How can you make a treaty

with your own citizens? It seems the government of a neighbouring state has gone ahead and done just that - and done it against the wishes of voters and advice from some constitutional lawyers.

This is the same state which now requires at least one major hospital to treat indigenous people before all other citizens - not on the basis of need but on the basis of their self-declared "aboriginality". Where will they go next?  Will there be "reparations" and "land seizures" as some have claimed?

There are major and legitimate concerns about these things. That it divides citizens by race is bad enough but there are unanswered questions about how far this "treaty" will affect many other areas of life. 

What sort of "treaty" is it in fact? Only our federal government has the power to sign a treaty.  If this was an actual treaty it would mean those who claim to be aboriginal would need to give up their passports, their right to all present government payments, their right to vote and more. None of that is going to happen.

This government has acted against the clearly stated wishes of the people of the state. They rejected the "Voice to Parliament" in the referendum. Now the state government is bringing in the same thing but at a state level and perhaps with increased powers. They are "investing" millions in this.

I would be happy to see millions invested if I believed there would be better outcomes for people who are genuinely disadvantaged but history has shown it does not work that way. The outcomes are rarely advantageous for anyone apart from those at the top. These moves have shown over and over again that money is simply wasted. 

Someone I know was praising the move to me last night and hoping this state will shortly follow. As he was doing so I was looking at the person being interviewed. His partner was looking at the person being interviewed. We looked at each other. We did not need to say anything but we were both aware that you could pass that person in the street and have no idea they are "aboriginal".

Is it racist of me to believe that someone with just one great-great grandparent or perhaps even great-great-great grandparent is no more aboriginal than they are of some other heritage? Are they really that disadvantaged? Why aren't they English, Irish, Dutch or Chinese?

A friend who speaks some Pitjantjatjara was appalled when I told her that being "aboriginal" allowed you priority treatment at the hospital in that state. "But that's racist," she told me.  

Obviously there are people who do not see it that way. Is it time to review our ideas about who is actually aboriginal perhaps?