This is a major concern for many Indigenous people. But why? In short, the lack of treaty in Australia goes to the very heart of the wound in our nation.The absence of a treaty suggests an ongoing denial of the existence, prior occupation and dispossession of Indigenous people in Australia and highlights a lack of engagement and relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
What's a treaty?
Calls for a treaty in Australia refer to a formal agreement between the government and Indigenous people that would have legal outcomes. A treaty in Australia could recognise Indigenous people’s history and prior occupation of this land, as well as the injustices many have endured. It could also offer a platform for addressing those injustices and help to establish a path forward based upon mutual goals, rather than ones imposed upon Indigenous people.
Treaties are accepted around the world as a way of reaching a settlement between Indigenous people and those who have colonised their lands. New Zealand, for example, has the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed in 1840 between the British Crown and over 500 Maori chiefs, while Canada and the United States have hundreds of treaties dating back as far as the 1600s.
Historical lack of treaty with Indigenous people in Australia
Australia has never entered into negotiations with Indigenous people about the taking of their lands or their place in the new nation. And yet, the idea of a treaty in Australia goes back many years. In 1832 the Governor of Van Diemen’s Land remarked that it was “a fatal error...that a treaty was not entered into” with the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.
In recent times, Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised to deliver a treaty by 1990. However, the controversial term raised alarm and was changed to a ‘document of reconciliation’, Makarrata* or compact. These discussions were eventually replaced by the push for Constitutional recognition.
*Makarrata is a word in the Yolngu language meaning ‘the resumption of normal relations after a period of hostilities’. Some people preferred the word Makaratta because they felt the word treaty was too divisive and more often describes agreements between countries rather than within countries between different parts of the population.
Why is a treaty important?
A treaty could provide, among other things:
- a symbolic recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and prior occupation of this land
- a redefinition and restructuring of the relationship between Indigenous people and wider Australia
- better protection of Indigenous rights
- a basis for regional self-government
- guidelines for local or regional treaties
- structures and systems for local and regional decision-making processes 
What's sovereignty, and what does it have to do with a treaty?
Many Indigenous people base calls for treaty on claims to Indigenous sovereignty. The word 'sovereignty' is usually used to describe the independence of nation states. It refers to a nation’s ultimate authority to govern its own affairs without interference from other countries.
Many Indigenous people in Australia claim sovereignty on the grounds that Indigenous people have never surrendered to the government. Therefore, they claim that their sovereignty, their authority to govern their own lives, has never been extinguished.
Sovereignty is a means for Indigenous people to seek greater control over their lives and limited government interference in Indigenous affairs. Indigenous sovereignty in Australia includes concepts such as self-government, autonomy and the recognition of cultural distinctiveness, though not the creation of a new country.
Supporters of a treaty generally agree that a treaty must acknowledge Indigenous sovereignty. However, previous governments have claimed that recognising Indigenous sovereignty in Australia would fracture the nation. For example, Prime Minister John Howard said that “[a] nation ... does not make a treaty with itself”. Today the issue of sovereignty continues to underlie calls for, and opposition to, treaty.
You can find links to more information about Indigenous sovereignty further down the page.
How is treaty different from Constitutional recognition?
Calls for a treaty and proposals to recognise Indigenous people in the Australian Constitution are two related but separate issues.
Treaties and constitutions serve two different purposes; a treaty is a contract between two sovereign parties, while a Constitution is a set of governing laws. 
These initiatives are not mutually exclusive, and can even complement each other. There are concerns among some groups that Constitutional recognition would effectively negate Indigenous sovereignty, making future attempts at a treaty impossible. However, legal experts state that none of the current proposals to change the Constitution do anything to undermine claims to Indigenous sovereignty. 
- 1. Williams, G. 2014, “Does true reconciliation require a treaty?”, Indigenous Law Bulletin, Volume 8, Issue 10, pg. 3-5
- 2. Williams, G. 2014, “Does true reconciliation require a treaty?”, Indigenous Law Bulletin, Volume 8, Issue 10, pg. 3-5
- 3. Behrendt, L. 2012, Indigenous Australia for Dummies, Wiley Publishing Australia PTY LTD, Milton, Australia, pg. 573-574
- 4. Fenley, J. 2011, “The National Aboriginal Conference and the Makarrata: Sovereignty and Treaty Discussions, 1979 - 1981”, Australian Historical Studies, Volume 42, pg. 372 - 389
- 5. Behrendt, L. 2012, Indigenous Australia for Dummies, Wiley Publishing Australia PTY LTD, pg. 390
- 6. Laws, J. 2000, Interview with John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia (Sydney, 29 May 2000), quoted in Bennan, S. Gunn, B. and Williams, G. 2004, "‘Sovereignty’ and its Relevance to Treaty-Making Between Indigenous Peoples and Australian Governments", in the Sydney Law Review, Volume 26, Number
- 7. Recognise, Frequently Asked Questions
- 8. Williams, G. 2012, “Does Constitutional Recognition Negate Aboriginal Sovereignty?”, in Indigenous Law Bulletin, Volume 8, Issue 3
- 9. Davis, M, 2012, “Constitutional Recognition Does Not Foreclose on Aboriginal Sovereignty”, in Indigenous Law Bulletin, Volume 8, Issue 1