigenous: Resurgences against contemporary colonisation. Governance and Opposition, 40(4), 597–614.
Besson, S. (2011). Sovereignty. In Oxford public international law. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472
Borrows, J. (2018). Earth-bound: Indigenous resurgence and environmental reconciliation. In M. Asch, J. Borrows, & J. Tully (Eds.), Resurgence and reconciliation: Indigenous-settler relations and earth teachings. University of Toronto Press.
Brennan, S., Gunn, B., & Williams, G. (2004). ‘Sovereignty’ and its relevance to treaty-making between indigenous peoples and Australian governments [online]. Sydney Law Review, 26(3), 307–352.
Bruce, H. (2015). Fourth world theory and state collapse. Fourth World Journal, 13(2), 61–66.
Cornell, S. (2002). Nation-building and the treaty-process. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5(17), 1–6.
Cornell, S. (2015). Processes of native nationhood: The Indigenous politics of self-government. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(4), 1–27.
Corntassel, J. (2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, 1(1), 86–101.
Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press.
Cumpston, Z. (2020). To address the ecological crisis Aboriginal peoples must be restored as custodians of country. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/to-address-the-ecological-crisis-aboriginal-peoples-must-be-restored-as-custodians-of-country-108594
Curran, D. (2019). Indigenous processes of consent: Repoliticising water governance through legal pluralism. Water, 2019(11), 1–16.
Daniell, K. A., & Kay, A. (2017). Multilevel governance: An introduction. In K. A. Daniell & A. Kay (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 3–32). ANU Press.
Elliott, M. (2018). Indigenous resurgence: The drive for renewed engagement and reciprocity in the turn away from the state. Canadian Journal of Political Science/revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 51(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423917001032
Fukurai, H. (2018). Fourth world approaches to international law (FWAIL) and Asia’s indigenous struggles and quests for recognition under international law. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 5(1), 221–231.
Griggs, R., & Hocknell, P. (1995). The geography and geopolitics of Europe’s fourth world. Boundary and Security Bulletin, 3(4), 59–67.
Hawkes, J. (2001). The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Common Ground.
Hobbs, H. (2018). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and multinational federalism in Australia. Griffith Law Review, 27(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2018.1557587
Hobbs, H., & Williams, G. (2018). The Noongar Treaty Settlement: Australia’s First Treaty? Sydney Law Review, 40, 1–42.
Ivison, D., Patton, P., & Sanders, W. (Eds.). (2000). Political theory and the rights of indigenous peoples. Cambridge University Press.
Jonas, W. Dr. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. (2002). Recognising aboriginal sovereignty—Implications for the treaty process [Speech transcript]. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/recognising-aboriginal-sovereignty-implications-treaty-process-2002
Kuokkanan, R. (2019). ‘Self-determination: Foundational value’. In Restructuring relations: Indigenous self-determination, governance, and gender. Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2000). In D. Ivison, P. Patton, & W. Sanders (Eds.), Political theory and the rights of indigenous peoples. Cambridge University Press.
Maddison, S. (2019) The colonial fantasy: Why white Australia can’t solve black problems. Allen & Unwin. https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d3eb57f3-941a-351c-a042-683120595603. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Mills, A. (2016). The lifeworlds of law: On revitalizing indigenous legal orders today. McGill Law Journal/revue De Droit De McGill, 61(4), 847–884.
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press. https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=54316637-56ef-398d-8c65-e7caf22aa5e5. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Napoleon, V., & Friedland, H. (2014). Indigenous legal traditions: Roots to renaissance. The Oxford handbook of criminal law (pp. 225–247). Oxford University Press.
Nietschmann, B. (1994). The fourth world: Nations versus states. In G. Demko & W. B. Wood (Eds.), Reordering the world (pp. 225–237). Westview Press.
Papillon, M. (2011). Adapting federalism: Indigenous multilevel governance in Canada and the United States. The Journal of Federalism, 42(2), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr032
Rigney, D., Bell, D., & Vivian, A. (2021). Talking treaty: A conversation on how indigenous nations can become treaty ready. In H. Hobbs, W. Alison, & L. Coombes (Eds.), Treaty-making: Two hundred and fifty years later. The Federation Press.
Ryser, R. (2012). Indigenous nations and modern states: The political emergence of nations challenging state power. Routledge.
Seton, K. (1999). Fourth world nations in the era of globalisation: An introduction to contemporary theorizing posed by Indigenous nations. https://nointervention.com/archive/pubs/CWIS/fworld.html
Simpson, A. (2011). Settlement’s secret. Cultural Anthropology, 26(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01095
Simpson, A. (2014). Mohawk interruptus: Political life across the borders of settler states. Duke University Press.
Simpson, L. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of indigenous knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 373–384.
Simpson, L. (2011). Dancing on our turtle’s back: Stories of Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence and a new emergence. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
Simpson, A. (2016). Public lecture. The Wheeler Centre, 22 February.
Simpson, L. (2017). As we have always done. University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, D. (2002). Jurisdictional devolution: Towards an effective model for indigenous community self-determination (Discussion paper No. 233/2002). Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books. https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d29f0ca1-e59d-3fbc-999f-58fe8361cb2f. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Spicer, E., & Spicer, R. (1992). The nations of a state. Boundary 2, 19(3), 26–48.
Starblanket, G. (2019). Constitutionalizing (in)justice: Treaty interpretation and the containment of indigenous governance. Constitutional Forum Constitutionnel, 28(2), 13–24.
Strakosch, E. (2015). Neoliberal indigenous policy: Settler colonialism and the ‘post-welfare’ state. Palgrave Macmillan. https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=22f083fe-f4fa-3340-9c29-a7d1cd80256b. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Tuck, E., & Yang, W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity. Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
Veracini, L. (2010). Settler colonialism: A theoretical overview. Palgrave
Von der Porten, S., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2015). Collaborative environmental governance and indigenous peoples: Recommendations for practice. Environmental Practice 17(2), 1–11.
Von der Porten, S., Corntassel, J., & Mucina, D. (2019a). Indigenous nationhood and herring governance: Strategies for the reassertion of indigenous authority and inter-indigenous solidarity regarding marine resources. Alternation, 15(1), 62–74.
Von der Porten, S., Ota, Y., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. & Pictou, S. (2019b). The role of indigenous resurgence in marine conservation. Coastal Management 47(6), 527–547.
Wilmer, S. E. (2002). Theatre, society, and the nation: Staging American identities. Cambridge University Press. https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=59b2b451-57f0-38b2-adac-e33f2742275e. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Studies, 8(4), 387–409.
Wyatt, S., & Nelson, H. (2013). Aboriginal engagement in Canada’s forest sector: The benefits and challenges of multilevel and multi-party governance. In M. Papillon & A. Juneau (Eds.), Canada: The State of the Federation 2013: Aboriginal multilevel governance (pp. 119–142). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Zurba, M. (2014). Leveling the playing field: Fostering collaborative governance towards on-going reconciliation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1631
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maddison, S., Thomas, A. (2023). Treaty as a Pathway to Indigenous Controlled Policy: Making Space, Partnering, and Honouring New Relationships. In: Moodie, N., Maddison, S. (eds) Public Policy and Indigenous Futures. Indigenous-Settler Relations in Australia and the World, vol 4. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9319-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9319-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-9318-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-9319-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)