Thursday, 2 April 2026

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples) (14:48): I move:

That standing order 62 be amended to omit the words ‘A statement of compatibility tabled under s 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006’ in paragraph (2) and insert ‘A statement of compatibility tabled under any Act of Parliament’ with the change to come into effect from 30 April 2026.

The motion supports members of Parliament to fulfil an obligation established when Parliament passed the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 that any member introducing a bill must prepare a statement of treaty compatibility in respect of that bill and that the statement must be laid before the house before the second-reading speech.

Tabling a statement of treaty compatibility is an important step forward. It enables members to assess how proposed laws may impact First Peoples before they are passed through this place. The statement will outline any consultation undertaken with the assembly of Gellung Warl and assess whether the bill is compatible with relevant objects, similar to the charter assessments that we are all familiar with. This requirement responds to the reality that First Peoples have historically not been adequately consulted or heard on issues that directly affect them. We heard this clearly through the work of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, and we acknowledged this history in our apology last year.

Treaty is about ensuring that history is not repeated. Statements of treaty compatibility give Parliament the opportunity to understand how proposed laws may impact First Peoples and how consultation has informed those laws. Importantly, a statement of treaty compatibility does not remove anyone’s rights. It supports Parliament to make better-informed decisions in the interests of all Victorians, including First Peoples. It does not give First Peoples greater influence over lawmaking. This is a procedural requirement on the relevant member of Parliament. It does not require that the views of the assembly of Gellung Warl are implemented, nor does it require that legislation aligns with any criteria in relation to First Peoples’ rights.

What it requires is for the relevant member to explain whether and how a bill is consistent or not with the assembly of Gellung Warl’s views and whether and how the bill is compatible or not with advancing First People’s rights and addressing disadvantage experienced by First Peoples. This is similar to the existing requirements for statements of compatibility under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, ensuring First Peoples’ rights are considered alongside the human rights of all Victorians. It builds on existing consultation processes and does not diminish the ability of other communities to be heard.

Treaty honours the spirit of those who have walked this land for more than 65,000 years. It recognises that Victoria’s story did not begin in 1851, and it acknowledges that the work of reconciliation must be ongoing. It is not about guilt or blame, it is about partnership and progress. It is about recognising that the best solutions come from those who live the experience and that when Aboriginal people have a real say, the outcomes are better for everyone.

Making a statement of compatibility before second reading proposed legislation in this place is an important step in making better informed decisions for improved outcomes for our First Peoples, and it is important that this motion is dealt with now to come into effect on 30 April in order for it to be in practice on 1 May when the current First Peoples’ Assembly transitions into Gellung Warl in accordance with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, which passed this Parliament last year, particularly given the requirement that standing orders must comply with existing legislation. I commend the motion.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:52): I rise to speak on behalf of the coalition on this change to standing orders. I am perhaps even more confused now from the minister’s speech than I was before.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: Well, it is not hard after listening to this minister maybe, member for Glen Waverley. But the Nationals and Liberals will not be supporting this motion, and that will be of no surprise to anyone because we have been very clear in our position that we are opposed to treaty and that we will repeal treaty if we are elected later this year. Indeed this is exactly one of the reasons that we have opposed this whole process, because this change we do not think is consistent with the democratic norms or processes of the Westminster system.

I take up some of the matters that the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples at the table raised. She said it does not remove anyone’s rights, but it does give a particular group of Victorians special privileges. That was my take on it. Then the minister said that it does not give them any special privileges. So what is the point of it then? If it does not provide any special privileges to Gellung Warl, what is the purpose of it?

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: And it is the legislation, Minister, that I am disagreeing with. This is the process that comes after the legislation, the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, which was passed last year, which we opposed. We are simply being consistent in our position in now opposing this change to the standing orders.

The change to the standing orders will require every bill brought forward for consideration by Parliament to contain a statement of treaty compatibility. That is special treatment for one group of Victorians, just like the treaty is.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Well, the member for Mordialloc should be –

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc will cease interjecting, and the Leader of the Nationals will make his address through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: What is being proposed here is not some minor procedural adjustment. It is a fundamental shift in how legislation is scrutinised and developed in this Parliament. The minister said that the statement of treaty compatibility for every bill is similar to the charter of human rights. It is actually not similar; it is exactly the same. The proposal elevates treaty principles to the same operational footing of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Whatever you may think of that charter and the statements that go with legislation, it applies to every single Victorian. This does not. This gives a single group of Victorians the special privilege of being consulted on legislation even before the Parliament has seen it, even before the elected members of Parliament have seen it.

I wonder how that will actually work in practice. The charter requires every bill to be assessed against a defined set of rights, invites legal interpretation and increasingly shapes how legislation is drafted, debated and in some cases challenged. This motion would replicate that model. In practical terms, treaty becomes the standing lens through which all legislation must pass, regardless of its intent or subject matter. I reflect on some of the comments that I made on the legislation last year with the Statewide Treaty Bill, and the issue is in relation to matters that relate to Aboriginal people. The legislation that was passed uses the phrase ‘matters that affect First Peoples’, but nowhere in that legislation is there a definition of ‘matters that affect First Peoples’. It is as broad as it possibly could be, and this change to the standing orders now is reflecting that, because every single piece of legislation will have to be considered by Gellung Warl, by the First Peoples in what is now the First Peoples’ Assembly, and their feedback considered.

So I ask the government: with some legislation we have had in the last week or two – this week the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill 2026 – what particular influence or aspect of that legislation would directly impact on First Nations people? Likewise, we have had recently the dairy food safety and PrimeSafe bill that came through. There is nothing in that that I could see that would specifically affect First Nations people. Yet every single piece of legislation they will get to have their say on before even the people’s representatives here in this Parliament have that opportunity. How is that democratic? How is that fair? How is that part of the Westminster system? That is not fair to the rest of Victorians. It is a real concern, and our concern about this motion, as is our concern with treaty more broadly, is that it embeds a broad and still evolving framework across all legislation without clear limits.

I note that the statement from the legislation highlights that the statement of treaty compatibility must address whether the First Peoples’ Assembly was consulted; the nature, timing and content of any advice provided; and an assessment of whether the bill is compatible with treaty principles as defined in the legislation. I said at the outset that I am more confused now after the minister’s commentary, because one of the questions is: what happens if the assessment finds that the bill is not compatible with the treaty principles as defined in the legislation? What will happen? Well, maybe, Minister, the Attorney-General can answer this question when other members get up and speak, because if it is not compatible and if Gellung Warl says to the government, ‘No, this legislation is not compatible with the principles of treaty,’ is the government just going to ignore it? Then therefore, what is the point?

Sonya Kilkenny interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: No, it is not mischief, Attorney-General. These are questions that you and your government have failed to answer. Now, another simple one: why today? Why is this change coming today when the Statewide Treaty Bill received royal assent on the 13 November and effectively came into being, if I am not mistaken, on 12 December last year. Why is it that we have waited util the last sitting day of the session to actually bring subsequent changes to the standing orders into Parliament? I do not understand. This is the concern that the opposition has with this legislation, that those questions are not answered. Tell me specifically what happens if Gellung Warl is not happy with legislation? Is it the case that in fact if they raise a concern with legislation, then governments are going to have to change it and everything that comes to the Parliament will be compatible with the views of Gellung Warl. Is that the case? Again, we do not know the answer to that because that has not been made clear by the government of the day. I am hearing silence from those opposite, so I wonder whether they even know what the answer to those questions are.

This creates all sorts of uncertainty for departments, for stakeholders, for the Parliament itself and for the members of Parliament themselves. It risks shifting the balance of legislative scrutiny, and that is a point I have made a couple of times already. Under this proposal Gellung Warl, the representatives of the First Nations people here in Victoria, will have privileged access to legislation before the Parliament does. We understand the executive has that. That is our system of government. The government designs legislation and then presents it to the Parliament for development. But I have always been strongly against the principle that the treaty was a third chamber of Parliament. I have never suggested that that this Gellung Warl created that. However, effectively, this does give that special privilege to a particular group to know what is in legislation before it comes. We are not talking, as I understand it – and again, I am happy to have someone explain it – about an exposure draft of a bill or a consultation process that every government goes through at any given time. We are talking about the legislation as it is presented to the Parliament.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Maybe the member for Mordialloc could answer these questions when he gets up, because he has a lot to say at the moment, a lot of chatter, but not any clear substance to the questions that I am raising.

This change brings in a structural requirement across the entire legislative framework without first demonstrating how it will operate in practice. These are the questions I am asking: what the thresholds are and, most particularly, and I repeat, how conflicts or inconsistencies will be resolved. What happens if a piece of legislation is not compatible with the treaty principles?

We do not support creating overarching frameworks that apply universally across all legislation and alter the way that this Parliament operates without clear safeguards. This is a very clear concern. As I said from the outset, this change today is one of the very reasons that the Liberals and Nationals oppose the Statewide Treaty legislation. As I said in that discussion last year, even if I personally was in favour of treaty, I could never have supported the legislation that actually enacted it for the reasons that I am outlining today and particularly this situation, where there is a special arrangement. Our position has been consistent: we do not believe that the treaty will deliver the outcomes for First Nations Victorians that it is seeking.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: Have we asked them? Yes, repeatedly. I reckon I have probably met with the First Nations more often than you have.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member for Mordialloc will come to order.

A member: Through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: Now it is through the Chair. These guys are unbelievable. We have seen the government be unclear on all this stuff from the very beginning. We on this side support equal treatment, equality of opportunity and justice for all Victorians irrespective of their race, ethnic background, how long they have been in Australia or any other characteristic. We support ensuring that everyone has the equality of opportunity to live a full, healthy, productive and happy life. That is something we believe we can achieve for Aboriginal people, and we do not think that you need to set up a totally separate process for them to do so. More particularly, we do not think that it is fair on every other Victorian that Aboriginal people have special and privileged access to the workings of government. That is exactly what it is.

We know and we understand that on so many of the closing the gap targets we are failing. I know what members opposite will say. They will go, ‘That’s why we need treaty.’ But no-one has ever demonstrated any prospect that this will change under treaty. Indeed we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on treaty. So much of it has already been spent. And have we improved any of the targets on closing the gap so far? No, we have not. This is the concern that we have. This is the concern, that people have a say now.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Leader of the Nationals, through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: If the members opposite are saying that Aboriginal people do not have a say now, that is a reflection on the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples. That is a reflection on the Premier. It is a reflection on their government. If they do not believe that, then they should explain why they have failed to close the gap on so many of those Closing the Gap targets over 12 years. For over 12 years this government has been failing. If they are not listening to the government now, then that is on you guys.

I think personally, and for all of us on this side, the norms of the Westminster system are very important. We have seen them frankly breached by this government time and time again, because the norms would say that you fail in your portfolio, then you should resign, and we have seen multiple times ministers failing in their portfolios and choosing not to. So we know that those opposite are not particularly fond of the Westminster system. They would rather just act like the opposition and the Parliament do not exist. Ministers who are members of the Parliament – who are part of the executive – must be accountable to the Parliament, and by being accountable to the Parliament they are accountable to the people.

What I am concerned about with this whole treaty process and these changes that we are doing today is that the governance arrangements around it are outside the norms of that Westminster system. I do not think anyone could ever suggest that the Westminster system has not served us well as a country and as a state. It has delivered good government more broadly – with some recent exceptions, I might say, although that is more to do with the government of the day than the system. Effectively, as I said, Gellung Warl and First Nations people are granted a level of unprecedented autonomy and access to the executive that no other Victorian gets. That is the concern that we have and why we will be opposing this piece of legislation.

I am equally concerned, on a parallel basis, that the issues that we are talking about here in this particular process are reflected in other parts of the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, which was passed by this Parliament. The power to make representations to inform Parliament on legislation is, relatively speaking, what we are talking about here: advising government departments and service providers, and questioning ministers and secretaries during engagement hearings. I say that no-one else gets to do that, other than members of Parliament – question ministers and departmental secretaries. I might say, as I did last year, that I wish Gellung Warl well in questioning ministers, because having been in here for 12 years and on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) for 12 years, we get no answers when it is a public situation from this government. I would hope that when behind closed doors maybe Gellung Warl might have more success than we do. Similarly, the First People’s Assembly is mandated under the act in clauses 86 and 87 to meet with departmental secretaries and the Chief Commissioner of Police. Those agencies, their departments and Victoria Police must develop consultation guidelines, which must be considered by government authorities and state-funded service providers. Again, this is something that is not mandated for any other group in society, only for the First Nations. I highlight that as a concern that we have, particularly about this particular amendment to the standing orders today.

I also raise, as I said before: why is this happening today? Why was it not done after the legislation passed? Why was it not done in the first week of Parliament this year? Is the government trying to bury it now? At a time when Victorians are struggling with the biggest cost-of-living crisis we have had certainly since COVID, and probably in many of our times, the government is talking about this change to give this special privilege to the First Nations people. It is curious in the extreme, and I am not sure that most Victorians would be particularly welcoming of what has actually happened here today. That is another reason why we will be opposing this.

I should have mentioned earlier too that the opposition is not operating in a vacuum on this. We announced at the time of the Statewide Treaty Bill our alternative solution, and members opposite talked about listening. Well, we have listened.

We have listened to all those people throughout regional Victoria. The Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Melina Bath in the other place has undertaken extensive tours around regional Victoria in particular and has met with multiple people and multiple different groups. The biggest thing that she found was the need for services to be delivered on the ground and for power to be devolved to those services out on the ground and not to be concentrated here in Spring Street. That is why we have committed to establishing First Nations Victoria, to improve the lives of Indigenous Victorians and actually set some serious KPIs on meeting those Closing the Gap targets. The standalone department will add transparency and accountability and deliver measurable progress as we work to achieve those Closing the Gap targets. The department will work alongside Indigenous Victorians to implement a community-led, coordinated and transparent approach to policy, funding and service delivery. One minister will be responsible for delivering for First Nations Victoria, providing true accountability.

Again, in my time on PAEC, the number of times that we asked questions to, for example, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs about a particular thing, maybe education – ‘Oh, well, that’s a matter for the education minister.’ We asked about housing – ‘That’s a matter for the housing minister.’ Then we would ask the housing minister about Closing the Gap targets for Aboriginal housing, and what would happen then? ‘Oh, that’s a matter for the Aboriginal affairs minister.’ There is constant passing of the buck. Our approach will have one minister in charge and a separate dedicated department that will actually be responsible for and deliver on those First Nations Closing the Gap targets. Because under the Allan Labor government, the services Indigenous Victorians rely upon –

Lauren Kathage interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member for Yan Yean will come to order.

Danny O’BRIEN: The services Indigenous Victorians rely upon are fragmented across multiple departments, leading to duplication, blurred responsibilities and inconsistent service delivery – and we have seen that. First Nations Victoria is at the core of a community-led strategy to deliver to improve the lives of Indigenous Victorians. It is designed to deliver measurable progress on those Closing the Gap targets, backed up by total accountability – one department, one minister. That is what our approach will be – to work with First Nations people, particularly those outside the metropolitan area, where they are struggling for the services that they need. A member for Eastern Victoria in the other place Melina Bath will tell you what those services are, because she has been there, sat with the Aboriginal people and listened to them about what their needs are.

This statement of treaty compatibility that we are debating now does not do anything to improve the lives of Aboriginal Victorians. We actually heard in the very, very brief comments from the minister at the start that this is really important but also does not mean anything. Which is it? I ask the government to answer those key questions that I asked at the outset – fair questions about what this does achieve. What happens if the statement highlights that the treaty principles have not been met? Those are the key questions that this government has to answer. The Nationals and Liberals do not support treaty – we oppose it. We will repeal it if we are elected. We oppose this motion, and we will not be supporting it as it goes through today.

 Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (15:13): I will start by saying just how disgusted – not surprised, but disgusted – I am by what we have just heard from those opposite and how disrespectful to First Nations people that was. There are a whole range of things that have just been said. But we have been on a 10-year journey with First Nations people to establish treaty, and we have achieved that. It has not been a flash in the pan – ‘let’s make a treaty up’. This has been happening over a very long period of time, listening to First Nations people and what they are telling us their communities need as the First People of this state. That is what is important here. For those opposite to say that they are going to introduce something in their own way – which is basically maintaining the status quo – is not going to do anything except maintain the status quo.

In those 10 years we have listened to First Peoples, listened to what the issues are, and they want to be able to play a significant part in how they deliver services to their own community, because we know the status quo does not work. For over 200 years they have been controlled, since colonisation. They have had their land stolen, they have had their children stolen – you name it, it has happened. And here we are. We get to when we came into government in 2014, and one of the first things we started to do was talk to First Peoples about how we work together to ensure that we are closing the gap. For those on the other side to complain that the gap is not closing – that is exactly right. That is why we have had this 10-year journey to come up with a treaty process that does close the gap, and that is what the expectation is of Gellung Warl, that they will work towards that. That 10-year journey has been really important.

In terms of the statement of treaty compatibility, the legislation is already there. It is in the legislation; there is no doubt of that. So it is about meeting our obligations as a government and as a Parliament that we have said in that act. It is really important that we respect First Peoples and the treaty process that we committed to as a government. I know that those opposite have opposed it – they were in favour of it initially and then changed their mind for whatever reason. To me, it sounds like they are chasing that One Nation vote maybe. The reason why they are not supporting treaty is because they are after One Nation votes. They want to axe treaty, take the money from First Peoples, go back to the status quo, so nothing is going to change. I think it is a disgrace that they will continue to oppose treaty. They will continue to be disrespectful to First People, who have actually told us what needs to happen to close the gap. We know what that is. That is why we have treaty. We have heard that over a very long period of time, and this statement sets out the details of the consultation so that there is a consultation with First People on bills that are presented before this chamber. That is to ensure that we are doing what we said we were going to do, that we are continuing to work with Gellung Warl to make sure that we are putting legislation on the table that is not disenfranchising or disadvantaging First People in this state. We have made that commitment to First People and we have to continue with that, and this statement of treaty compatibility is part of that process.

Historically, we have not consulted them, and many times in this chamber I have talked about the massacres, the stealing of children, the stealing of land – all of those things that Yoorrook have very well put out in their report. These are the things that need to change, we know that, and this is why treaty has progressed to where it has. Our community support it. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people in the Victorian community actually support this process. They support what we have done.

James Newbury interjected.

Chris COUZENS: The referendum had absolutely nothing to do with this treaty.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Geelong, through the Chair. The member for Brighton will come to order.

Chris COUZENS: Historically, we have not listened to First People, and that is why the gap is not closing. This is a way to achieve that, and we know that. First Peoples have told us that time and time again, particularly over the last 10 years, when we have worked alongside First Peoples of this state. Gellung Warl is the assembly that will work on this to ensure that government is held accountable, no matter what government is in this place. It is important that we continue down this path, that we respond to what is actually the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 right now, which is what the statement of treaty compatibility is all about. So I really commend this motion and hope that those opposite can see the importance of making sure we deliver on the treaty act.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:20): I very much support this motion and these changes that have come before us. I was not necessarily going to speak on this, and I will only take a minute, but listening to the words that came out of the member for Gippsland South’s mouth, I had to. I felt very much compelled to get up and say something. I have had a lot of respect for the member for Gippsland South over my time in this place; we have worked very closely together. But what I just heard come out of his mouth I have to call for what it is: it was misinformation, it was garbage, it was dog whistling and it was disgusting.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: standing order 119.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I would ask the member for Melbourne to come back to the substantive motion.

Ellen SANDELL: To suggest that First Nations people get some kind of privilege over others in this state to me says that the opposition and the member for Gippsland South did not listen to any of the speeches that we had when we did the apology to First Nations people just at the end of last year – it was not that long ago. It suggests to me that he and the opposition have not read the history of this state, because it has been so clear through Yoorrook and through the speeches that were made in this place and through the stories that First Nations people have been telling us for a long time now. They have told us about their experience of colonisation and the harm that caused. Yoorrook had a four-year commission into the harm that it caused, and so much of that was about decisions that were actively made in this Parliament that caused that harm, that were made by governments in this place that caused that harm. After everything that has been done to First Nations Victorians over the last 200 years and the impacts of colonisation – that deep injustice, that deep unfairness – for the member for Gippsland South to get up and say somehow Aboriginal people are going to get some privilege in this state is just misinformation, pure and simple. For the Liberals and Nationals to try and create a culture war over the rights of First People I think is absolutely shameful. I think it is stoking racism and prejudice –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a procedural motion on a change to the standing orders. Sledging the opposition on relevance has nothing to do with that motion.

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton might not like the arguments being put forward, but the argument is relating to previous debate that has been raised by the member for Gippsland South. The member for Melbourne is entitled to refute and to argue with the points that have been made in previous debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I will just remind the member for Melbourne, please, not to make personal references to people. But you can continue on the substantive motion.

Ellen SANDELL: I think in particular for politicians who hold leadership roles in their community, for anyone of that standing, to stoke racism and prejudice simply for personal political gain is disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to speak out against it.

This change that is being put forward to the house today is simple. It is straightforward, it is sensible, it is a procedural change simply to acquit our obligations under treaty. Treaty already passed this Parliament, so all we are doing here is acquitting obligations of a piece of legislation that we already passed through this Parliament. It is a simple change. We should simply get on with it and do it. All it does is ask legislators to consider the views of our First Nations community when it comes to legislation that affects them. That is the very least this Parliament could be doing, and it is the very least we could do after the 200 years of harm that this place has caused First Nations people. For the Liberals and Nationals to use this as part of their disgraceful culture war I think is disgusting. I think they should come into the 21st century.

 Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (15:24): Long before this building stood, long before this Parliament existed, this place was a site of ceremony, meeting, lawmaking and culture. It has been so for tens of thousands of years, and it remains so today through the continuing connection of First Peoples to this country.

I rise today to speak in support of the requirement to prepare and table the statement of treaty compatibility, a reform that gives practical, meaningful effect to the commitments we made when this Parliament passed the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. Can I, at the outset, just mention that the British actually broke their own laws by not establishing a treaty at colonisation, and the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 goes towards righting that very big wrong.

When we passed the Statewide Treaty Act, we made a clear decision that treaty would not be symbolic. We agreed it would be embedded in how government works and how this Parliament legislates. One of the obligations we accepted was that when a bill is introduced the member introducing it must also prepare a statement of treaty compatibility and table it before the second-reading speech. That creates the space for reflection and responsibility. It supports parliamentarians to consider from the outset how legislation may relate to First Peoples, whether the assembly of Gellung Warl has had an opportunity to provide advice, what perspectives were shared and whether the bill supports the advancement of First Peoples’ rights. It also invites us to consider whether legislation aligns with core treaty objectives: advancing self-determination, addressing the impacts of historical injustice and supporting the equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms. This is not about restriction, it is about better lawmaking.

We do this because history has taught us the cost of exclusion and the power of inclusion. For too long First Peoples were denied a role in decisions that shaped their own lives. That truth has now been formally acknowledged and documented through the Yoorrook Justice Commission, Australia’s First Peoples–led truth telling process. Yoorrook has been courageous, dignified and generous. It has created an official public record of the pain, the trauma, the appalling policies, the massacres, the stealing of land, the stealing of children – the real history and story of this state – to build a shared understanding to right the many wrongs of the past. Treaty is how we honour that truth by ensuring it leads to change.

Statements of treaty compatibility are one of the ways we ensure that the lessons of the past inform the decisions of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. This requirement does not give First Peoples additional votes in the Parliament, because we have heard a lot of mistruths and misunderstandings about what this does. It does not create a veto, it does not override the role of elected representatives and it does not reduce the rights of any Victorian. It requires members introducing legislation to explain whether and how a bill aligns with advice from Gellung Warl and whether it supports the treaty objectives this Parliament has endorsed. This is compatible with the existing charter of human rights statement of compatibility. It strengthens our democracy by ensuring we legislate with awareness, respect and responsibility.

Treaty makes sense because it builds on strengths, not deficits. It recognises that Aboriginal communities hold deep knowledge about what works for their families, cultures and communities, and it recognises that when people are trusted with decision-making power over the things that affect their lives, outcomes improve. Treaty is about self-determination in practice. It is about partnership rather than paternalism. It is about designing services and systems with communities, not just for them. This is not about spending more money. It is about using the resources we already have more wisely, more collaboratively and more effectively. The Allan Labor government is committed to walking alongside Aboriginal communities as treaty progresses, step by step, to support healing, strengthen culture and build a shared future for all Victorians.

It is essential that treaty is guided by the voices of First Peoples themselves. The co-chairs of the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria Ngarra Murray and Rueben Berg have described treaty as:

… a pathway to acknowledging the past and making real, practical change to achieve better outcomes for First Peoples in Victoria and to close the gap.

These words are grounded in lived experience, leadership and optimism. They reflect a commitment not only to justice for First Peoples but to a stronger, fairer society for everyone.

This is the spirit in which statements of treaty compatibility have been designed. The Statewide Treaty Act establishes Gellung Warl, a democratic, independent and enduring representative body for First Peoples in Victoria. It brings together the First Peoples’ Assembly as the decision-making arm; Nginma Ngainga Wara, to provide independent oversight of Closing the Gap commitments; and Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna, preserving truth-telling as a foundation for healing. Gellung Warl sits within our existing democratic framework. It has no veto power. It does not override Parliament. It is accountable to integrity and oversight bodies, just like any other public institution. This model respects both Aboriginal self-determination and parliamentary sovereignty. Treaty is not about division; it is about unity grounded in truth and healing. It recognises that Victoria’s story did not begin in 1851. It honours more than 65,000 years of culture, lore and connection, while looking forward with confidence and hope. When we walk together, our whole state is stronger. It is about partnership. It is about progress. Treaty unites.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:31): I rise to speak on the motion which seeks to amend the standing orders to remove the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities from being the single statement of compatibility with future legislation and extend that into treaty principles as well. This place should deal with matters in a way that is equal, that upholds equality. I do want to say from the outset that earlier the Attorney-General was in the chamber, and these issues were raised at the beginning of this debate. The Leader of the Nationals spoke to that matter, and what he raised in his contribution was a concern that building a system whereby First People are consulted on proposed legislation before any member of Parliament considers it, other than potentially the minister themselves, by definition creates inequality. And the Attorney said, ‘That’s right. They’re the First People. They’re first.’ The Attorney of Victoria confirmed to us across the table that what the government is proposing to do is by design. By design these changes are going to enable First People to consider legislation, before all other people. By definition that creates inequality. To hear the Attorney say that I think underlined our concerns. We think that legislation should be considered by all and by all Victorians, fair and reasonably, and that there should be an equal way in which we do that. The Attorney herself said, ‘No. That’s not the case. They’re first. They go first.’ Well, we do not agree with that, and so we will not be supporting the motion. We have not supported treaty, and we have committed to repeal it. We have been very clear about why that is.

I think it is also worth saying – this has not been raised in the debate yet – that the changes before the house are changes that will amend the standing orders. The standing orders, as most people in this chamber should know – I am not sure if all do know, but all people should know – are the rules of the chamber, effectively. That is a shorthand way of describing the rules of the chamber. This motion before the house has not gone before the Standing Orders Committee, so we are currently considering a potential change to the standing orders that the house has not considered by way of whether it should occur, the implications of it occurring and what will happen. That is why we have a Standing Orders Committee: to consider potential changes to standing orders, reasonably. Any changes to the standing orders you would think would go before a Standing Orders Committee. This has not gone before a Standing Orders Committee. This has not gone through, as far as I understand, any process before the house and not before the Standing Orders Committee.

When you make a change, you would think that you would do so before it being brought into this chamber. And why would that be? Perhaps there is some sense of time urgency, some immediate urgency. We have heard and we understand that the treaty received royal assent in November last year and was enacted in December last year. Well, we are now in May, some four months later, four months after treaty was enacted. At any point in that time you would think that this chamber could have considered what would happen if you made a change to the standing orders, just to ensure – even if you supported the change, even if there was universal agreement, which is clearly not the case here – that there were no unforeseen consequences, not just in terms of making the change but even in the wording of the change, because wording matters, and the wording in this motion in and of itself has not been considered either. Could it be drafted better? Is it drafted poorly? Who would know? Because the government did not take the motion through the Standing Orders Committee. But of course they did not, despite having four months to do so.

No, what I think and what we are all saying is: why is this motion being done today? Australians and Victorians are crying out about the pain they are going through with cost of living. Why is this being done today? Why? The cost-of-living pressure with things like fuel is crippling people. Why is it being done today? Because the government wants to make an announcement on budget day that this is the first bill that has gone through that process. That is what this is about. This is being dealt with today because of the government’s next media release. At any point over the last four months these standing order changes could have been made on any single parliamentary day. But no, they are doing it today. Why? Because the Parliament is now rising until budget day. The next bill, the first bill to go through this process, will be the budget. It is all about the circus for the Premier. She wants to be able to stand up with the Treasurer and say, ‘Our budget is the first budget to ever have a statement of compatibility with First Nations people’ – probably because it is going to be a stinker of a budget, I suspect. We know that last year the government had so little to say about the budget they stopped their own members from debating it in the chamber. There were, on my last count, about 20, 25 members who did not get to speak on their own budget. So it is very fair and reasonable on this motion to understand the timing – very fair and reasonable.

This is about the Treasurer, and I will be waiting on budget day. I am very, very sure that in the Treasurer’s speech she will be saying this is the first bill that has ever gone through a statement of compatibility with First Nations people. That is what this is about – the circus of this government’s media announcement. We can call it out. If the government cared about legislation being compatible with treaty principles, do you know when they would have made this change? The minute after treaty was legislated and enacted. They would have done it on day one, because with all of the legislation we have considered this year, none of it has gone through treaty assessment. None. Why? The government has had every opportunity to explain why they have not cared about all the legislation they have dealt with this year. Why haven’t they? Because it is all about the circus. We are the first –

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Frankston, you are not in your seat.

James NEWBURY: ‘We have to have,’ the government will say, ‘the first budget that has ever been delivered in this state that has treaty principle compatibility.’

Seriously? Is that how low this government has sunk? I would say Victorians who are going through a lot of pain at the moment are looking on right now and wondering, ‘Why the heck is this government’s priority doing this?’ On budget day, when I hear the Treasurer and the Premier say they have got nothing else to say other than, ‘We’ve got the first budget that’s ever been treaty-compatible,’ I think Victorians are going to look on and yawn. They are going to yawn and say, ‘But what about helping us? What about helping our cost of living?’ It is all a total scam.

You can understand exactly what the government is doing, can’t you? The whole year of legislation – they could have put through treaty principle processes. They did not, because it is all about the media release. And we will see it on budget day. I have just called it out. So when you hear the Treasurer and the Premier rely on that as some great big announcement, we know what it is – one great big circus from this government.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:41): Goodness me, that was a nonsensical contribution from the member for Brighton. This is an outcome of the treaty process. Denying the pathway that was taken and some of the work that needs to be done and the ‘Listen to me, I’ve worked it all out’ Sherlock Holmes routine over there by the member for Brighton – the learned friend over there – stands in stark contrast to the really confused contentions that were put forward by the Leader of the Nationals, who of course used to be a chief of staff for now lower house One Nation leader Barnaby Joyce. You can see that he is working up his lines and working up his playbook of intervention into First Nations politics.

We saw his routine before, which was something totally extraordinary. He suggested to us that their Aboriginal affairs portfolio stands up to rigour and the treaty process does not stand up to differentiated outcomes for First Nations people. He brought forward this contention that all Victorians should be equal, while then saying that they will have an Aboriginal affairs portfolio that is differential to the Victorian people. What an extraordinary bluff and position to put forward. It was completely nonsensical, it was desperate and it had differing sorts of views across the journey. But fundamentally, the Leader of the Nationals had to say at least 12 times that they are opposed to treaty. No, we get it. We get it over on this side that those opposite will not listen to First Nations people. We understand that. We saw the disrespect that was provided by those opposite during that time. Will there, though, be a political consequence to this? That is the key thing here. How many people were part of the yes vote in the Kew electorate and the Brighton electorate who see a difficult journey of the Liberal Party and the lack of compassion that they have for their fellow Victorians?

A statement of compatibility here is respectful. It is kind, it is empathetic and it is inclusive, and that is exactly why we are bringing it forward. The Leader of the Nationals had a really confused place around: ‘Well, have we seen this or done this before?’ The Leader of the Nationals should realise that we have a human rights charter that has a statement of compatibility and that we report against those milestones, and where it does not comply with those, we articulate why. It is not a very controversial point if you have bothered to read a bit of legislation or a second-reading speech in your time. It is quite clear what the statement of compatibility will be and how it will contribute.

The fearmongering notion from that side was a bit of a ‘Let’s test our lines to see how they sound out loud when I’m defending a One Nation charge in the Nationals areas’. That was really what that waffling speech was about. It had nothing to do with a pretty sensible thing that says treaty is now legislated. Let us be clear, those opposite continue to debate the merits of law that is now in Victoria. That is a really important point here. They might repeal it, but it is law now.

If that is the notion put forward by the member for Brighton and the Leader of the Nationals, remember as well that the Leader of the Nationals said how strong the Westminster system is, how they respect democracy and how it is so important and these are fundamental principles – and yet law that has passed through this house is now law that should be not be respected. That is the waffling exercise that we see from those opposite, an incoherent approach that has seen them absolutely capitulate as a political movement nationally. We have seen this issue and other fringe elements of their parties and movements tear them to pieces. This is just another test case in a lack of empathy, a lack of kindness and a lack of compassion for Victorians to meet the outcomes of closing the gap and listen to First Nations people – isn’t that extraordinary – and to bring forward a kindness that says, ‘We will listen to you after the impacts of colonisation, after the impacts of a range of different legislation that has impacted and harmed First Nations people. You know what, we’re going to listen to you and have self-determination.’ What a kind thing to do, rather than, again, dictating what is in the interests of First Nations people.

I give it to those opposite for giving a stirring rendition of how to defy logic and stop the creep of their vote to One Nation, but we see this for what it is. This is more about the politics than it has ever been about the policy. We wish them well, as Pauline Hanson continues to absolutely tear them to shreds.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (15:46): It is my pleasure to make a contribution around this notice of motion, which is a procedural motion, or rather, a substantive motion that deals with the procedures of this chamber and specifically the standing orders and standing order 62. I will take a moment to just refresh the house about the contents of standing order 62, which is that after the order of the day for the second reading of a bill the question to be proposed is that this bill now be read a second time and then, importantly, under 62(2), a statement of compatibility tabled under section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 will be incorporated in Hansard, without leave being required. This is a procedural provision that simply allows for statements of compatibility to be incorporated into Hansard without leave being required each time.

What this motion that we are debating right now before the chamber does is expand those statements of compatibility that can be incorporated into Hansard in that way to include statements of compatibility tabled under any act of Parliament. It is hardly a controversial matter, I would have thought, simply saying that we have statements of compatibility under the treaty legislation. I understand the opposition opposes treaty, and they will get their reckoning for that, do not worry about that. But it is hardly a controversial matter, I would have thought, to simply say that statements of compatibility and their official title, and I should seek to use that title, because others have not – statements of compatibility with treaty principles – are incorporated into Hansard in exactly the same way as a statement of compatibility with the charter of human rights.

These are both very, very important components of the legislative process. There will always be an option to read aloud those statements. But of course, in the ordinary passage of legislative business through this chamber, we incorporate those into Hansard. We do not need to have a debate about whether they get incorporated. We do not need divisions on whether they get incorporated. I guess I mean capital ‘D’ divisions in this case. But they simply get incorporated. That is a sensible rule of order of this place, a very sensible rule for this place. But of course what it cracks open and what we have heard in the contributions this afternoon is the very real division in this state between those who support treaty – and I would suggest to you, Acting Speaker Farnham, and to your colleagues that is a majority of Victorians – those who support real enfranchising of Indigenous Victorians, those who support making good on the wrongs of the past, those who support doing better in the field of Indigenous affairs in this state, and those who oppose for a range of reasons. It might be fear, it might be racism; they might be running scared politically from some of the nasty, nasty forces that seem to be developing momentum in Australia’s body politic.

There are lots of things going on out there that would mediate against an easy discussion around the principles that are contained in the treaty bill. But I think credit where it is due: the Labor government has done a magnificent job in getting this treaty legislation through this Parliament. It has stuck to its word and stuck to its principles on this matter – not all matters but on this matter – and I think it has done an absolutely terrific job in making sure that this sits where it does at the apex of Victoria’s governance structure, the apex of Victoria’s public life.

Of course statements of compatibility with treaty principles should rank equally, rank pari passu, with statements of compatibility with the charter of human rights. They are an important part of the legislative process, because what could be more fair dinkum than saying to Indigenous Victorians, ‘We are now going to properly take into consideration your views on legislation that goes through this place,’ because the centuries of failure in this policy area cannot go on. Of course if things are to change then things must change, and one of those changes is a very important change: ensuring that this place does turn its mind to the impact on Indigenous Victorians of changes to legislation. Frankly, it is the least we could do. It is the least we could do to ensure that we hear those views – the views of that very important community, the views of that community that has been so appallingly treated for centuries, the views of the community that has been disenfranchised at almost every turn over the life of European settlement of this great continent – and that we have an opportunity now to say we are listening, and not only that, we have built into the legislative process acknowledgement, understanding, empathy and a very real engagement with the Indigenous community through the mechanisms that are available to this Parliament.

I say to those who might oppose this motion: give life and effect to the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. It is not a bill anymore, it is an act. Give life and effect to the treaty process, which was such an important process and a marquee achievement of this government. Give life and effect to the aspirations of Indigenous Victorians, who have been disenfranchised so often in this place and disenfranchised so often in public life in Victoria. This is a minor change to the standing orders of the operation of this chamber, but it stands for a hell of a lot more. It stands for the principle that we as a legislature are listening, and I encourage all members to adopt that approach.

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (15:53): I desire to move:

That the question be now put.

The SPEAKER: I will allow one more speaker.

 Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (15:53): I rise to speak on this motion, and I want to begin with something straightforward: First Nations Australians have the oldest continuous culture on earth. Their connection to this land, their communities, their families and their aspirations for a better future deserve our absolute respect, our genuine commitment and our action. But respect is not the same thing as this motion. Genuine commitment is not this motion, and meaningful action, the kind that actually improves lives, is certainly not this motion. This is not a pathway to better outcomes for First Nations communities, it is a pathway to paralysis. It is complexity dressed up as compassion.

Let me tell you what I hear in Prahran: I hear from small business owners who cannot afford to keep staff because of the cost of running a business in this state has become punishing, I hear from renters spending more than half their income on housing and I hear from parents who are choosing between heating their homes and buying their children new school shoes. These are not hypothetical pressures, these are absolute lived realities of the people that I represent, and in this moment this government brings a motion to embed treaty requirements into every piece of legislation it enacts.

Let me be precise about what this Statewide Treaty Act 2025 actually creates, because the government would prefer, basically, that we do not look closely at the detail. The act establishes a statutory obligation – not a discretionary aspiration, a legal requirement – for the government to consult the First Peoples’ Assembly on new laws that affect Indigenous peoples. And here is the critical question this government refuses to answer plainly: what laws qualify? The treaty framework explicitly covers health, education, housing, justice, land, cultural heritage and economic development. A bill on public housing, a bill on bail reform, a bill adjusting land tax: every one of those will touch First Peoples under this framework. The scope is so broad and so deliberately undefined that in practice it reaches into almost every significant piece of legislation this Parliament considers. The government has created an obligation so expansive it has no practical boundaries. It also affects housing, health, even justice and the budget – they are all in its scope.

Parliamentary debate confirmed that new tax measures affecting all Victorians must undergo treaty compatibility review and potential assembly consultation. That is not a modest procedural addition; that is a structural requirement embedded in law applied to budget and fiscal policy that affects every single Victorian. Lest any member suggest this is merely aspirational, I draw the chamber’s attention to the notice of motion given on 1 April by the member for Kalkallo: that standing order 62 is to be amended so that formal statements of compatibility apply not just under the charter of human rights but under any act of Parliament. The effect, operative from 30 April, is that every bill, every single bill introduced into this house, will require a formal statement of treaty compatibility tabled alongside its charter statement, and the machinery of this motion is the standing orders of this Parliament from next month. From 30 April every bill in this Parliament carries a new formal requirement: a statement of treaty compatibility tabled as a matter of standing. It is not a future ambition – next month.

Nor does the architecture stop there. Gellung Warl, the new permanent body the act creates, delivers an annual address to a joint sitting of both houses of this Parliament, and among the future aspirations explicitly listed in the treaty framework is the establishment of a third chamber of Parliament. No veto today, but a third chamber of Parliament is explicitly on this government’s agenda. This motion asks us to embed the foundations of that architecture into every single bill. And who staffs and funds this expanded framework? Not volunteers. We are talking about a permanent statutory authority drawing on consolidated revenue requiring whole divisions of public servants: treaty advisers, compliance officers and legal counsel – an institutional ecosystem that by the government’s own design is intended to grow with every subsequent treaty negotiation across health, education, housing and justice. The Statewide Treaty Act mentions Closing the Gap targets twice in 250 pages and contains no binding obligations on the government to actually meet them. Process without accountability, obligation without outcome: this is the signature of this government.

While this government constructs this architecture, let me tell this chamber what it is not doing. On the budget, Victoria’s net debt has soared to more than $150 billion in the general government sector, growing by more than $2 million every single hour. Interest costs now run at $6.8 billion a year. A decade ago, when the coalition last held office, net debt was $21.8 billion, and it is now forecast to reach nearly $194 billion within three years. Victorians are the most heavily taxed people in the country, and this government’s answer is to add yet another permanent, funded, growing institutional obligation to the public accounts with no binding requirement to show a single dollar of benefit. Victoria’s net debt grows by more than $2 million every single hour. In a decade it has increased almost ninefold, and this government’s answer is more process, more ideology and more cost.

On housing, Victorians cannot afford to buy houses. Victorians cannot afford to rent. The planning system is broken. Development approvals take years. Supply cannot meet demand, and the government’s own housing targets are already off track. And yet here we are, adding treaty compatibility requirements to planning and housing legislation and creating new friction in a system that is already failing the people who need it the most. Victorians cannot afford to buy, Victorians cannot afford to rent, and this government’s answer is to add more process to the housing laws that are already failing them.

On crime, too many Victorians, including in my own electorate, feel unsafe in our public spaces, in our streets and on public transport. The community safety conversation in Victoria is serious, and it is absolutely urgent. The government is not delivering the accountability, the sentencing framework and all the investment in frontline policing that the community is asking for. Instead, basically it debates institutional architecture. People in Prahran feel unsafe in their own streets. They are not asking for a new chamber of Parliament, they are asking for a government that takes their safety seriously.

On health, emergency departments are under strain and pressure. Elective surgery waiting lists remain unacceptably long. Mental health services are stretched. The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System produced recommendations that this –

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Speaker: relevance.

The SPEAKER: Member for Prahran, this is a narrow debate, so I would ask you to come back to the debate.

Rachel WESTAWAY: The point that I am making is that the infrastructure that this is creating and the costs that it is creating are affecting every single Victorian. And really, at a time of cost-of-living pressures, why are we tolerating these sorts of things? That does go to my point, and it does go to what we are talking about, because everything affects Victorians. When we are under cost-of-living pressures, we absolutely need to take this into consideration.

I want to return to where I began, because it is important. Nobody in this chamber disputes the importance of working with First Nations people and communities towards genuine self-determination, genuine economic participation and genuine recognition of their rights and their culture, but embedding statutory consultation obligations across every significant legislative domain is not how you improve lives. You do not improve outcomes for First Nations Victorians by creating a treaty compatibility review for every single tax measure. You improve outcomes by resourcing communities directly. You improve outcomes by reducing bureaucratic gatekeeping and listening to community leaders about what they are actually needing. The act’s own silence on binding Closing the Gap obligations tells you absolutely everything you need to know about where this government’s true priorities lie.

The people I represent are practical. They are generous. They believe in fairness, and they believe in doing right by all Victorians. But they are also clear-eyed. They know the difference between a government genuinely working on their behalf and a government working on its own ideological agenda and calling it virtue. The people of Prahran want a government focused on the budget, on housing, on safety and on health, not on one building a third chamber of Parliament while Victorians struggle. The people of Prahran want a government that sets this state up for success, not one that layers obligation upon obligation while the practical problems that define daily life remain unsolved. We can and we must do better.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, there are a significant number of members on this side of the chamber who are wishing to speak. I want to provide you with that background because there are a significant number of members who wish to speak, and so far only two Liberals have spoken. As a proportion of the chamber, clearly that is a very unrepresentative proportion by comparison to how many have had the opportunity, and I would be concerned if a gag motion were moved on changing the entire rules of this chamber without members having an opportunity to speak.

The SPEAKER: The ruling on that point of order is that it is for me to determine.

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (16:04): I move:

That the question be now put.

Assembly divided on Colin Brooks’s motion: