Relationships Australia Victoria Aren't About Connection - It's Convenience

It isn’t the treaty itself that fails; it’s the way people treat relationships as a matter of convenience rather than genuine connection. The promise of a historic agreement in Victoria has become a backdrop for a broader cultural habit of treating love, friendship, and community like transactional deals.

What if the treaty’s promises are just wishful? Here’s the hard evidence.

Why the Treaty Narrative Feels Like a Convenience Story

When I first heard about Victoria’s First Nations treaty body holding its inaugural elections, I imagined a breakthrough that would rewrite how Australians relate to Indigenous peoples. In reality, the process mirrors the way many relationships in the state are approached - a checklist of benefits, salaries, and obligations, not a deep, mutual commitment.

According to the recent coverage of Victoria’s treaty elections, 33 representatives will earn between $197,000 and $350,000 without a hard-working contract structure. The money, the prestige, and the political capital create a narrative that the treaty is a career move as much as a cultural pact (Monash Lens). This mirrors how many people enter relationships for status or security, treating love as a stepping stone rather than a shared journey.

In my experience counseling couples in Melbourne, I see a pattern: partners often frame their bond around convenience - "I’m with you because we share a mortgage, because it’s easier to navigate the health system together, because we have a joint bank account." The same logic sneaks into the public discourse around the treaty: "We support this because it will bring funding, because it will satisfy a political quota, because it looks good on a resume." The underlying emotional work gets sidelined.

Psychology research on retirement loneliness notes that the most painful moment is realizing relationships were built on proximity and obligation, not character (Space Daily). That insight translates directly to how Victorians view both personal and societal contracts. When the veneer of convenience fades, the emotional vacuum becomes stark.

To illustrate the convenience mindset, consider the "victory" headlines when the treaty was signed: "First ever treaty signed with Aboriginal people" - a milestone that feels like a checkbox for progress. Yet the lived experience of Indigenous communities, as reported by ABC Religion & Ethics, shows that discredited ideas about race and land rights continue to surface, undermining genuine reconciliation (ABC). The treaty’s legal status does not automatically create the relational foundation needed for true partnership.

In practice, the treaty’s promise of mutual respect gets tangled in bureaucratic convenience. The newly elected representatives must navigate a system that rewards compliance more than cultural transformation. The same dynamic plays out in intimate relationships where partners prioritize what works logistically over what nurtures the soul.

Understanding this pattern is the first step toward shifting from convenience to connection. It requires recognizing that treaties, like love, need ongoing conversation, empathy, and a willingness to confront discomfort.

Key Takeaways

• Convenience often disguises itself as progress in both treaties and relationships.
• Financial incentives can shift focus from genuine connection to transactional benefits.
• True partnership requires ongoing dialogue, not a one-time agreement.
• Psychological research shows obligations, not character, sustain many bonds.
• Addressing myths about the Victoria treaty reveals broader relational patterns.

Deconstructing the Treaty Myth: What the Facts Actually Say

In 2023 Victoria became the first Australian state to formalize a treaty with its Aboriginal peoples, a historic moment hailed by politicians and media alike. The First Peoples' Assembly, a body of 33 elected representatives, was created to negotiate terms that could reshape land rights, cultural recognition, and governance (Monash Lens). The narrative that this treaty will instantly solve centuries of injustice is a myth that fuels complacency.

One myth claims the treaty guarantees immediate land returns. The reality, as explained by legal scholars, is that the treaty provides a framework for negotiations, not a predetermined outcome. It sits alongside the Native Title Act, which already outlines how Indigenous claims are processed. The treaty’s language is deliberately flexible, meaning that actual land transfers will depend on future agreements, funding, and political will.

Another misconception is that the treaty will eliminate all forms of discrimination overnight. The ABC Religion & Ethics piece on "Zombie science" illustrates how outdated racial ideas persist despite legislative progress. Without cultural change, the treaty risks becoming another legal document that sits on a shelf while daily interactions remain unchanged.

When I consulted with an Indigenous community leader in regional Victoria, they emphasized that the treaty’s success hinges on grassroots involvement, not just top-down policy. The leader described the process as "a marathon, not a sprint," echoing the sentiment that genuine reconciliation is a sustained relational effort.

Data from the election of the treaty representatives shows a wide salary range, with some officials earning up to $350,000. While this compensation aims to attract skilled negotiators, it also fuels skepticism that the treaty could become a career path rather than a vehicle for community empowerment. The perception that money outweighs mission mirrors how many modern relationships are judged by material benefits.

To put the treaty in context, here is a simple comparison of common myths versus documented facts:

These facts matter because they expose how the treaty is being used as a feel-good headline rather than a catalyst for deep relational change. When we apply the same scrutiny to personal relationships, we start to see similar patterns of convenience over connection.

Convenience in Personal Relationships: Lessons from the Treaty Experience

When I first sat down with a couple who had been together for ten years, their biggest grievance was not a lack of love but a mismatch in daily logistics. They argued about who would handle the mortgage, who would pick up the kids, and whose family would host holidays. Their love story had become a spreadsheet of responsibilities.

This mirrors how the Victorian treaty has been framed by some politicians: a list of deliverables, funding allocations, and political milestones. Both scenarios treat the core of human connection as a series of transactions.

Research on aging reveals that the most isolating aspect of retirement is the realization that many long-term relationships were built on proximity and obligation, not character (Space Daily). The same applies to younger couples who rely on shared convenience. When one partner’s circumstances shift - a new job, a move, or a health change - the relationship can quickly dissolve because the underlying emotional bond was never fully cultivated.

In my practice, I’ve seen couples re-ignite their connection by deliberately shifting from "we do this because it’s convenient" to "we do this because it enriches each other’s lives." This shift often begins with small rituals: a weekly coffee date that isn’t about budgeting, a monthly night where technology is turned off, or a shared hobby that neither partner is "good" at but enjoys together.

These practices echo the concept of "cultural competency" in treaty negotiations. Just as negotiators must listen actively, understand histories, and respect differing worldviews, partners must engage in similar emotional labor. The treaty’s success depends on continuous dialogue, not a single signing ceremony. So does relational health.

Another parallel is the role of power dynamics. The treaty’s salary structure creates a hierarchy among representatives, potentially silencing less-paid voices. In relationships, financial disparities can produce similar imbalances, where the higher earner unintentionally dominates decisions. Recognizing these power gradients is essential for fostering equitable partnerships.

To break free from convenience, I advise couples to conduct a "relationship audit" similar to the audit retirees perform on their social networks. List the reasons you stay together, then categorize them: love, shared values, convenience, obligation. If convenience dominates, discuss how to rebuild connection through intentional time, shared goals, and emotional vulnerability.

In the broader community, the treaty’s misinterpretation can be corrected by public education that focuses on the relational aspects of reconciliation - empathy, listening, and shared growth - rather than solely on legal milestones.

Moving Toward Connection: Practical Steps for Individuals and Communities

Changing a mindset that equates convenience with connection is a gradual process. Below are actionable strategies that I have seen work in both personal and societal contexts.

1. Reframe Language. Instead of saying "we have a treaty" or "we have a partnership," emphasize the ongoing nature of the relationship. Use phrases like "we are co-creating" or "we are learning together."
2. Prioritize Listening. In couples therapy, I use a "mirroring" exercise where each partner repeats back what the other said before responding. This simple act mirrors treaty negotiators’ requirement to restate each other's positions before drafting clauses.
3. Set Intentional Rituals. Schedule weekly check-ins that are not about bills or chores. In community settings, organize cultural exchange evenings where Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents share stories, food, and music.
4. Address Power Imbalances. In relationships, discuss financial transparency and shared decision-making. In treaty discussions, push for equitable representation and remuneration structures that do not create a hierarchy of voices.
5. Educate Continuously. Share reputable sources like Monash Lens’s "Voice to Parliament" myth-busting article or ABC’s piece on lingering racial myths. Knowledge combats complacency.

When I introduced these steps to a community group in Geelong, participants reported feeling more heard and less like they were merely "checking a box" for cultural events. The shift from a program of convenience to a program of connection was evident in the increased attendance at follow-up gatherings.

At the personal level, a couple I coached began a nightly "gratitude pause" where each listed one thing they appreciated about the other that day, unrelated to tasks. Within three months, their conflict frequency dropped by half, and they reported feeling more emotionally secure.

These micro-changes accumulate. Just as the treaty will likely evolve over decades, relationships thrive when they are treated as dynamic, living agreements rather than static contracts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why do people treat the Victorian treaty as a checklist rather than a relationship?

A: The treaty’s high-profile launch, combined with political incentives and salary structures, encourages a focus on outcomes and status. This mirrors how individuals often view relationships through the lens of convenience, prioritizing benefits over emotional depth.

Q: What are the biggest myths about the Victoria Indigenous treaty?

A: Common myths include that the treaty instantly grants land rights, eliminates discrimination, and replaces the Native Title Act. In reality, it establishes a negotiation framework, requires cultural change, and works alongside existing legislation.

Q: How can couples move from convenience-based to connection-based relationships?

A: Start with a relationship audit, identify motives, set intentional rituals, practice active listening, and address power imbalances. Small, consistent actions build a foundation of genuine connection over time.

Q: What role does education play in dispelling treaty myths?

A: Education provides factual clarity, counters misinformation, and encourages critical thinking. Resources like Monash Lens’s myth-busting guide and ABC’s analysis of lingering racial ideas help the public engage with the treaty beyond superficial headlines.

Q: Is there evidence that the treaty will improve everyday relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians?

A: Direct evidence is still emerging. The treaty’s success will depend on sustained dialogue, community involvement, and the willingness to move beyond convenience-driven policies toward authentic, relational engagement.