Tuesday, 28 October 2025

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:40): I rise to speak on the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, and in doing so I acknowledge the earnest interest that many in not only this chamber but in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander section of the community have for this bill. There are many there who are going to be rejoicing at the end of this week with the passage of this bill, and I want to extend my goodwill and good wishes to them. After this bill has come through and the legislation exists, because I am sure it will pass, when I walk out of this room and this house and do work the following week my focus as the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will still be on and always will be on the betterment of the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Victorians and on improving the wellbeing, outcomes and life experiences of them. But let me also say from the outset that the Liberals and Nationals do not support the Statewide Treaty Bill, and we will be opposing the bill in full, and if we are elected to government in 2026 we will introduce legislation to repeal the bill in the first 100 days.

Now, what I might just say is that, as we begin this debate, we stand in this institution, which is the state Parliament of Victoria, and we stand in a country which is an amalgam of many, many different nationalities who have called and come to call this place home, but we also stand in a democratic society, a democratic space, and it is one of the longest democracies in the world. One of those reasons for that is because when we can come in here, we are elected members of Parliament through the Victorian Electoral Commission. We have evolved over the last 170 years to be thankfully far more representative of our community than we once were, but it is about when you are over 18 you having the opportunity – one person, one vote – to vote for your lower house Assembly member and your upper house particular Legislative Council member. We form 128 people – 88 in the lower and 40 in the upper – and that representation provides us with the opportunity to debate ideas, to debate issues, to debate public policy and to have our fray with words and not, as we have seen in other countries – ongoing and in the past – with weapons of great danger and damage. So I think we should all, as we begin this debate in the upper house, cherish those ideals and respect the principles on which they stand and then move forward in a contest of ideas and ideals, and that is the basis by which I will be conducting this debate.

Now, again, as I reflect on the process that is here today and reflect that I have been the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for the past 10 months – and I was delighted to receive that portfolio – I am not new to Parliament. I am now 11 years in, and during my time some of the most inspiring and understanding experiences that I have had have been sitting down with a breadth of Victorians but also sitting down with elders of our Aboriginal community in the Eastern Victoria Region and indeed further afield, talking about and listening to one of my passions, which is fire in the landscape and cultural burns – firestick, if you will – but also in this last 10 months spending time visiting various towns, Aboriginal corporations, cooperatives and members and listening, and that is what part of our role should be.

As I have done that over the last period of time, it has become very clear to me that, first of all, the Statewide Treaty is not universally understood by people, whether they be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or other Victorians. I think some of the blame for that actually lies with the Allan government, because those details and its creation over time have overwhelmingly been conducted behind closed doors and through an internal mechanism. People are not aware of this document – the 250-page document and 300 clauses within. It is the government’s jurisdiction to provide that information. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding or just a lack of transparency about the Statewide Treaty.

The further I got out into the regions, whether it be far East Gippsland or far western Victoria or the north, when I spoke with people and listened to their issues and ideas, first of all, there was a feeling that this is overwhelmingly Melbourne-centric – that is the perception that I received from talking with people. There were some wonderful people there who were in favour of this, who were on the First Peoples’ Assembly, but many people really wanted their issue dealt with, whatever that be. They wanted to bring about better change, and they were frustrated with the government for not being able to cut through the silos that we see in this state in relation to whether it be local procurement in terms of access and local rangers actually getting the jobs that are in their area; whether it be better health services and really targeting those health services to improve the lives, improve the health and improve the trajectory of Indigenous Victorians; whether it be housing, education, aged care and the importance of that; or whether it be people going on country. These were some of the very important issues that were raised, and we on this side are highly unconvinced that the Statewide Treaty Bill will deliver their outcomes.

I appreciate that during the course of the last 10 months I have had the opportunity to speak with First Peoples’ Assembly members, and I respect them and thank them for the respectful conversations that they have had with me and that we have reciprocated. I think the key thing – my takeaway – is that we all have a similar vision. Now, I say that in general terms, because there will be a nuanced version and vision for people who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, but overwhelmingly people want to see lives improved, better outcomes for Indigenous Victorians, and overwhelmingly that is around achieving the nationally agreed Closing the Gap targets. Now, that is a big statement because it is hugely significant and challenging to make those nationally agreed targets come to fruition.

In the last 24 years we have had 20 years of Labor government, and when we look at those targets, many of them are stagnating or moving ahead very slowly or in some cases going backwards. That is a significant concern to all Victorians, because we need to make those improvements as we move forward. But it is not happening now, and the government will say this is the answer and this is the way forward. I am very concerned that, albeit through good intent, some of the most significant threats to good governance and good outcomes are actually coming in the guise of virtuous reforms that cannot come to fruition.

I appreciate the dignity of the conversations that I have had with those across the board but also elders; there is very special time in sitting and listening to the wisdom of our elders. I also acknowledge the dislocation, the disruption, the disease and the ongoing disadvantage that has occurred over the last 200 years. That is a fact. Everyone will visit and see history from a slightly different viewpoint, a different kaleidoscope of understanding. But we are where we are in 2025, and the Liberals and Nationals believe that treaty will not deliver those outcomes and is not the best way forward.

There is this legislation, and the legislation enacts the Statewide Treaty. It enables and enacts that First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and state of Victoria treaty. In doing so, we have changed our position over time. It seems that the document has departed from the initial framework that was delivered in 2022. Indeed the Premier has said and the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples has said that this is the start – this is just the beginning, that document states – and this Statewide Treaty marks the beginning of a treaty era. So it is coming, and we understand that there will be further and potentially many, many treaties.

The Nationals and the Liberals believe in equality before the law. We believe in equal treatment, equal opportunity and equal justice for Victorians regardless of race and regardless of background or heritage. We certainly believe in closing the gap, but we do not believe that this is the outcome that we will see. We want to see inclusive, community-led and focused practical outcomes, which I will outline a little later. One of the sadnesses about closing the gap – and it is a challenging space; I acknowledge that – is we know that children are in out-of-home care at the rate of 20 times that of non-Aboriginal children. Suicide rates are three times higher. For life expectancy, there is a gap of eight years. We know that employment for Aboriginal Victorians is 23 per cent lower than for non-Aboriginals. We know that only 34 per cent of children starting school are developing on track, and there is a disparity between youth engagement and year 12 completion rate. Very tragically, Aboriginal adults are incarcerated at a rate 14 times higher than that of non-Aboriginals. We know that housing is a significant issue, and I heard that when I travelled the state.

These are not just statistics; these are certainly a call to action. Yet this bill, which is 250 pages long, mentions Closing the Gap twice. In the bill there are no binding obligations for the state of Victoria to meet those Closing the Gap targets. There certainly is an arm – and I will speak to that – about monitoring government performance, but there are no consequences for the government not meeting those benchmarks. If there is one thing that we certainly understand, it is the importance of education, of housing and of agency to create self-determination – to create a future.

I want to drill down into some of the structural elements of this bill, because this is not just a whim. We cannot legislate good intent and good wishes, or it would be done; we have to legislate laws and rules, both enabling and prescriptive laws, and this is part of the severe concern that we have. The bill establishes Gellung Warl as a statewide representative deliberative body of the First Peoples of Victoria, and it has the three institutions. It has the First Peoples’ Assembly, the representative or political arm; it has an oversight and inquiries arm; and it has a continuing truth-telling arm. One has a four-year term, one has a four to six years term, and the other one, as far as I can see, is unspecified. These bodies negotiate treaties, hold the government to account and advise Parliament. The concern I have here is that Parliament can have a discussion with Gellung Warl, but it cannot hold Gellung Warl to account. Gellung Warl receives permanent funding and operates independently of ministerial direction. We heard that in the bill briefing that we had with the government – the minister was very clear – it sits outside ministerial direction. We see and we understand that accountability through this Parliament, through democracy, is so important. We have a Minister for Disability. They are responsible for the policies, the funding and the outcomes for that sector, and we could go on for education, for women and for children and there are ministers for all those sectors. We have a Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, but that minister sits outside this body and this accountability, and that is one of our sincere concerns.

We know that every piece of legislation that comes before this house, that is introduced in Parliament, must be assessed for treaty compatibility, and the Clerk must notify everybody, regardless of subject matter – even for routine legislation, like we had in here last sitting week. I will go backward in time: we had the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025; we had the Statute Law Revision Bill 2025 – typos and grammar flaws; we had the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025; and we had the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Each of these bills, under this legislation, requires a statement of compatibility detailing whether the Assembly was consulted, the nature and timing of any advice and the assessment on the bill’s alignment with treaty principles – and you can just feel the fact that all of this will take effort, resources, staff and the like. This inserts the Assembly into a legislative pipeline, treating it as a default stakeholder in all parliamentary processes and business. This creates, in our mind – the Liberals and Nationals’ – a parallel advisory structure that undermines the principles of the Westminster system with equal representation. The requirement to notify the Assembly whenever a bill comes in, whether it affects the internal rules or substantive rules, effectively grants it oversight in parliamentary lawmaking.

We see that there is a term ‘matters affecting First Peoples’. This term, which is in the bill – ‘matters affecting First Peoples’ – is not defined in the bill. So there is this vagueness around what the Assembly can assert its relevance over; it can be in terms of almost every area of public policy. It must certainly advise government departments and service providers. This creates legal ambiguity and procedural uncertainty. The Assembly can make representations. It can advise the government departments and service providers. It must advise ministers and secretaries. It can meet with the department secretaries and the Chief Commissioner to develop consultation guidelines in relation to those.

The list of authorities and state-funded providers is made extensive by this. In short, every government body and provider except the courts, the Ombudsman and IBAC can be assessed through the First Peoples’ Assembly’s Gellung Warl, and these service providers must provide the First Peoples’ Assembly with a submission and answer questions within the 60 days unless agreed. Now, that will be seen as an important aspect of this for some, but there is a lack of clarity on the level and depth on issues. There is ambiguity on this, and there is concern from the Liberals and Nationals. In terms of substantive and internal rules and guidelines, this bill, this legislation, treaty, grants the First Peoples’ Assembly significant powers over internal rules, substantive rules and guidelines and standards. It does raise in our minds highly serious concerns about oversight, transparency and accountability.

In many ways, the assembly is both the political arm but also the rule maker and the rule assessor. In terms of freedom of information, the treaty bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to create automatic exemptions for entire categories. For example, all records representing meetings between the assembly and cabinet, briefing papers prepared by ministers or the assembly for those meetings and any documents exchanged between ministers and cabinet are automatically exempt. The First Peoples’ Assembly has more FOI and secrecy protections than ministers or other statutory bodies. Even powerful oversight bodies like IBAC and the Ombudsman have only a targeted exemption ability in the FOI act, such as protecting the integrity of investigations, while their administrative records remain subject to public scrutiny. We know it is important; we know and understand that there will be culturally sensitive material. Indeed, this government passed, through amendment of the Inquiries Act 2014, a higher threshold for evidence provided through the Yoorrook justice system only a few short months ago.

We are also concerned about the funding implications. There is funding of $3 million this year, $24 million next year, $71 million the year after and $72 million the year after that, indexed at an increase of 2.5 per cent on top of the previous year. There is a capital expenditure of $37 million, and if we progress that over time, we see almost $2.7 billion in Victorian taxpayer funding that is not subject to taxpayer scrutiny. It bypasses Treasury and it bypasses Parliament. It is managed independently by Gellung Warl. Now, if we compare that with other institutions – other bodies like this Parliament, the Victorian Electoral Commission – that also receive standing appropriations, ongoing funding, the negotiation is with the Treasurer and the Presiding Officers and other relevant agencies. There are discussions and negotiation. This bill locks in that funding for perpetuity, and the funding can be extended. It has to be asked for through the minister and the Treasurer, but there is no cap on that funding, so it could be increasing all the time.

The Liberals and Nationals are also concerned about Gellung Warl being exempt from the Public Administration Act 2004. There is discussion around the 33 members that will form the First Peoples’ Assembly, but the bill provides for a maximum of 80 members – comprising general members or appointed reserve members – and the remuneration of these members is set and paid internally through a process. Being exempt from the Public Administration Act, which enforces employment-standard, merit-based hiring and accountability measures, is again concerning, and this government is wrong to leave the First Peoples’ Assembly exposed like that. We believe that this is an overreach, and again it lacks that transparency and clarity.

The government has also stated that the Aboriginal community infrastructure program will become the First Peoples’ Infrastructure Fund, and again there will be no administration oversight from the minister or the executive government on this.

We also are concerned about the electoral integrity of the First Peoples’ Assembly and that this has a non-public electoral role. People can be, and this is part of it, 16 years old as long as they have lived in Victoria for three out of the last five years. The other concern that we have is that there are regulations built into this bill so that people with serious criminal histories can stand for elections unless they are currently imprisoned or under travel restrictions, and the bar is set differently if I compare it to local government or to becoming a member of Parliament. There are a different set of criteria. When we were in the bill briefing, I was informed that Indigenous Victorians have suffered from past trauma and deserve a second chance. I agree with that. I think that is highly important and a standard that we should understand. However, if they are accepting that people can go onto a separate statutory body that then has overarching control and funding arrangements, I am very concerned that the government, again, has left the First Peoples’ Assembly open to taking on people who may not be the best people to complete that work.

I am also concerned that this bill enables the assembly to select all 11 members of the Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. I think there are concerns around this. There are also concerns around the answerability to community. The bill claims that Gellung Warl will be answerable to the community, but the community is defined by the assembly. It is not the Victorian population. It is not the people or the broad-scale Victorian population. So we have got an accountability framework that is self-drafted, is self-policed and lacks internal review. It is in-facing government. There are many examples where I have been contacted by people who are highly concerned. One of the things I will raise is that two elders from my electorate have written to probably everybody. One is Pauline Mullett, and the other one is Cheryl Drayton. Pauline Mullett is the native title holder for the Kurnai and Aunty Cheryl Drayton is a Kurnai elder, and they have been extensive in their commentary and concern. I will not go into that right at the minute; I will save that for another time in the debate.

The Liberals and Nationals believe in delivering real and measurable improvements in the lives of Indigenous Victorians. We will create, if elected in November next year, First Nations Victoria, a dedicated and community-led body that will be focusing on Closing the Gap targets through transparency, through accountability and through genuine partnership. We want to devolve the power and devolve actions from a central body out. The minister would have responsibility to implement flexible funding, policy initiatives and services out into the community, working with the community – co-location with the community. We know that we can remove duplication. We know that it is important to deliver real services. We want to focus on suicide prevention, child protection, life expectancy, education, employment and local agency. We celebrate those who can do and are doing amazing things in their community, and we want to remove the structural silos that we see and that I have heard about going around, where we have members in our Aboriginal organisations who are desperate to knock on the door of the health department, to talk to the minister, to punch through a silo, to get the services that they need. That is part of our focus. We do not want these silos, and we want to ensure that there is cultural safety and that the administration is efficient. We want to be able to provide that care working hand in hand.

It is a different model with a focus on a very similar outcome to provide that important work. We also respect these differences. We understand that there are different pathways. We do not believe this bill creates unity. We do not believe this bill supports democracy. And we do believe that it will fail to deliver measurable outcomes. That is why, as I say, we will oppose this bill in its entirety. We are steadfast in our commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Victorians.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:10): Today is a historic day. Today is a day decades in the making. Today is the day we come together as members of this place, as advocates, as allies and as a community to speak to the first ever statewide treaty. This moment – this history, this legacy – and what it means to my people, my community, is almost beyond words.

Five years ago to the day, in fact, I stood there and delivered my first speech. I began by acknowledging and thanking the Wurundjeri people for the blessings they bestowed on me and affirmed our shared ambition for truth-telling. And in the spirit of that truth, I feel those blessings every time I walk in this place but especially right now. I acknowledge and pay my respects to you today for your elders and ancestors, for your stewardship, for your guidance and for your continued care and custodianship of this country that I so love and call home. You see, in that speech I talked about the significance of the national apology to the stolen generations. That was the day that my personal story and my political purpose came together, when I committed myself to doing my part in ensuring that we build a fair and truly democratic future for First Nations people. With this bill, we do just that.

I stand today and every day in the footsteps of generations of our ancestors. I carry with me the knowledge, stories and spirit of our elders. I am strengthened by a deep and powerful connection to country, kin and culture, one that stretches back more than 60,000 years. Standing before you all in this place, I feel the weight of this heritage, and it fills me with pride. Today we join together in the spirit of healing and reconciliation to acknowledge the past and commit to a better future for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Victorians alike. Today we heed the call made by generation after generation of our elders, a call to move forward to a new era together. Today, after more than a century of waiting, we mark the beginning of that new era, the treaty era.

The path to treaty has been long. Our old people have been on the journey to treaty since the beginning of colonisation, having long been vocal in calling out the history of injustices and dispossession faced by First Peoples in this country. As a state we began to walk alongside First Peoples in 2016, when this Labor government embarked on the first community consultations with the Aboriginal Treaty Working Group.

In 2018 we strengthened our commitment to treaty through the establishment of the Victorian Treaty Advancement Commission and the passing of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018. In 2021 we established the country’s first ever truth-telling commission, the Yoorrook Justice Commission, to reckon with the past and ongoing injustices experienced by mob in this state, recognising that a commitment to treaty is also a commitment to honesty, reconciliation and healing. In 2022 we agreed to the treaty negotiation framework and created the Treaty Authority to facilitate fair, effective and efficient treaty negotiations between the state and First Peoples. In 2024 we began treaty negotiations and began the task of translating our commitment to a better, fairer tomorrow into the bill and Statewide Treaty that are before this house today. Over the course of this week we will take the final step towards this nation’s very first treaty, the culmination of 10 years of leadership and hard work by this government, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Treaty Authority and the Yoorrook Justice Commission as well as the advocacy of many staunch, deadly First Nations people who have fought for justice and recognition for mob over the decades, some of whom are with us today in the gallery.

I want to take this opportunity, as rare as it is special, to honour Dr Jill Gallagher. I have had the unique opportunity to learn and grow under the esteemed leadership of Aunty Jill, and I see her steadfast influence all over this treaty legislation that is before us from her foundational work as the treaty advancement commissioner. It is filled with passion, purpose and unwavering aspiration for the future that we all deserve. There are threads of compassion and understanding that are synonymous with the way Aunty Jill made sure that everyone had a say in the shaping up of our representative body that negotiated this first Statewide Treaty. Amongst it all, Aunty Jill had the time to be my light; to keep me strong when I wavered; and to remind me that as the daughter of a stolen generation survivor, I too could find my way home and establish an even deeper connection to my people, a connection that today gives me the strength to stand before you.

What I have not said publicly before is that these last two years have been both a challenge and a triumph, as I discovered out there was my grandmother, alive and strong on Yorta Yorta country, after a lifetime of me and my mum being told otherwise. My story is not uncommon, but the opportunity I had to connect with a family member is. Up in Mooroopna I met my grandmother for the very first time last year, in an embrace that crossed the generations and, truthfully, our imagination. The hurt, the pain, and the attempt at erasure of our people, history, culture and language cannot and should not be a burden to bear alone as First Peoples, as it has been for me and my family and too many Aboriginal families in our state. That is why I want to take this time to thank the truth tellers who so bravely shared their stories at Yoorrook for speaking truth to power and for changing the public record of our state. I honour their courage, and I commit to never letting their histories and their stories that so closely echo my own be forgotten. In the name of those who came before us, I am here today with a message to my fellow stolen generation survivors and their descendants, those of us driven by a fierce determination to not let the atrocities of the past ever happen again. To you I say this: Parliament will from today hear you. It will hear your stories, your truths and your dreams, and it is upon all of us here in these red and green seats to forever honour the promise of treaty.

Throughout this process I have been reflecting on my unique position as the only Aboriginal member of the Victorian Parliament. And it is not lost on me – as I stand before you today speaking about the meaning and significance of treaty, of self-determination and of justice – that I am in the very place that has historically excluded and contributed to the very inequalities experienced by Aboriginal Victorians. As I stand here in this chamber, it is not lost on me that this place voted on inflicting pain and hurt and irrevocable damage to our communities. The removal of our children and the dispossession and separation from country, kin and culture happened because of decisions made right here. For too long our lives were at the mercy of people speaking for us – never, never held accountable for their historic failures to change our lives for the better.

It was this Labor government, led by Daniel Andrews and now Jacinta Allan, that believed in the ambition of a treaty – in committing to self-determination in principle, policy and practice – and called upon all of us to live true to our values. To our premiers, current and former, I give my deepest thanks. Yet I am convinced that it is Natalie Hutchins that deserves recognition for her persistent impatience, for seeing and absolutely rejecting the institutional procrastination towards First Peoples’ progress. Natalie came to the portfolio in 2014 entirely committed to listening and acting on the views of the very people who would be impacted by the decisions she made as minister. She set up this government with a momentum and hunger for change that she shared with Gavin Jennings and Gabrielle Williams, who with equal parts determination and solidarity, proudly continued us on the long walk to treaty. And thank you, Chris Couzens, for your quiet dignity and grace, fuelled by a love of family, community and culture. And now treaty – back in the hands of Natalie, with an urgency that last week became abundantly clear, we have this bill before us. So to you, Natalie, thank you. Thank you for setting a new standard for determination and for so thoroughly rejecting the status quo.

For over 200 years in this place and many other halls of power like it, laws and policies have been made about my people without us. But today we change that. Today we create a new status quo, recognising that where past governments have tried and failed time and time again, it is time to try something new. We know that giving people a say on the issues that impact them leads to better outcomes for health and wellbeing, for housing security, for education and for so much more. For First Peoples, this is no different. We know from decades of failed policies and ineffective commissions and bodies that the best way to make a difference in the lives of First Nations people is by giving us the tools to take ownership over our own lives. That is how we close the gap. That is how we end the ongoing harm and inequalities faced by our people. That is what treaty is all about. It is about giving Aboriginal Victorians a say in the processes of law and policymaking so that we can have the same opportunities and the same chances to thrive and succeed as any other Victorian. It is about acknowledging the scars of colonisation, of the stolen generations and of past and ongoing injustices experienced by First Nations Victorians and committing to doing better. It is about justice, self-determination and creating a better future for all Victorians, one built on respect, truth and mutual understanding.

The truth is the treaty is not just a promise for a better tomorrow, it is also an invitation – an olive branch extended from my elders to the Victorian community, asking you to join us in righting the wrongs of the past. It is an opportunity to meet the moment, to walk beside us. Shamefully, it is an invitation that those opposite have turned their backs on in the other place, and I urge the members opposite not to make the same mistake here. On our side we have accepted this generous offering from our First Peoples because we do not shy away from change. Treaty is not just words on a page, it is action. It is how we face the truth of our past and turn it into a shared strength. It is not about division; it is about coming together as equals, as partners in a shared future. I have said before that today is a day that will go down in the history books, that will be remembered for generations to come. I ask this chamber: how do you want history to remember you? Do you want to have to apologise in years to come? For treaty is here, treaty is now. I invite everyone in this place and beyond to walk with us together, hand in hand. Let us make history. I commend the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 to the house.

Interjections from gallery.

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the next contribution, it is going to be a really long day if everyone gets applauded – or not; the other way. We appreciate you being here. It is great that there is such an interest in our chamber – it is not usually that much – so you are very welcome, but for future contributions, we will not do that.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:27): It is a true honour to rise to speak on this bill before us today, which the Greens will be proudly supporting. Can I first acknowledge the First People of the land on which we stand, the Wurundjeri people, and of the land on which I live, the Wadawurrung people. I also acknowledge member for Northern Metro Sheena Watt and thank her for that extraordinary contribution. I would like to acknowledge the First Peoples’ Assembly, including co-chairs Ngarra Murray and Rueben Berg, who gave powerful addresses in the other place, and all First Nations people who are following this today.

Last week, after treaty had passed the lower house, I was walking through the bush at Point Addis and thinking about what I would say when treaty arrived at this place. What do you say about such a significant moment – something so consequential, something so important, but in a strange way so simple and obviously right that I suspect in years to come we will wonder why it took so long to happen. Looking around me at the wild cliffs, the hills and the lizards scurrying amongst the rocks, listening to the waves and wind and birds and considering all that this land has experienced and witnessed, I considered how this continent holds so many stories, many of which I have been lucky enough to learn about. From the nearby middens, where Wadawurrung gathered for feasts; to the eel traps at Budj Bim, where Gunditjmara caught eels to eat and trade; to the birth trees in Ararat, under the protection of which Djab Wurrung people gave birth for generations; to the ancient artworks and sacred rock formations at Gariwerd and Arapiles, tens of thousands of years of First Peoples history is etched – systems of governance and trade, of medicine and kinship, of food production and land management. The land remembers.

The land also bears many scars: the reserves in which First Peoples were forcibly kept to prevent them from going into towns at night, the massacre sites, the flow-stressed rivers, the concrete and bitumen, the unmarked burial sites for children stolen and institutionalised, cleared land and forests, the lost grasslands, the desecration of ancient and sacred sites, the mines like open sores in the earth, the wounds of colonisation that struggle to heal and continue to be made – wounds that I must acknowledge the truth of my links to.

My father’s ancestors were some of the earliest white European settlers on Dharawal and Eora nations. I do not know whether they were involved in direct settler violence, but at the very least their opportunities and livelihoods were built on systems that led to the dispossession and attempted erasure of First Peoples. My mother migrated to Australia in the 1970s from Ireland as her family sought a better life, and they lived in the land of the Toongagal people. While possessing a deep respect for First Peoples, perhaps born of a shared anti-British colonial sentiment, her family were nonetheless afforded rights and status denied to those who had for tens of thousands of years lived on this land. I was born on Gadigal land and subsequently have lived on Bidjigal, Dharawal, Ngunnawal, Wurundjeri and Wadawurrung land. Like my parents, my opportunities and privilege cannot be separated from the deliberate and structural denial of the same for First Peoples, nor can that of my children, who continue to profit from land and structures that deny First Peoples sovereignty.

All of these truths have been witnessed by this land, and they are carried by First Peoples who, like the land, proudly and resolutely endure despite everything colonisation has inflicted – the massacres, the stolen children, the silencing of languages, the eugenics projects – and who survive and flourish despite the denial of sovereignty or true self-determination or, too often, basic respect. They are truths we heard through Yoorrook and we must continue to hear – truths that I have seen play out in my work as a doctor. The real people behind the statistics – the woman who, terrified her baby would be taken from her, refused all antenatal care; the young man who was savagely assaulted but refused to report it or go to hospital because he was terrified of being incarcerated himself, just as his father had been repeatedly; and the older lady who did not want her Indigenous status recorded on her medical file, a depressingly well-founded distrust in racist systems and institutions that too often have contributed to the maltreatment and dehumanisation of First Peoples.

For tens of thousands of years First Peoples have lived on this land – a rich tapestry of cultures, languages, laws and customs and deep symbiotic connections to the land, waterways and skies. This was interrupted abruptly on 26 January 1788. The colonisation of this continent proceeded violently, without the agreement of First Peoples. Sovereignty was never ceded, and from that day First Peoples have never stopped fighting for the most basic of rights – the power to once again make decisions about their own lives. As we have heard, the campaign for treaty has been many, many decades in the making. Victoria’s formal work towards this treaty bill alone has taken over a decade of tireless work and extensive engagement with First Peoples and the Victorian community, and I sincerely want to thank the First Peoples’ Assembly and all of those involved.

To those who oppose this, who say they were not consulted or do not know enough about it I say, ‘Go out and find out more – there is plenty of information available.’ Look at the deep community engagement by the First Peoples’ Assembly over the past 10 years; this treaty process has been taken to two elections and until very recently had strong bipartisan support. Seek out the truth we heard through Yoorrook. Learn about your local history, your own past. Learn about the history of treaties. A treaty is a legally binding agreement between two or more sovereign parties. It cannot undo the immense and pervasive harms of the past and will not by itself prevent them from continuing, but it is a critical step forward. The essence of this bill will establish structures that will enable greater self-determination when it comes to decisions that directly impact First Peoples. Nothing about us without us – I really think that is an idea that we can all agree just makes sense.

For those who need some evidence, look no further than the work of Aboriginal community controlled health organisations or the countless pilot projects and studies that consistently show improved health outcomes when First Peoples lead, design and deliver programs with and for their own communities.

These outcomes should not be a surprise, and yet governments and institutions continue to make decisions and impose Western systems and funding models, however well intentioned, that too often do not meet the needs of First People. It is time this changed, and treaty provides the necessary foundations for that change. When land and waterways are respected and given space and when abuse and domination of them stop, they flourish, as do people. While the stories of the past cannot be erased from this ancient land, treaty marks the beginning of a new chapter, one that all Victorians can write together.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:35): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on this bill, the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025. I want to make a few early points and then I want to work through some work that has been provided to me by a group of lawyers, a working party that I spent time with looking closely at these matters. I have read much of the material that has been put into the public domain concerning this. I did watch many of the activities in the Assembly. I am very interested in the history of our state and our nation, but particularly, I might add, Victoria’s. It is true that Victoria’s settlement, primarily in 1834 from Portland and 1835 from Melbourne, did see the dispossession of Indigenous people in this country and in this state. I would commend to people, if they want to see a relatively solid but good summary of that, the book 1835 by James Boyce, which lays out many of the steps and the mechanisms by which that dispossession occurred. Notwithstanding that, I am a person who believes strongly in our Westminster system, I believe strongly in democracy and I believe strongly in the position of our Parliament. I am a former health minister, and as health minister I had a lot to do with the Indigenous community in Victoria. We had forums and we had summits. I was very active in ensuring there was sufficient and new funding provided and that the Closing the Gap focus was a significant one for our government between 2010 and 2014. Notwithstanding that, I have very significant concerns about this bill.

I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague Melina Bath – her good-natured, thoughtful contribution; her understanding of the Indigenous community; and her engagement on a broad level across the state. I think she has laid out many of the concerns that the Liberals and Nationals feel about this bill. It is quite possible to be both generous and supportive of the Indigenous community but to also have legitimate concerns about the shape of this bill and what the bill will in fact do. This bill is a bill that grafts itself on top of our Westminster system. It burrows deep inside our Westminster system and, in my view, fundamentally weakens key principles. It is not just a voice, it is a voice on steroids. It is actually a body that will undermine many of our core principles of democratic governance and parliamentary sovereignty and our views about equal citizenship. I want to put on record my thanks to Marcus Clarke KC and the group of eminent lawyers that he convened to advise me on a number of matters about this bill. Many of the points I make come directly from that group after their thoughtful consideration. Also, Margaret Chambers, Lana Collaris and others in that group have provided significant input, and I want to put that on the record.

The defects in the bill, according to the briefing that I have been provided – and in my view, very heavily too – fall into three categories: the erosion of parliamentary control over government; secondly, the creation of race-based differential treatment of citizens; and thirdly, the establishment of parallel governance structures that compete directly and will undermine our democratic institutions.

These are not implemented in a way that can be resolved through tinkering. They are essential to what this bill does.

I am going to enumerate eight principles now, or topics, that I think are compelling and concerning in their impact. The first is the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and financial control. Section 144 establishes automatic appropriations from the Consolidated Fund, adding very significant costs to the budget and weakening basic and fundamental parliamentary controls that are part of our system and have been actually at least since the English Civil War. These remove Parliament’s fundamental power to control the public purse through the annual and expected budget process. Practical examples of this would be where there is a budget crisis response during an economic downturn requiring spending adjustments across a wide front across government. Competing priorities: if a natural disaster requires emergency funding for schools or hospitals, Parliament will be less able to reallocate funding. Performance accountability: unlike other government agencies whose funding is demonstrated through results, Gellung Warl receives automatic increases regardless of its performance, effectiveness or public satisfaction with its operations. That is the wrong approach, in my view. We need more performance focus, not less. Democratic mandate changes: if a new government is elected on a platform or reduced or changed government priorities, it will not be able to implement those matters straightforwardly. Inflation protection asymmetry: this sort of protection is not provided to any other agency.

Institutional independence and oversight are the second problem, and this is the problem of compromise of integrity bodies through political consultation. I am concerned that part 21 amendments require integrity bodies – including IBAC, in new section 15A; the Ombudsman, 13AD; and the Auditor-General, 9A – to develop cultural safety guidelines and procedures in consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly. These will have the practical effect of undermining the ability of those agencies to undertake their work. I think that is wrong, and I think it is important to put that on record. I do not want to see corruption investigations in any way weakened. I do not want to see Ombudsman complaints in any way weakened. I do not want to see the audit independence of the Auditor-General in any way weakened. I do not want to see the information commissioner involved with disputes involving Gellung Warl documents through a series of so-called cultural safety procedures. The performance monitoring also is an issue in this context as well.

The ministerial accountability and responsible government pillar is a very important one too, and these changes break the fundamental Westminster principle that all executive power must be exercised under ministerial responsibility to Parliament. Regulatory standards see Gellung Warl making substantial rules about Indigenous identity certification. There is inquiry, and intrusiveness is possible. Nginma Ngainga Wara is able to conduct inquiries – this is sections 103 to 108 – on a series of matters which may be fair in certain circumstances but equally may be politically motivated or unfair. Budget allocation disputes where there are agency disagreements – there are issues here. Ministers cannot direct the assembly to reconsider its positions. There are questions of service, standard conflicts and emergency response requiring rapid coordination. The issue of information access and transparency inequality is also important. Part 11 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 amendments create two classes of government information: standard information subject to normal transparency rules and laws; and culturally sensitive or culturally secret information with special protections.

New section 32B will exempt documents containing such information from FOI requirements. This is very concerning indeed, and this will see issues around government contractual disputes. There is a risk to public policy development. Records and cabinet papers discussing Indigenous affairs can claim cultural sensitivity exemptions under section 28(4), whereas identical policy discussions on other community issues will not be restricted in the same way. Complaint investigation where IBAC investigates corrupt allegations involving Gellung Warl: the cultural safety guidelines under new section 15A may restrict information gathering and disclosure in ways that do not apply to other investigations. Parliamentary committee access: parliamentary committees seeking documents about government consultation with Gellung Warl may well be denied access on cultural sensitivity grounds, different from equivalent consultations, and the same applies with audit transparency. The cultural safety guidelines under new section 9A may limit public reporting of findings.

The democratic process and majority rights are another important principle, and this may see a series of important steps. Part 8: representation meetings in clause 77 and treaty compatibility assessments in clause 66 – I am particularly worried about these treaty compatibility assessments, which are designed, in a loaded set of words that are in the bill, to require discussion of colonisation and related matters and sets of objectives that are set, which may or may not be appropriate and relevant to the particular piece of legislation. I think that this will have a very negative effect on the ability of the chamber to do its work over the longer haul. No doubt we will all push forward and no doubt we will all work our way through things, but there will be an institutionalised change there that will ensure in quite a negative way this constant approach. There are taxation policy issues: new tax measures affecting all Victorians must undergo treaty compatibility review and potential assembly consultation. These are significant points as well.

There are race-based differential citizenship rights. We see that there are a whole series of practical examples that come through the creation of separate political rights based on racial classification. The bill separates classes of citizenship with different political rights. Clauses 17 and 55 establish that only persons meeting specific racial criteria can vote or participate, obviously, in Gellung Warl. There are many issues, I might add, on the electoral franchise for this body. There is the real concern, for example, that convicted criminals will be able to be elected as long as they are not actually under some movement restrictions. There are different arrangements that are applied for this particular body than are applied for parliaments or even municipal councils, so I think there are real issues in the qualifications that are required for election to a number of these bodies.

I am conscious of the time I have. Economic freedom and the regulatory burden are another important category, and I want to say a couple of things there. I think that there is a very significant risk that this body – this cluster of bodies, I should say – will, in effect, lock up and slow down the activities of the government and many economic activities in Victoria. That is a real concern. We already have many restrictions on the ability of businesses and people to live their lives without excessive restriction and control, and this will add a new layer. Legal certainty and the rule of law: there are questions of subjective standards without objective criteria. The bill repeatedly relies on subjective standards like ‘good faith’, clause 6; ‘reasonable’, which is throughout various provisions; and ‘culturally sensitive information’, clause 4 – without providing objective criteria for these determinations.

One of the key issues I should point to – and I am conscious that the time I have is quite short – is the risk in these binding agreements that will be signed. I think that many government agencies will in effect, through these guidelines that are signed as binding agreements, have massive restrictions placed on them, and these are legally enforceable agreements. Many private sector organisations may in good faith, to use that phrase, seek to sign these, but they will also be caught and entangled in them. I think there are many concerns. I want to pay tribute to Ms Bath and the work she has done and to the people that provided me with information. We will oppose the bill and will seek to repeal it.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:51): I am very proud to rise today to speak on the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025. At the outset can I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we are gathering on today, the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nations, and I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. I acknowledge their strength, resilience and continued connection to their country. I would also like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri, Bunurong and Wadawurrung peoples as the traditional owners whose lands encompass my community in Melbourne’s west, and I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. And I acknowledge the traditional owners and First Nations people who are here in the Parliament today.

I am proud to be part of the Allan Labor government, a government that is committed to a future based on equality, truth and justice. Like many others in the government, last year I had the privilege of appearing before the Yoorrook Justice Commission. It was both a powerful and deeply humbling experience, one that I would say changed me, changed the way in which I approached my responsibilities as a minister and, I hope, changed me for the better. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the incredible work of the commissioners who led that powerful truth-telling process.

The truth is that ongoing injustices within the mainstream mental health and aged care systems have persisted. We know that these injustices continue to reinforce barriers to First Peoples in this state in terms of their ability to access culturally safe care and support. Colonisation has caused historic, intergenerational and ongoing trauma and continues to have a profound impact on the mental health and wellbeing of First Nations Victorians. We see this in the enduring disproportionate impact that mental health distress and suicide have in First Peoples communities, and we know that First Peoples pass by suicide at a rate three times higher than the non-Indigenous population. This is unacceptable, and it must change. The commission heard that the current structural framework of government is in itself a barrier to self-determination, so achieving true self-determination requires fundamental structural change, and it requires a new way. The bill before the house today presents us with that real opportunity to create that change. Self-determination for First Peoples’ social and emotional wellbeing has not been prioritised enough, and treaty provides us an opportunity to change this. Through treaty we will enact real, tangible outcomes – the sharing of power and resources in a way that is meaningful for Aboriginal Victorians.

For far too long in this place, laws and policies have been made about First Peoples and not by them. Racism, a lack of cultural safety and Western models of care which do not reflect a holistic approach to social and emotional wellbeing have only compounded the growing health gap between the First Peoples of this state and other Victorians. This is not the first time in this place that you will have heard me say that we know First Peoples have better health outcomes when the services they access are self-determined and culturally safe. Ultimately First Peoples communities hold the knowledge to determine how to best support the emotional and social wellbeing of their communities.

Aboriginal community controlled health organisations in Victoria are at the forefront of this work, delivering culturally safe practices and making meaningful change to the social and emotional wellbeing of First Nations peoples in Victoria. In my portfolios of mental health and ageing, I am proud to be able to work with the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO), under the strong leadership of Aunty Jill Gallagher, and the Balit Durn Durn Centre of Excellence in Social and Emotional Wellbeing led by Sheree Lowe, who is herself an elected member of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria representing the South-West Region. I want to thank those two incredible women and their team for the work that they continue to do.

It is a really great privilege to also attend the Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing Partnership Forum, which is co-chaired by the Minister for Health, Mary-Anne Thomas, in the other place, and Mick Graham, the VACCHO chair. The forum is a great example of how genuine partnership between government and First People can deliver tangible outcomes. In the forum, policy priorities are determined by the members of the forum, including the development of budget bids.

But those systems that we have in place now can only go so far. Treaty will transform our ways of working across government, ensuring that self-determination is at the heart of all the work that we do, and it brings with it real accountability for government to properly resource those solutions which are self-determined. As Minister for Multicultural Affairs, I have the great privilege of working closely with both our newest Victorians and diverse communities who have contributed to our state for generations. These communities have come from all over the world and chosen to make Victoria home, and I often reflect that aside from our First Peoples, the Victorian story is one of migration and arrival. We have all come here in relatively recent years from somewhere else, and at every community event I attend, whether it is with the Greek community, the Vietnamese community, the Indian community or countless others, there is a genuine reverence and an acknowledgement of the history and connection to country of our First Nations people. And for the warmth of our First Nations representatives and leaders, who have always opened their arms to the diverse communities that call Victoria home, I say thank you. It shows the generosity of our First Peoples and a commitment to fairness and opportunity that through treaty we are beginning to reflect back.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria – in particular the co-chairs, Rueben Berg and Ngarra Murray – for their incredible leadership and also thank the Premier and Minister Hutchins for their leadership and compassion, as well as former ministers Gabrielle Williams and Gavin Jennings, who were both instrumental in delivering this historic piece of work. Finally, I want to acknowledge and recognise our dear friend and colleague Sheena Watt. No-one in this place has done more to advance treaty than Sheena has.

Treaty does not seek to divide us. It does not take from anyone. Treaty is about creating a better future for First Peoples and indeed all Victorians. We have a long way to go, but this is an important next step on the journey to reconciliation and the ongoing effort to close the gap. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the bill to the house.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:58): I want to recognise the many First Nations people who have come here to mark this historic occasion and also acknowledge that we are meeting today on the land of the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung peoples of the Kulin nation and that sovereignty of these lands and waters has never been ceded. I would also like to thank Ms Watts for her extraordinary contribution. If that did not move you, I do not know what would.

We are all privileged to be parliamentarians. It is an honour to serve the people of Victoria to help shape the future of this state. It is a privilege that I never take for granted, I hope. I feel particularly fortunate and profoundly honoured today to be able to give my support to the nation’s first formally recognised treaty between a state and its First Peoples. This is the beginning of a new era and a long-awaited day for the original custodians of this land. They will finally have a say over the policies and institutions that govern their lives.

The process that has led to this piece of legislation began nearly a decade ago, but anyone who is cognisant of our state’s history – of the devastation wrought by colonisation and the brutal care of the state, of the ongoing harms and injustices borne by our First Peoples – knows that this day has been a very, very long time coming.

This land is home to the oldest surviving culture on earth – a people that have been here since time immemorial, that have lived through two ice ages, that have survived the ravages of colonisation. Yet it is only recently, as a nation, that we have begun to acknowledge this ancient heritage. Only recently have we seen any sort of recognition that this land is the ancestral home of a sovereign people and that their sovereignty was never ceded. Within my relatively short lifetime I have witnessed a shift in our historical narrative. I am old enough to remember when the lie of terra nullius was broadly unquestioned – back when world maps were divided into monolithic colours and Australia was one of the large pink areas belonging to the Crown. Like so many of my fellow Victorians, I learned little or nothing about the First Peoples of this state. If I learned anything, it was that the history of this state began when the original inhabitants of this land since time immemorial left it all to John Batman in an exchange for some trinkets, and then they simply moved away. It was the original great replacement theory – the perpetuation of the Darwinist lie that the Indigenous peoples of this country, like the Indigenous peoples of other colonised countries, were on the verge of extinction.

In my 15 years of formal education the dispossession, the devastation and the genocide of our First People was never mentioned, and I was deeply shocked when I learned of it. I was also painfully aware that I understood very little of these people. They were so little known, so little understood, so little seen. Despite their rich heritage, their timeless connection to this land and their proud culture, our First Peoples were barely visible in my youth. There were prominent exceptions, like the boxer Lionel Rose; the tennis player Evonne Goolagong, now Evonne Cawley; the artist and rights activist Albert Namatjira; the poet Kath Walker, now known as Oodgeroo Noonuccal; and of course the irrepressible Charlie Perkins. But while their exceptionalism garnered wide attention, their communities remained largely veiled to much of the country.

Times have changed, at least some, yet still many cling to the fears, the prejudice, the misinformation forged in our colonial education – attitudes compounded by the fact that many Victorians do not know any Indigenous Australians. Noel Pearson recognised this and all but anticipated the failure of the Voice referendum because of it. He said:

Unlike same-sex marriage there is not the requisite empathy of love to break through the prejudice, contempt and yes, violence, of the past. Australians simply do not have Aboriginal people within their circles of family and friendship with whom they can share fellow feeling.

Unlike members of the LGBTQIA+ community, he said:

… we are not personally known to many Australians. Few have met us and a small minority count us as friends.

The Voice referendum was lost – attacked from the right and sections of the left, perhaps poorly communicated and steeped in disinformation, agonising to First Nations communities and final in its judgement. The Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, though – contrary to the counterassertions and the hysteria – is not the Voice revisited. It is rather a much broader, more considered and comprehensive approach to changing the relationship between Victoria’s First Nations people and those who govern them.

There are those who would label this bill as divisive, calling it an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, stating it would be better to fund programs that improve literacy or fund health, education or housing. But seriously – seriously – is anyone arguing that these things are mutually exclusive? The racist institutions, the oppression, the injustice that our First People have endured since settlement, we cannot say that these do not exist, nor that they should not be addressed. If we consider the scale of disadvantage that First People in Victoria are subject to, from their overrepresentation throughout our criminal justice system, the children in residential care, the ongoing black deaths in custody, the many, many ways that outcomes for First Peoples lag behind the rest of society, and then consider the sheer volume of programs from successive governments that have produced little to no positive change in these outcomes, it is more than apparent that we need to do things differently. For the opposition to propose that a new standalone department will deliver better results than a statewide treaty is both foolhardy and more of the same – another government department doling out programs largely disconnected from the lived experience, the learnings and the wisdom of Aboriginal people.

That is why this treaty is so very vital. It is a commitment between equals. It acknowledges the truth of our collective past and the ongoing impacts of colonisation, and it recognises that our First Peoples are the ones best placed to make decisions that affect their communities. It is about respect and it is about self-determination. For too long Victoria’s prosperity has flowed exclusively to non-Aboriginal Victorians. It is hard to comprehend the extraordinary hurdles placed in the way of First People’s right to live freely, to prosper and indeed to have the same chance of success that every immigrant – like my family – to this state is automatically afforded and takes for granted.

A prime example of how First People were locked out of the prosperity of this state was their exclusion from the soldier settler scheme. According to the Australian War Memorial archives, and I quote,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have served in every conflict and commitment involving Australian defence contingents since federation, including both world wars …

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Around 1000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men enlisted in the two world wars, but shamefully upon returning home they were excluded from soldier settlement schemes and were deemed ‘unsuited to farming’ and ‘lacking the capacity for independent landholding’. While some 12,000 non-Indigenous Australians benefited from that scheme, only two Indigenous Victorians received land. Indeed co-chair of the First People’s Assembly Ngarra Murray’s own grandfather was denied land under the scheme. She gave evidence to the Yoorrook Justice Commission:

Having volunteered to serve a nation that barely recognised our people’s existence, Aboriginal soldiers like my grandfather risked their lives fighting for Australia. But when they got home, they faced the same old racism and discrimination. They were denied equal opportunity in their own country, and the disadvantage that caused has trickled down generations.

If we need further evidence of the criminal and civil wrongs experienced by first people for over 150 years, there is abundant evidence in the hearings of the Yoorrook Justice Commission.

That brings me to a thorny question, and that is of reparations. Needled by voices from the right, we seem to be very, very squeamish about the idea of reparations. It is touted as divisive and almost discriminatory, yet we have a legal system that addresses restitution for civil and criminal wrongs every single day. We expect to be compensated for harm, for loss, for injury due to another party’s wrongful act or omission. This concept is indeed a very keystone of our legal systems. So how is it that we can say it is wrong for First Peoples to have their civil wrongs compensated? The magnitude of disadvantage by our First Nations people is not a reason to deny compensation. We should be considering how it can be achieved so that we do not continue to compound that disadvantage.

If we are to mature into a truly equitable and reconciled state, we must embark on the virtuous path that treaty and its constituent arms provide. We all have much to gain from treaty, not the least of which is the acceptance of our true history. It is no doubt discomfiting to acknowledge the massacres, the forced removals, the suffocating and brutal control of the state. But what is the alternative – to hold fast to a lie?

At the end of the day this is a considered and modest approach to change, a vehicle for self-determination for Victoria’s First People and a model for other states and the Commonwealth to follow. Victoria leads the nation in achieving this important milestone, and we can do that today and on Thursday. It follows nearly a decade of work: research, truth-telling, public hearings – a thorough ventilation of all the issues. But if it is to have life in the years to follow, if it is to bear the fruit of its potential, it needs the backing and the goodwill of all members. What are those opposite hoping to achieve by opposing this historic treaty, by pledging to repeal it if they are elected? Whom is such an election promise aimed at? Are they trying to enhance their far-right credentials? Rather than trying to out-right the right, would it not make more sense to rotate to the centre? The honour of supporting this historic piece of legislation is profound. It is a transformational moment for our state and indeed for our nation.

I want to end with a quote from Daniel James, the Yorta Yorta writer and broadcaster, which beautifully encapsulates this very historic moment:

This treaty illuminates the way ahead. Not through denial or silence, but through listening, respect and self‑determination. It shows that moving forward means facing history rather than burying it, celebrating culture rather than erasing it, embracing one another rather than excluding.

People will look back on this moment and will remember those who rose to meet this moral challenge. Legalise Cannabis Victoria is proud to meet this challenge. We are proud to support reconciliation and to elevate and to strengthen our civil society. I commend this bill to the house.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (15:13): I do not think there is any doubt that we all want better outcomes for Victorians, including Aboriginal Victorians. We all want healing where there has been harm, and we all want young people, including young Indigenous people, to have the same opportunities in health, in education and in life as every other Victorian. I do not think that has ever been in question. But this bill, the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, does not deliver those outcomes. It does something else. It divides Victorians into two classes of people, and I cannot support that. We should be closing the gap, not creating a new one in our democracy.

I want to talk through some of the clauses in the bill and the impact that they might have. The first one is about equality and how that has got to remain the cornerstone of our society. In clause 1(a)(i) Gellung Warl is given decision-making powers in relation to First Peoples of Victoria. That means race becomes the basis for political authority – influence – in this state. But I challenge the government: tell me an area of lawmaking or decision-making that does not impact First Peoples. Roads, police, hospitals, schools?

Everything that we do in our lawmaking capacity impacts everyone in this state. Carving out those parts just does not make sense. In clause 1(a)(v), Gellung Warl can hold the government to account specifically regarding actions towards First Peoples. Accountability and government should be equal for all Victorians, not segmented for some. In clause 2(2)(c), the bill makes Gellung Warl an enduring part of the Victorian democracy, yet most Victorians will never be represented within it or vote for its leadership. How is that fair for the majority of Victorians, who do not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? The plain truth is that if you cannot vote for those who influence your life, that is not democracy and it is not fair. One parliamentary system for all Victorians is fair; two systems is not.

I want to talk about the new political power centre and it being outside of universal accountability, because clause 13 says that Gellung Warl is not subject to ministerial direction. That is a publicly funded body, paid for by all taxpayers, with public power but without universal democratic oversight. In clause 18 the First Peoples’ Assembly can represent First Peoples in negotiations with the state and advise Parliament and ministers. That is influence over law and policy, but it is only advocating for one group of people. In clause 66 of the bill, every new bill introduced into Parliament must include a statement of treaty compatibility. This gives a permanent procedural role in all Victorian lawmaking to a particular group of people. Let us just be honest about that: the government is creating a system where one heritage group gets a say on every law and most other Victorians do not. That is not equality before the law. The government always espouses equality, but from this day forward those opposite forfeit the right to talk about equality, because that is not what they are advocating here. Those opposite can never, ever lecture anyone again about equality in this state when they support legislation that is so anti-equality. It creates a parallel governance structure that is permanent and uncapped.

In clause 10(2), Gellung Warl contains three statutory bodies: the First Peoples’ Assembly, Nginma Ngainga Wara and Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna. This is not just recognition; it is creating a whole new governance framework. In clause 12 and in clauses 143 to 145, these bodies can acquire assets, they can raise revenue, they can establish companies and they can receive dedicated ongoing funding from consolidated revenue. Essentially what we will have is a taxpayer-funded agency with economic and political functions that other citizens cannot access. In clause 2(2)(f) of the bill, the bill anticipates ongoing transfer of decision-making powers from the state – a permanent shift in sovereignty with no final threshold in sight. There is a risk in that: if the destination is never defined, the journey will never end. There is no democratic mandate, there is no referendum and there is no clear limit. I urge the government – they should have put these reforms to the people of Victoria before they decided to push them through the Parliament.

I want to talk about bureaucracy, and outcomes as a second thought, because real disadvantage does exist. Children need safety, support and opportunity, but they need it now. This bill directs energy into funding chairs, committees, meetings, new bureaucratic hierarchies, lawyers and negotiation processes, all while lives on the ground do not meaningfully change. A new organisational chart cannot heal a broken heart. We should be funding health care with a focus on care outcomes, not just words. Education and training programs, youth diversion, housing and mental health, and employment pathways – these are things that actually change lives, not just create a separate political class. And truth-telling should heal, not divide.

From clause 118 onwards the bill creates Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna to gather and publish truth-telling information. Truth matters. But whose truth? What truth? What objective truth? Or is it a subjective truth and not an objective truth? Collective guilt must not replace collective responsibility, and collective guilt does not heal. It does not look forward, and it does not achieve meaningful reconciliation. A future built on unity cannot be based on permanent blame, and we must learn from our history together, not be separated by it. Unity has to be the path to justice. We honour our past – everyone’s past. We respect every culture. We recognise all people of this land, including Aboriginal people, as fully fledged members of the Victorian community, because that is what equality is. But fairness requires equality, dignity requires equality and reconciliation requires equality.

This bill makes equality conditional – conditional on race. Equality should never be conditional, and it should never, ever, ever be negotiable. We always hear that from the government. But this bill flies in the face of that. It is so disappointing. It is such an opportunity to make a difference. The framework for the proposed treaty does not pass the pub test. It does not pass the test of common sense, and it does not pass the test of morality. It is the wrong model containing the wrong priorities. I agree, the intention is right, but it is fundamentally flawed in design. We can right the wrongs of the past without writing new wrongs into law. We should walk together, not apart. We should encourage unity, not division. We should build one future together, not two: one Parliament, one citizenship, one Victoria. This is the path to true, lasting and meaningful reconciliation – reconciliation with practical outcomes, reconciliation that respects every single person as a human being, reconciliation that is fair. Every Victorian deserves to belong equally, completely and proudly. This bill does not do that.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (15:23): We are on Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung country today, and I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands upon which we gather. I pay my respects to their elders past and present. I also want to acknowledge any and all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander leaders or emerging leaders who have joined us here in this place today, who are following this debate, who have been part of the fundamentally seismic changes sought to be effected by the legislation in this place today, who have failed to access the benefit that is underpinned by the objectives of this legislation, because culture and governments and systems were not set up, were deliberately not set up to include them – to include you.

And to that end I have one small voice in this place, but I want to use it today to restate what I said when I appeared at the Yoorrook Justice Commission on two occasions: I am sorry. I am so sorry that we as a Parliament, that we as successive governments and that we as decision-makers and the designers and architects of systems, the ones who have decided rights and therefore excluded rights on other bases, have been deliberately, wilfully blind to the idea of inequity – inequity that is ignored for reasons that go to the sorts of things we have heard in this debate, that this creates a system of division. The starting point for discussion about treaty, about closing the gap and about the Uluru Statement from the Heart has been about the existence of disadvantage and a gap that was never created by First Peoples, but First Peoples nonetheless have borne it for generations. That is not only inequitable, it is at law internationally an infringement upon basic human rights. We here in this place and at multiple levels of government have failed First Peoples time and time again in so many ways – in access to housing, in access to education, in access to goods and services and in the capacity to move around freely across the state and across our borders. Where it always was and it always will be Aboriginal land, the same cannot be said for a system of property ownership – rights, entitlements and licences –that has in fact ousted that in all but conceptual name.

We stand in this place and we reflect on the ideas and the discourse, the theories and the themes of what it means to include and what it means to provide systems that are better than those we have had. And yet invariably we will come back to a debate that talks to famous First Peoples or stars in sport or in art or in culture, and that to my mind just underscores further the token efforts that have gone into a debate and a discussion that should necessarily be about bringing everybody along, because closing the gap is not an argument that is made out by the exception to the rule being somebody who through exceptional talent and the gift of circumstance and perhaps the overlooking of prejudice in order to recognise talent secures a gold medal at the Olympics. That is the exception to the rule. This is where, again, in listening to the debate about treaty that has been had in this place for many years now, it has been all too easy – in the binary discussion about rights, entitlements, dignity, encouragement, aspiration and opportunity – to categorise people in a way that goes to the lowest common denominator.

At the Yoorrook Justice Commission, when I appeared in respect of both the water and the housing portfolios, it was with regard to the importance of a system that was not my own within which to operate. I want to thank the commissioners and the people who were the architects of the structures around the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Mana-na woorn-tyeen maar-takoort – every Aboriginal person has a home. Burndap Birrarung Burndap Umarkoo – the water policy and the work to recognise water as a living entity. These are not concepts that are here for the curiosity of our history books. These are living, discursive ideas and themes. These are connections to the oldest continuous culture on earth. And yet it is so easy for us in this place to pay lip service to the value – the intrinsic, inherent, visceral value – that these things embody for First Peoples.

I want to commend everybody who has brought us to this point. In truth and in treaty and in reconciliation there has been so much mis- and disinformation that has clouded the capacity for an objective and a compassionate debate, and it is all too easy to engage in that idea of noblesse oblige, the pat on the head – the idea that we do some kind of favour out of the desire to tick a box. Treaty has to be more than that, and indeed treaty is more than that, and that is why opponents of treaty are scared. Treaty does not diminish the rights of anybody to whom it does not apply. Rather, treaty increases the certainty by which access to those systems that non-traditional-owner people have had a benefit for generations, that access is more equitably distributed, that opportunity and aspiration are there and are made available, notwithstanding systems that at their heart have been designed for the purpose of exclusion.

This is not along the lines of the hate, the fear and the disinformation campaigns that occurred around the time of Mabo, of Wik, and that occurred around the time of native title debates, involving black hands reaching over pictures of backyards. This is not about the diminishment of any rights and entitlements for non First Nations people; rather, this is about the capacity and the obligation that we have to deliver equity, empathy, self-determination and the opportunity to walk alongside First Peoples. I am sorry, and I hope that with the passage of this treaty legislation the enabling framework for the delivery of treaty or treaties can be something that makes us all better – not just those who are the beneficiaries of actions that can be delivered because that framework of treaty is there but those to whom treaty does not apply, who will then be part of a social contract that is more nuanced, more rounded, fairer. My colleague and our friend Sheena Watt has carried an enormous burden in this place, and to watch her today talking about the importance of treaty to her and to her family, to First Peoples, to multiple generations, and hear her talk to all-but-empty opposition benches smacked of disrespect at the same time that successive speakers got to their feet and talked about the importance of making and creating a place and a space for First Peoples. Today was the opportunity for that place and that space, yet what we saw today was people not turning up and therefore turning their backs on the voice of the only First Peoples person in this Parliament.

We stand determined to make sure that treaty is delivered. We stand determined to make sure that the systems that we are delivering are facilitated, are designed and are operationalised at their heart in a way that recognises this oldest continuous culture. There is much to do. The work will go on as it needs to go on: across generations. The work will be continuous, and I hope that over time this flare of indignation, of other, will fade. I hope that as our own words fade into Hansard and disappear into the books that sit in the basement of these buildings the outcomes of treaty will be felt and will resonate across the lives of people who do not know our names – who do not need to know our names. To Ngarra, to Rueben, to the First Peoples’ Assembly, to everybody from every community who has worked so hard, again, across these landscapes of anguish and of disadvantage and of pain and of rage: thank you for your forbearance. You did not need to show grace to this process, yet you did time and time again. Now it is our turn. It is our responsibility as a government, as a Parliament, to make sure that that grace and that forbearance that you never needed to show us in addressing problems that were not of your making but which have continued to affect First Peoples profoundly mean that we are able to do better but that when and as we do better we do not do that at the expense of a narrative that says that somehow someone is worse off as a consequence.

There is today an opportunity for equity. There is an opportunity for this Parliament to be at its best, and we do see that we are capable of that. We do know that we are capable of that. For every word that is uttered in this place, notwithstanding the fact that it may be relegated to a cellar somewhere, in a book somewhere that nobody ever opens again, there are real-world consequences for the families, for the children, for the generations who are here right now. I want to commend this bill to the house, but I also want to make sure that we all have the capacity to commit to doing better, whether that is through the dismantling of mis- and disinformation, through the creation of better systems for communication and decision-making or through the capacity for others to join in the process of better outcomes overall. I would like to think that we do this work and that we come with purpose, I would like to hope that from today there will be space created even for those who oppose this bill and I commend it to the house.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (15:35):

[CONTENT TO BE INCORPORATED]

Translated: I would like to give thanks and honour First Nations people of this country as Indigenous people from the Pacific.

In my culture it is rude to face my back to you, so please forgive me as I face my back to you in my contribution.

Before I begin, I want to ground myself and all of us in the spirit of this place. I pay my deep respects to the traditional custodians of the land we stand on today, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin nation. I would like to pay special respect to the First Peoples’ Assembly that is with us here today. I also would like to give respect to Yorta Yorta woman Ms Sheena Watt, the only First Nations person in this place. I honour your ancestors, your elders, your women, your children and your enduring connection to this sacred country. I also want to acknowledge the ceremonial ground that I stand on right now. We know it as Parliament House, but before colonial settlement the eastern Kulin nation used to use these grounds as a meeting place for resolving differences, cultural ceremonies and Aboriginal law. During colonisation, through dispossession and genocide, the people of the eastern Kulin nation were not only discouraged but later prohibited from entering Naarm by colonial settlers.

To understand the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 before this chamber, we must first understand history and the role the government has played in its treatment of First Nations peoples. In 1869 the Victorian government, through the Legislative Council, conducted a select committee inquiry on First Nations peoples. Out of that inquiry came one of the most shameful pieces of legislation in our state’s history: the Aboriginal Protection Act 1869. The goal of this act was clear: to regulate and control every aspect of First Nations peoples’ lives. It dictated where they could work, who they could marry and where they could travel. It stripped them of any sense of freedom, dignity and autonomy. The act, as we know, was never about protection, it was purely for subjugation.

In the years that followed, these policies led to the establishment of missions and reserves, places where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were forcibly relocated. Children were torn from their mothers, families broken apart, and many were forced to work as servants for white farming families. These institutions, under the control of churches and missionaries, were designed to control and forcibly assimilate First Nations people under the guise of civilisation to breed out the Indigenous people. They had strict rules forbidding people from speaking their native language or practising their traditions and ceremonies. This system of cruelty marked the beginning of what we now know as the stolen generations, a legacy of pain that continues today through communities.

Despite all the mistreatment and injustice, First Nations people have never lost sight of their culture and their sovereignty. The Statewide Treaty Bill stands as proof of their steadfast activism, resistance and belief in something better for their people. After decades of leadership and vision from First Peoples, we are on the brink of history, with Australia’s first ever statewide treaty. It has passed in the lower house, and we are now on the precipice of passing it in the upper house. All of us in this place can recognise that while this bill is momentous, the truths it enshrines have been waiting far too long to be heard. They are generations overdue.

This bill is historic, not only for Victoria but for Indigenous peoples across Australia and around the world. It sends a clear message: Indigenous peoples here and everywhere must have self-determination, be fully recognised in their human rights and have their shared histories of pain, injustice and colonisation acknowledged.

We just have to look across the ditch to our Maori brothers and sisters with the Te Tiriti o Waitangi delivering meaningful outcomes for Maori people – the preservation of language, culture, storytelling and cultural rituals. I spent a small time of my education in New Zealand, in Aotearoa, and was so grateful for the way that Maori language was embedded into the school system. We learned songs. It was so normal and such a big part of our culture. Even though we were not the Indigenous people in Aotearoa, we were so proud of Maori culture and sovereignty.

A few months ago, my office was fortunate enough to have a treaty forum to help connect communities in the north with the journey of walking alongside First Nations communities towards treaty. We were very fortunate to have Gurindji man and academic Dr Kevin Moore; Wemba Wemba, Mutti Mutti, Boon Wurrung, Trawlwoolway and Lardil man Indi Clarke of First Peoples’ Assembly – great to see you, Indi; Awabakal woman Sarah Williams, founder of What Were You Wearing Australia, a non-profit organisation to end family violence; and Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung elder, Uncle Andrew Gardiner. I am so grateful to them for their generosity and willingness to take me, my staff and the community on this journey, a journey showcasing their surplus of generational knowledge with land, waterways and their communities.

I also had the privilege of participating, listening and walking at the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s Walk for Truth, marking the completion of Yoorrook’s final report. This event brought so many Victorians together to work towards truth and celebrate the strength and resistance of Aboriginal people. There we heard from Kerrupmara/Gunditjmara man, Travis Lovett, former deputy chair and commissioner of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, who said:

I have seen what this state can become if it chooses truth – not as a gesture, but as a foundation.

We thank the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, who have spent years guiding this process, and the Yoorrook Justice Commission, whose truth-telling reports have been and will continue to be central to this process.

This treaty is a peace agreement, centring First Nations voices on issues concerning First Nations people. History has shown that Parliament has failed at developing policies that truly uplift and support First Nations people.

As a Pacific Islander, we are the Indigenous people of the Pacific Islands. We Indigenous people speak 19 per cent of the world’s 5000 languages. Today we proudly support and honour First Nations people and statewide treaty. Treaty represents a real step towards self-determination. It allows First Peoples, the experts for their own communities, to use their knowledge to care for the country, strengthen culture and influence the design and delivery of services that affect their communities.

The Statewide Treaty Bill is not about race-based division, as we have heard. That claim is outright misinformation. Those pushing that narrative are spreading fear and misunderstanding to protect old systems of privilege and political exclusion. We have heard some say that the Statewide Treaty Bill is a threat to parliamentary sovereignty. While we all know that is not true, it is an invitation to strengthen democracy through honesty and inclusion. Treaty does not take power away from anyone; it builds shared power.

When we think about what is really being challenged here, it is not parliamentary sovereignty but the comfort of those who benefit from the silence of others. The statewide treaty bill creates a space where truth-telling, accountability and partnership can flourish and be strengthened.

But the work towards First Nations justice and self-determination does not end here. We know First Nations communities are disproportionately impacted in so many domains to accessing a good and thriving life. The impacts of colonisation can still be felt today. The treaty bill is the first of many steps we can take in this place to ensure First Nations people have real, meaningful economic, social and cultural empowerment within Parliament. Decisions made by First Nations people for First Nations people have not only been missing from debates and legislation in this place, they have been excluded. Now, under treaty, the government must speak with First Nations peoples when making laws, rules or policies that impact them. It provides the power to hold the government accountable to promises and outcomes for First Peoples.

In the words of the Blak Greens, First Nations members of the Victorian Greens, nothing can erase generations of pain, suffering and injustice done to our people and that our people have carried. This moment is not about forgetting or diminishing that truth. It is about taking a step forward and choosing a path towards change. This treaty is a win for all of us. It is the foundation and invitation for all of us to walk together towards a better and more just future. To all First Nations people here: we, as the people of Oceania, honour you and pay respect to you and that sovereignty was never ceded. I am so privileged and humbled to be here to make a contribution. I commend this bill to the house.

Interjections from gallery.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thank you, Ms Gray-Barberio. To those in the gallery: the President was very clear about interaction with the gallery. Think what you like. Please, no clapping or anything else.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:47): I rise to speak to the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, which we are debating this afternoon. It is an important bill that has come before the house, because there are a variety of views on it, and that is why we are having this important debate. It is important to have this debate, given the impacts of such a bill that will apply to all Victorians. Before I go into that, and I have been listening to various aspects of the debate, I note Minister Shing’s comments regarding the opposition being in the house. I note that when she was speaking, in fact there was double the amount of opposition members respectfully listening to the debate – not what she was asserting, that no-one was in the house for a previous speaker. Nevertheless, I digress slightly.

This bill, as others have said, establishes Gellung Warl, which is a new statewide representative and deliberative body. It will create three key institutions, and these three bodies will have broad powers to negotiate treaties – and I want to come back to that point – hold government accountable and advise Parliament, with guaranteed permanent funding. The bill does a number of things that my colleagues have gone through in great detail, and I want to commend them for outlining the various clauses and the details of this bill and pointing out why the Liberals and Nationals have concerns around this bill and will not be supporting it. I make that point based on the news articles today that have shown where we need to be closing the gap. Everybody agrees with that aim – we all want and need to close the gap – but we have got health institutions that are triaging and prioritising patients based not on health and medical needs but on skin colour and race. That is wrong. That is wrong in every sense, and it goes against the oath that many people in the medical profession stand by in relation to making no judgement on things like age, disability, gender, sexuality or race. The Geneva medical convention states very clearly that those in the medical professions will not take those aspects into consideration when treating their patients and will do no harm.

And when, as I pointed out earlier in a press conference, a patient is coming through the doors of an emergency department, a very significant component is being triaged. When those nurses do that triaging aspect, they do not judge the person; they are triaging based on medical health needs. Of course Indigenous status is part of the risk. Triage is about risk and assessing the risks around health needs, and Indigenous status is, as I said, part of those risks. But that is not the sole criteria that should be acted upon – it is every other element. When other Victorians come in, if they are coming from marginalised communities, what is to say that they do not have complex needs as well and that they need that attention and care just like any other Victorian? So I am very concerned that elements of this treaty are setting up division. To say it is not is false – it will and it is, because there is your clear example today that it is divisive and it is wrong. I will argue that point because I am a former nurse, I am a former midwife, I have worked in the public health system and I have been in this situation when people come in. You never judge them; you act on their health needs at that critical time. So I am very disturbed about what has gone on, and I do see that the government has endorsed it by having it on their website. To say that they are not and blaming the hospital is completely wrong. The government is endorsing this policy.

To get back to this bill, this is basically establishing a third arm of Parliament. It is setting up a third arm of Parliament with certain rights so that even my colleagues on this side of the house will not have the same opportunities to question ministers or access information. This is setting up a different system within our current system. To say it is not divisive while one particular part of the community has larger and more significant rights over others when we are all in this house representing all Victorians and doing our work on behalf of all Victorians is wrong. Mr McCracken made some excellent points in his contribution, and I was madly scrawling them down. But I think in one of them he said, ‘We should encourage unity, not division, and equality should never be negotiable.’ And he is right, because that is what we are debating. We are debating these very elements. And that is wrong, as in the example I pointed out.

I know the intention is to be closing the gap. But as my colleague Ms Bath has said, there are no real particular elements of this bill that will go to ensuring that closing the gap will actually occur. There are issues and we do need to be addressing them – we all acknowledge that. I want to make the point that if the government was really serious about health outcomes for the Indigenous community – they are some of the most vulnerable, and I acknowledge that. I have looked after Aboriginal women and I have seen the complexities that they face from both a health and a social aspect. I do acknowledge that, and we need to be doing better – we all agree with that. I am concerned about the closure of CoHealth in Collingwood, which looks after some very vulnerable Victorians, some of whom would identify as Indigenous, I have no doubt, and rely on the primary care and community care of that health facility. They will no longer have that ability to go and have their healthcare needs supported and addressed because it is shutting down. How is it closing the gap when you are closing down facilities that deliver primary care and community care to very vulnerable members of the community? Where are they expected to go? Where are these vulnerable patients supposed to go? They are going to go into the emergency departments. They are coming into the acute system because the primary care and the community care is not there.

The other aspect that I raise in relation to this point is that the continuity of care is incredibly important, and you need continuity of care to close the gap in health. That is what this government fails to understand. It actually will take these poor patients back further, because they will be bouncing around a system where they will not be achieving the very aim that this bill says it will do with closing that gap.

I think the bill is flawed in terms of what it says. It does set up a separate system. We do not really know. You know, it is treaties. It is not one treaty. This is the first of many treaties. As to what impact that will have on the rest of the Victorian community and what that looks like, no-one knows. There has been consultation with a select few. The Victorian community does not know the extent of this treaty, and I would urge Victorians to go and read this treaty, because it explicitly highlights exactly what this bill lays out and how the legislation will play out.

The implications for the Parliament of Gellung Warl are quite profound, I think. No other statutory body in Victoria is empowered with such a combination of legislative authority, financial independence and structural insulation. The bill states that Gellung Warl:

Gellung Warl is not subject to the direction or control of the Minister in respect of the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers …

It has the right to:

… acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property …

And it:

may do and suffer all acts and things that a body corporate may do and suffer.

The bill embeds the First People’s Assembly into nearly every stage of the Victorian legislative process. There is a mandate that the Clerk of the Parliaments must notify the assembly of the introduction of every bill, regardless of its subject matter, and this creates a blanket procedural obligation, effectively inserting the assembly into the legislative pipeline and treating it as a default stakeholder in all parliamentary business. In addition, every member introducing a bill must prepare a of statement of treaty compatibility, and that statement of treaty compatibility must state:

(a)   whether the First Peoples’ Assembly was given an opportunity to advise on the Bill or the First Peoples’ Assembly otherwise made representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples; and

(b)   the nature and timing of any opportunity to advise and the nature and timing of any representations; and

(c)   in the member’s opinion, the extent to which the Bill is consistent with any advice given or representations made; and

(d)   whether, in the member’s opinion, the Bill is compatible with –

(i) advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples; and

(ii) addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

(iii) ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples; and

…

(e)   if, in the member’s opinion, any part of the Bill is incompatible with paragraph (d)(i), (ii) or (iii), the nature and extent of that incompatibility.

So they are very directed in terms of what is required from anyone introducing a bill into this place, for this separate body to have proper oversight and to be able to say whether it has an impact or not. What happens if they disagree with a bill coming in? If I introduce a private members bill and it has to go over to this body and they say, ‘No, we don’t not like it’, what happens then to the process? Everything gets stalled. You know, it is lost. What is the old saying? Laws are like sausages; it is like a sausage factory. It comes out at the end eventually. However, we do not want to be stalling the process any more than we have to. We do not want to be bogged down in bureaucracy, and I see there is potential for that to occur.

One other element I will raise in the last few moments I have is in relation to the issue I spoke of before, around Indigenous Victorians being assessed and triaged in an emergency department above everyone else. That is a recipe for disaster. Because who is not going to claim they are Indigenous?

How is that going to be monitored? It is going to set up chaos in our emergency departments, where our health system is already overstretched. I hear members of the government moaning and groaning over there – I can tell you that this issue is a very significant one, and it is not the fault of those people coming through the doors, it is a problem with the government and the failures within the system. But there is potentially room for chaos when people identify as Indigenous. Who is going to check that? How will that be checked? How will it be monitored? There are so many issues and indeed I will be asking in the committee stage later this evening – I do not know how late we will go to, the government will probably push us into the wee hours of the morning. But these are important questions that the government need to answer, because I do not think the Victorian community have any idea of the extent of this bill, how its implications for the Victorian community will play out practically, how it will actually be administered and monitored appropriately, and at what cost to the Victorian taxpayer.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (16:01): I also, like many others this afternoon, would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are currently gathered, the land of the Wurundjeri and the Woi Wurrung people, and pay my deepest respects to their elders past and present and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today. In particular I wish to acknowledge those First Nations people who have joined us in the gallery today.

It is a great privilege to speak to this Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, which marks a real beginning for a just and fair future for First Nations people in this state. I have the privilege of living on the land of the Wadawurrung people and serving the people who live on the lands of so many traditional owner groups in western Victoria. I know the path to treaty has been incredibly long. It has taken courage and determination from our First Peoples, and I would like to acknowledge the many leaders and community members who have made such a profound contribution to bring us to this point today. I am also very proud that the Victorian government is committed to true reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty with First Peoples. This bill recognises that there have been 65,000 continuous years of wisdom and care for our land and waterways by First Nations people. This bill acknowledges the talent, the courage, the dignity and the culture of First Nations people. This bill will empower self-determination, and I would argue quite vigorously that this bill is above politics. We cannot undo the past, and though I am definitely on the side of ‘I wish we could’, we can change the course of the future, and that is absolutely the mission and purpose of this bill.

This bill is absolutely underpinned by integrity, humanity and rigorous and reflective intellectual insight. The work of the First Peoples’ Assembly has been nothing short of extraordinary. What they have done since 2019, and will continue to do, is have a strong focus on a future that is a benefit to all Victorians. They will ensure that First Peoples are at the heart of decision-making that affects their lives. The founding co-chairs of the First Peoples’ Assembly, Aunty Geraldine Atkinson and Marcus Stewart, led formidable achievements that have paved the way and the path to where we are today. Of course along that journey I have also got to know Geraldine quite well in terms of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc, and I consider her a personal friend. The Yoorrook Justice Commission, Australia’s first formal truth-telling commission, is one of the achievements. It brought together the voices of First Peoples across the state. The Truth Be Told report laid down the facts and the impact of colonisation on First Peoples. The findings were devastating, and my heart breaks with the injustices that have been laid bare. But the leadership of the First Peoples’ Assembly has shown us how to walk and work together for a stronger and better future.

I am so proud that this government is listening to and works with our First Peoples. We are committed to doing what we consider to be absolutely right. The collaboration with the First Peoples’ Assembly and the current co-chairs Rueben Berg and Ngarra Murray epitomises how shared goals can be achieved when you listen, reflect and respect each other.

One of the many things that our First Peoples have taught us is connection of people to land, skies and waterways can never be taken away. I have had the privilege of being welcomed to Budj Bim on many occasions. It is a significant site for the Gunditjmara people – a site of culture, a site of tradition, a site of more than 60,000 years of aquaculture and a site that is older than the pyramids – and as a result of the work of the traditional owners and our government listening, Budj Bim is now a UNESCO World Heritage listed site. Not only is it historically and culturally important, it is vital for our shared future. Budj Bim exemplifies how First Peoples innovate, care, teach and invest in our future, and this would certainly not be the case if those opposite were in government.

We empower our First Peoples with the work that we do together, and of course it is about making sure that we right the wrongs of the past. We have been working towards this day for a long, long time, but also it is just the beginning. We have been doing a whole lot of things along the way in terms of the First Peoples’ Assembly, but we have also been working really hard in a lot of different areas. In one of my portfolios it is vocational education and training and skills, and I can say that the Marrung education plan has been a plan that has held us in good stead, and I thank everyone that has contributed to that in the VET and TAFE system. We have also been able to deliver First Nations languages, and I have got to say one of the thrills of my life is to be able to walk into a kindergarten in Wadawurrung land and see and hear children speak and sing in Wadawurrung language. It absolutely warms your heart that there is a serious connection to country but also a connection between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people in my electorate. It is absolutely heartening to see things like the Kitjarra Centre at The Gordon where young kids who have disengaged get a real shot at making a difference in their lives.

In the short time that I have left can I just thank everyone that has been able to work so hard to get us to this point: current and former First Peoples’ Assembly people; the Yoorrook commission; Natalie Hutchins; former ministers; Sheena Watt, who has just been extraordinary; and my lovely and determined and strong friend Chris Couzens in Geelong, my Geelong buddy – I just love you to bits for the work that you just do, your determination is amazing. Can I thank everyone that has had the goodwill to hold hands and learn from each other and develop true, enduring friendships and relationships that are based on common values and common purpose to have a better Victoria. Thank you.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:09): I too rise to speak in support of the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 before us today, and in doing so I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which this Parliament stands, the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung people of the Kulin nations, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present. I extend that acknowledgement to all traditional owners and First Peoples across Victoria who may be in the gallery or watching via the live stream.

I would also like to acknowledge the leadership and the tireless work of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, particularly its co-chairs Ngarra Murray and Rueben Berg You have both shown us what true leadership looks like, but I recognise that the work to get to where we are today has taken time and a lot of effort and a lot of patience. The fight has been ongoing, so I recognise the people who helped shape this legislation from the very beginning.

They include all of the members of the first term of the First Peoples’ Assembly, particularly the inaugural co-chairs Aunty Geraldine Atkinson and Marcus Stewart and former treaty commissioner Aunty Jill Gallagher. I am also cognisant that this building that we stand in today is representative of colonial violence, and it was not built for First Nations people. I would like to acknowledge too our friend and colleague Sheena Watt for her words earlier and thank her for everything that she has done to get to this point. I would also like to remind members that words matter and we may be in for a long night. The words that are said today in this chamber will stay with people in the gallery, so please keep this debate respectful.

This legislation marks a turning point in history not only for our Parliament but for our state more broadly. For more than two centuries Aboriginal Victorians have called for recognition, for truth and for a seat at the table to shape the decisions that affect them and their lives every single day. In this moment before us we finally have that opportunity to take a meaningful step towards justice, not just through our words but also through our vote in Parliament and through law.

As someone who represents the Northern Victoria Region, which has one of the highest populations of First Nations people in our state, I personally am extremely proud to be given this opportunity to pass this nation-leading reform. This will be a moment that many of us will remember for a long time. There will be a time in the not-too-distant future when I will tell my daughter about the time that we voted in support of a treaty for First Peoples and that I was proud to play a part in that – that I was there in the building when it happened. I am comforted to know that she will grow up in a state that recognises its painful past while working towards a kinder future and that when she goes to school she will be taught the true history of our country and how it came about, because throughout my schooling I was not. I never learned about the atrocities that were committed against Aboriginal people. We never learned all the harrowing details of colonisation, the violence and dispossession that came with it or the ongoing impact that it still has to this day.

Despite so much being said about closing the gap, we know that we still have so much more to do to genuinely improve the lives of Aboriginal Victorians. In fact past attempts have not worked. According to the ABS, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life expectancy remains 8.8 years lower for men and 8.1 years lower for women, compared with non-Indigenous Australians. These are lives that are cut short by systemic inequality that we have failed to address. While Victoria has seen some progress, Aboriginal people continue to be over-represented in our prisons, with adult imprisonment more than 10 times higher than the non-Indigenous rate. In health, too many communities still lack access to culturally safe healthcare facilities, while in housing – one of the strongest determinants of health and wellbeing – we see Aboriginal Victorians disproportionately represented among those seeking homelessness services. These statistics make one thing clear: attempts to fix this disproportionate reality by politicians without lived experience have not worked, and they will not work. Closing the gap cannot be achieved without treaty. Treaty will ensure First Nations people are central to decisions that affect their communities, and it recognises that they are the experts in their culture, knowledge and country and that we, frankly, are not.

In my role I have the great privilege of speaking with many First Nations community members about the deep cultural significance they share with many animals across the country. I have particularly seen this when speaking from a wildlife perspective, where our current wildlife legislation was written long before any law recognised the rights, voices or interests of traditional owners. These laws had left out a vital perspective, and the way our state continues to manage its wild species in many ways has been considered another ongoing form of colonial violence. Treaty offers us so many chances to build a future where this relationship is entrenched in law, and I hope today is an important first step towards that.

Let me put on the public record exactly what treaty is and what it will do, because in practice it is a very simple concept, and importantly it is not something to ever be feared. It is also important to note that similar countries like New Zealand, Canada and the United States all have a treaty of their own with Indigenous peoples. The world has not ended for these nations, and people have not had their homes reclaimed. In fact Australia is a global outlier when it comes to forming treaties with First Peoples. We are lagging behind, and it is having real-world and real-life consequences.

Once this legislation passes, the First Peoples’ Assembly, which is made up of representatives that have each been democratically elected by First Nations Victorians, will become permanent. The ongoing representative body will be known as Gellung Warl, which in the Gunaikurnai language means ‘tip of the spear’ or ‘pointed spear’. It will include an accountability arm as well as a truth-telling body, and these two bodies will hold the government of the day accountable to its Closing the Gap commitments. They will also be consulted on any legislation that affects Aboriginal people. Gellung Warl will provide advice to government and ultimately make decisions on matters that affect First Peoples, including to lead ongoing truth-telling, healing and reconciliation efforts across our state. It will also meet with Parliament and cabinet, administer the Aboriginal infrastructure fund and Self-Determination Fund, make appointments to boards such as the Heritage Council of Victoria and Aboriginal Heritage Council and use the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s official public record as a school curriculum resource to support the implementation of truth-telling in schools.

Yet despite all of this information being public, there has predictably been a scare campaign peddled by some conservative commentators, and sadly that unsurprisingly has filtered through to some in our own communities. I, like most MPs, have received a lot of correspondence from constituents on the Statewide Treaty Bill, and many – in fact most – are in support. But there have been some who have urged me to vote against this legislation, and in the interest of quelling some of that information it is important that we put on the record what the Statewide Treaty Bill is not. It does not change the Victorian or Commonwealth constitutions. It does not establish a third chamber of Parliament. It does not change tax laws or provide individual financial reparations, although as Mr Ettershank stated, there is still so much more to be explored. It does not have veto powers on policy or legislation, and it will not impact private land. The body will also be subject to the state’s oversight bodies, including the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Auditor-General’s office and the Ombudsman. To say there would be no oversight would be to tell a lie.

But let us be clear: this bill is more than just a set of technical provisions. It is a moral statement, a collective act of courage, and it is just simply the right thing to do. As Ngarra Murray said earlier in Parliament this month:

This treaty heralds an era where everyone prospers … It is children growing up proud of who they are, walking confidently in two worlds, knowing their language and history and that their rights are honoured. It is healthier lands and rivers because decisions are guided by thousands of years of wisdom. It is a future where Victoria is known not just for its natural beauty but for the way it nurtures culture, celebrates diversity and ensures that safety, dignity and opportunity are shared by all.

I know that even after this debate there will be people who continue to try and sow fear by saying that treaty divides us as a community. They will push this agenda that sharing power somehow diminishes it, and I cannot emphasise how much I disagree with that rhetoric. Because the reality is: when we lift others up, we all rise as a community. Treaty does not take anything away from anyone, but what it does is restore balance, respect and recognition where it has too long been denied.

Treaty is how we come together properly as one. We cannot have unity without honesty and without truth. We cannot have reconciliation without recognition, and we cannot move forward until we face what is behind us. I commend this historic bill to the house.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:20): I rise to make this contribution and to speak against this bill, not because I am against peace and not because I am against improving outcomes for our Indigenous Victorians. Obviously, that cannot be the case. In fact, I do not think I have met anyone who does not care about those things – certainly nobody in this place. There are facts that we have to face. One of those is that there are wounds in this country, just like in every country, that no laws can fully heal. Lives, languages and lands were lost, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through cruelty, and those losses do echo still. Indigenous Victorians are over-represented in every negative statistic. What can we do to help them? That is the question that we all want answered. The reason that people do not want to vote for this treaty is not because they do not want a proper solution, a fair outcome to these tragedies. It is because we do not think that this is the right answer. We do not even think that it will work. For my part, from what I can tell, history teaches us over and over that after injustice, you can have peace and equality. You can have good rise from the ashes of injustice, but never, ever, ever if you try and rebuild on the same architecture, the same division, that caused that destruction in the first place.

I believe that true equality and true peace rests on one simple, sacred idea: that the law applies to all of us equally because we are all equally valuable, and it binds all of us equally. The complications come when in history that arrives in a certain place, because of course it is not equal when equal rights start, and that is something that needs to be faced as well. But this bill, the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, is also not the answer. I believe that even though it speaks of equality, it builds inequality through a new hierarchy; even though it speaks of healing, it institutionalises victimhood forever.

Our dilemma in this state and in this country is not a new one, and it is not unique. When my own ancestors left Ireland, they carried the memory of land wars, where tenant farmers fought to break the grip of absentee landlords – men who owned everything just by virtue of their birth and answered to no-one by the law. The cry of the Irish reformers was simple: the land should be for the people who work it, not for dynasties, not for corporations. They fought to replace that privilege with accountability, and that is what made democracy real. Then a generation later in New Zealand my Māori ancestors sought justice and learned a similar lesson too. The promise of stewardship, guardianship of land for all descendants, was a noble one. But when power was centralised in tribal corporations, not dissimilar to this design, it was corrupted, and ordinary Māori, especially women and mixed-heritage families, were often silenced, excluded and exploited. Many of them found that true guardianship depends not on bloodline or bureaucracy but on a shared moral duty and equal rights before the law.

I have noticed throughout this debate that people have claimed there is only one Aboriginal member here, but there are two Aboriginal members of this Parliament – one in Labor, one in One Nation – and there are four First Nations people, of which I am one. I found out only after I had my first child. I found out at my grandmother’s funeral that my father had changed his name and lied to me about my ethnic heritage.

It occurred to me during this debate that my Irish heritage, even though that is technically first nations in Ireland, is disregarded, but my brown side is somehow given this extra special status. I do not understand why. I really believe that this treaty is going to bring back this tenant–landlord system, and it is not going to be dressed in aristocratic titles but in the language of heritage and representation and self-determination.

I do not think it just establishes two parliaments. I think it establishes something worse – a corporate entity with authority over Parliament. It answers to its own members, not to the electors, just like a corporation. It is financed by taxpayers, but it is audited by no minister. It is shielded from freedom of information requests and independent of Parliament’s control. That is throwing democratic sovereignty out the window. It is corporate sovereignty – power that you cannot vote out but you still have to pay for. Already much of this is spreading through our culture. As we just heard, St Vincent’s Hospital adopted publicly and unashamedly a policy that treats people based on their race. I would not defend that if it was happening for white people, and I am not going to defend it or accept it just because it is happening for Aboriginal people.

This contradiction, these double standards, this illogic, runs through every clause of this bill. There are two electoral rolls – one public, one private – which means some people get two votes for political power in this state based on their race. We have got two heritage councils – one for Aboriginal heritage, one for everyone else. We have got two educational systems now – one built on Aboriginal ancestry and the other one just for everyone else. We have got two infrastructure funds – one exclusive, just for Aboriginal heritage, and the other one for everyone else. We have to look at two statements of compatibility now – one for universal human rights and one for this treaty corporation. But the same taxpayers fund both. The same citizens have to obey both, and nobody can question just one of them. I really do not think that this is going to bring peace. I think this is going to entrench segregation.

We were told that this bill would close the gap, but there are no practical measures in there. We cannot undo history, but we can provide better quality education. We cannot undo history, but we can support families struggling – every family, not just Aboriginal families – with kids that are going off the rails. Why would you only bother aiming to close the gap based on race anyway? We do not want to close any gaps by deepening division. We do not want to unite people by rewriting our rules along racial lines. I do not believe that we are going to be able to heal injustice by creating a class of people, a different class this time, that are untouchable by law, even if their ancestors are the ones who used to suffer under it. That is the moral heart of this matter. Oppression does not vanish just because it changes hands.

We are told that this bill will right the wrongs of history, but history’s wrongs were born out of exactly this same kind of structure – privilege by birth, power without oversight and wealth drawn from the many and taken into the hands of a few. This Parliament was built to defend equal rights through the law so that everybody gets treated under the law equally. The other issues that we are talking about here today, the other inequalities, cannot actually be fixed through the law. It has got to be one Parliament, one vote per person, one type of law for everybody, otherwise how will we ever become one people with our distinct ethnic heritages?

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:29): I also begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I pay my respects to their elders past and present and to many of the community leaders that have joined us today in the Parliament. I also honour all Aboriginal communities across our state and in the Northern Metropolitan Region, where I live and work. It is a region whose cultural richness reflects not only the diversity of today’s Melbourne but also the enduring presence of the world’s oldest continuous culture. Today, as we consider the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, I am reminded that for tens of thousands of years First Nations people have lived as custodians of this continent, caring for land, water and community with knowledge and philosophies honed across millennia. This is a legacy of stewardship, belonging and responsibility – a concept we all have much to learn from.

At its core, treaty is not just an agreement, it is an act of recognition – a statement that Aboriginal peoples’ custodianship, culture and wisdom are not just part of Australia’s past but are vital to our future. Treaty asks us to see justice not only as the absence of harm but as the presence of dignity and true partnership. This philosophy is especially meaningful for me. My family, as many of you know, are of Kurdish background. Kurds, too, have a long history marked by struggle for self-determination and the yearning to see their culture, language and identity respected. I have seen in the story of my parents and the story of my community what it means to be denied a say in one’s own future. It is from this experience and from my experience as the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Youth Justice that I recognised how fundamental treaty is to true justice. Treaty is about ensuring policies are made with communities, not for them. It is not merely philosophy, it is a practical necessity that we all need.

Let us be clear about why this bill matters so deeply to my portfolios. The facts are well known, but they bear repeating: Aboriginal people continue to be grossly overrepresented in our prisons and youth justice centres and are among those most affected by the harms of gambling and substance abuse in our community. It would be remiss not to say that they are also much more likely to be victims of crime. These are not random outcomes, they are consequential to historical injustices. As I and many members of the government acknowledged at the Yoorrook Justice Commission, these are not random, they were deliberate. From young people who get caught up in the justice system to families who carry intergenerational trauma, the legacy of exclusion and paternalism is real. This reality necessitates shifting from systems that seek to only punish or contain towards systems that heal, restore and build stronger communities for all.

We have seen what is possible when we walk this path together, from the First Peoples’ Assembly to our government’s historic Aboriginal justice agreement and to the partnership we have with the Aboriginal Justice Forum and Aboriginal Justice Caucus. I know myself that I really value these full and frank exchanges and that they lead to better decision-making. It also leads to the better direction of investments. We have got an Aboriginal healing unit at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre that came about through this partnership. We have cultural places. Of course we do not want to see Aboriginal people in custodial settings, but when they are there, we have a responsibility and a partnership. The growing use of culturally led diversion programs and the elevation of community voices in the design of justice reforms are just a few of what is achievable. These changes are essential if we are to reduce reoffending, break cycles of trauma and fulfil the promise of justice for all Victorians.

The Northern Metropolitan Region is a microcosm of what makes Victoria strong: deep Aboriginal roots, working-class character, a thriving multicultural community and a shared desire for fairness. Across my electorate, from Broadmeadows to Brunswick, from Epping to Fitzroy, people understand that justice is not a zero-sum game. When we empower First Nations people, we strengthen the whole.

Indigenous people have cared for country and for community for far longer than any modern institution. When we listen to Aboriginal leadership, all our systems benefit. Their stewardship has sustained environments, cultures and social structures with a sophistication that science only now begins to understand. Treaty at its heart asks us to return that principle of care, to see leadership as stewardship and to build systems that serve the long arc of community health not just in the short term but for long-term outcomes for all.

As an Australian of Kurdish heritage whose people have long struggled to see their stories told and their rights respected, the importance of treaty is deeply personal. I stand here as someone who knows what it is like to want to belong fully to a place, to a community and to a system that recognises your worth. Treaty is about ensuring that Aboriginal children, families and elders in my region and across our state can belong to our systems that exist – to our justice, health, education and the broader community – not as afterthoughts but as leaders, as partners and as equals. Despite the strenuous efforts of some, we will not be fooled into seeing treaty as a concession or a risk. It is a chance – a chance to draw on 60,000 years of knowledge and build a future that honours our oldest wisdom and our newest aspirations. In my portfolios I am committed to ensuring that custodianship and partnership are not just words but a way of working every day for everyone.

I urge all members to support the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, not just as a matter of justice for First Nations people but as a statement about the kind of Victoria we want to leave our children: one where history is acknowledged, voices are heard and stewardship shapes every system. Together let us choose dignity, partnership and hope. I commend the bill to the house.

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (16:37): One Nation Victoria will not be supporting this bill. This Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 is being dressed up as progress, but in truth it is deeply flawed. It risks dividing Victorians, draining public funds and undermining equality before the law. As I have stated in this place before, I am of Indigenous heritage on my father’s side, but this never influenced the person I am today. Not once did I allow this to set me back. Not once did I allow my upbringing to keep me from my dreams and successes. Not once did I use this as an excuse for my behaviour. I am living proof that we do not need to divide or separate to improve the outcomes in people’s lives. This bill creates an unelected body with extraordinary powers: the ability to question ministers, influence parliamentary proceedings and demand treaty compatibility statements on new laws. That is not democracy, that is special treatment for some at the expense of equality for all.

Next is the cost. Victorians are struggling with a housing crisis, hospital waiting lists and rising living expenses. Yet this bill locks in automatic funding increases of 2.5 per cent a year, with costs expected to hit $70 million annually by 2028 to 2029. That is hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars diverted away from frontline services into bureaucracy.

And how was this bill introduced? Quietly. It was rushed, slipped into Parliament without genuine consultation. If this government believed Victorians supported it, they would not have to hide it. This treaty was undertaken under a shroud of secrecy, with most Victorians left out of the negotiations and left in the dark on the whole process. Documentation surrounding the treaty has been hidden from public view for 30 years, as announced in the Government Gazette on 21 March 2024. How is this open and transparent? They are words the government loves to throw around but rarely acts upon. I have actually seen more transparency in mud.

But the greatest danger is division. This bill risks creating two classes of citizens, one with special rights and influence and another without. That is not reconciliation. That is not unity. It is the opposite. The government keeps using the line that this will be good for all Victorians. How will this be good for our overcrowded, understaffed hospitals? How will treaty be good for the thousands of people who are homeless?

How will it be good for the mums and dads struggling to put dinner on the table and keep the lights on? How will it be good for the great number of Victorians working two or three jobs just to keep themselves afloat? How will it be good for the people who call 000 in an emergency and no-one comes? How will a treaty that divides us by our race be good for the already fracturing society we have here in Victoria? How can the government explain this to the people of Victoria, because from what I can see, this bill does nothing to help anyone but those in power. Victorians want fairness. They want transparency, and they want governments focused on real outcomes: schools, hospitals, jobs and safety. This bill delivers none of that. One Nation Victoria says to the government, ‘Scrap it.’ Reconciliation must be built on equality, respect and unity, not expensive bureaucracy and special privileges.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:41): Australians all let us rejoice, for we are one and free. They are the first lines of our national anthem. It should bind every Australian, no matter their heritage, their postcode or their history. It speaks of unity, of freedom and equality under one flag and one law. But should the Statewide Treaty Bill be made law, our bonds will fracture. Communities will be pitted against one another, the authority of this Parliament questioned, and the legal principles that underpin our democracy, including equal treatment before the law, broken. Treaties are instruments of foreign affairs. They end wars, they settle trade disputes and govern relations between sovereign nations, not within them. To introduce a treaty within our own borders between Australians is to reject the very notion that we are one people. It is a step away from unity and a step towards division.

A handful of countries have signed treaties with their Indigenous populations, and some of these include New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Do we want to follow in their footsteps? Well, the coalition certainly does not think so, because if we take, for instance, the case of our closest neighbour and my mother’s country, New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, but to this very day its interpretation is hotly contested and can be seen to be contradictory. Some argue that it grants the Māori special privileges, but its third article shows that they would have the same rights and privileges as the Pakeha subjects. Despite providing reserved seats in Parliament, dedicated board roles on statutory boards, special water rights and land rights, Māoris continue to be over-represented in terms of unemployment, imprisonment and diseases. It is a tragic reminder that affirmative action does not make up for practical action.

Now, having recently spent time in New Zealand, I want to say that I do enjoy the fact that they have been able to embed culture into Parliament in a number of different ways in a positive way. But this is not going to bring about that positive direction. Australia is a nation built on egalitarianism. It should not matter what your station in life is. Be you politician, public servant, business leader or worker, you should be treated the same way as anyone else. Our legal system rests on the principle that every person is equal before the law, regardless of when their ancestors arrived on these golden shores. This bill turns that on its head.

I strongly believe that Indigenous Australians deserve respect, opportunity and inclusion. They deserve to be celebrated. They do not deserve separatism, categorisation or political privilege because of ancestry. I do recognise the hurt and the impact of the stolen generations. I recognise the loss of culture, the language, the land and the identity and I hurt with my Aboriginal community. But we should be closing the gaps with practical action in education and in health, housing and employment, not with bloated bureaucracies that could end up causing division and red tape.

Before I probe the mechanics of this bill, I want to confront a myth that is held by some that Indigenous Australians are one homogenous group. They are not.

Across Australia there are hundreds of communities and cultures, with more than 250 distinct language groups and 800 dialects. I have taught Indigenous students here in Melbourne, I have worked alongside Aboriginal communities in the Territory and in Arnhem Land and I proudly have Indigenous Australians as personal friends, some of whom were here in the gallery during my maiden speech. Like many of us, my Aboriginal friends all have different political views and do not speak with one voice. We saw this for ourselves when former federal Labor Party president Warren Mundine and Senator Jacinta Price led the no campaign. They were Aboriginal leaders with a different opinion to this government. Aboriginal people are capable and intelligent and have diverse opinions and political allegiance. During the referendum one of my volunteers recounted a situation where a man wearing a union jumper came up to yes volunteers and told them that he was an Indigenous Australian who was voting no. Clearly no so-called representative body, least of all one manufactured by this divisive government, can ever claim to speak for every Indigenous Australian.

Under Labor’s legislation the Gellung Warl will become Victoria’s Aboriginal representative body. The very name comes from only one Aboriginal language, as if this one group represented all languages and all people. The new behemoth that this government wants will have three tentacles. The first tentacle is the First People’s Assembly, which acts as the decision-making body; the second is the Nginma Ngainga Wara, or the truth-telling body; and the third is the Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna, also known as the justice commission. With each of these bodies mirroring the Parliament, the executive and the judiciary, Gellung Warl has all the makings of a shadow government largely immune from ministerial direction. The assembly will control its own elections, enrolments and appointments and even define who qualifies as Aboriginal. It will appoint its own CEO, set remuneration, run its own infrastructure fund, compel the public service to undertake cultural competency training and embed truth-telling in the school curriculum. As the Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and a former educator I am particularly interested in the curriculum. It is already needlessly cluttered and failing to produce strong literacy and numeracy outcomes. Now our underpaid and overworked teachers will be forced to teach self-loathing – of our constitutional monarchy, our flag and our democracy. But our focus must be on equipping all of our children to read, to write and to calculate with excellence, otherwise we will continue to fall behind countries like China, India and Singapore.

Under this treaty the assembly will have First Nations flags and treaty markers placed in state buildings and its own dedicated room within this Parliament. Through engagement and briefing meetings they will have the right to formally be briefed by ministers, bureaucrats and even the Chief Commissioner of Police. These rights are equal to, if not greater than, what the opposition and the crossbench currently have. To top it off, legislation introduced in this Parliament will require a statement of treaty compatibility. The truth-telling body, whose name means, ‘You will do,’ will have powers to conduct inquiries into alleged racism, discrimination and unconscious bias. I am absolutely committed to combating racism, but is spending vast sums of money on more inquiries going to solve what is an evil of an individual rather than an entire system? I strongly doubt it. I also fail to understand how this body will measure unconscious bias. Inquiries could have broad terms of reference and could be relitigated after 12 months or possibly even less if the body deems it appropriate. There is also no guarantee that reports will even be made public, and restricted information and reports will be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This is a major concern. Ministers, agencies and individuals could find themselves under investigation for failing to toe the line. It is accountability turned upside down. The unelected are scrutinising the elected.

Then we have the justice commission. Its job is to facilitate truth-telling on historical matters and its alleged continuing impacts. Their inquiries could effectively reach as far back as humanly possible, to events long before Victoria even existed as a colony. It will collect and archive testimony but will only release what it deems appropriate, guided by its own internal rules and an act that could be changed at any time.

Truth-telling could be government-funded rewriting of history with limited checks and balances, and voices could also be limited. No matter what assurances government seeks to give, this bill lays the groundwork for more. That is the way socialism operates. It is about revolution by steady, deliberate and strategic institutional capture. Today it is a representative body; tomorrow it will be heritage approvals, land use, infrastructure projects or resource permits. And will our gap close and our First Nations people really benefit? If Victoria passes this bill, it will set the stage for a two-tiered system of governance right across the country.

The Prime Minister, while wounded by the failures of the Voice to Parliament, is encouraging his allies in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria to set the stage. In time we will see the formation of a makarrata commission federally if this Parliament lets Labor get away with this proposal. Thankfully, some Australian jurisdictions have defied the Prime Minister. Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have all abandoned their treaty proposals, with a mandate given to them by the voting population. Even Western Australia’s Labor government has indicated that it will work through native title matters individually rather than pursuing a divisive treaty.

Just last year the nation spoke powerfully and emphatically by voting down Labor’s Voice to Parliament. Right here in Victoria approximately 54 per cent of Victorians voted no, with some of the strongest results in Labor-held seats like Dunkley, Holt, Bruce, Hotham and Aston, all in my region. The Institute of Public Affairs recently commissioned polling into this proposal. A measly 37 per cent of Victorians supported a treaty between the Victorian government and the Victorian Aboriginal groups, and 61 per cent of Australians opposed the treaty when presented with the facts from the government’s own documents. The list goes on and on and on, and I have no doubt that if a referendum occurred on this treaty, it would be roundly defeated.

Only a Liberal and National government will oppose this legislation and repeal it if passed this week. In our first 100 days, we will form First Nations Victoria, which will be under the direction of one minister. It will be community led, inclusive of all Aboriginal people and will get things done transparently. We will not install fringe Labor and Greens activists that might be hell-bent on rewriting history, gaining reparations or lining the pockets of corporations. We will be including everyone, listening to every voice, respecting every Aboriginal person and allowing them all to be able to have a seat at the table along with all Victorians. I call on the Parliament to vote this legislation down.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to make a contribution on the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, and in so doing I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which this Parliament stands and on which we meet today, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin nation. I wish to pay my deepest respects to Indigenous elders past, present and emerging. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

I want to acknowledge and pay respects to the members and co-chairs of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and to all the past members and co-chairs and to their elders. I would like to acknowledge First Nations people who are here with us today in Parliament and those who also may be watching these proceedings from elsewhere and perhaps playing along at home. I want to acknowledge my colleague Sheena Watt, my northern neighbour in this place and proud Yorta Yorta woman. I am proud to call her my friend, my sister and colleague in this place. I want to acknowledge the generations of advocacy by First Nations people, which has led to this moment, and that First Nations peoples have an unbroken relationship to the lands and waters we now call Victoria. They have practised their laws, customs and cultures and language here, and they have nurtured country through their spiritual, material and economic connections to the land, water and resources.

In speaking on this bill, I want to recognise and acknowledge the past atrocities against First Nations people and that Australia was founded on the genocide and dispossession of First Nations people. It must be acknowledged that colonial structures and policies remain in place today, and we recognise the ongoing struggles of First Nations people by dismantling those structures as First Nations people walk the pathway towards reconciliation, healing and self-determination. The struggle to seek justice, to remember and address this nation’s past is a necessary requirement for individual and collective healing.

That is why I am proud to take part in this debate today on the Statewide Treaty Bill, not only because once it is passed Victoria will be the first and only jurisdiction in Australia to have a treaty with First Nations people but because of the significance of it to First Nations people. Treaty is a critical step towards self-determination, reconciliation and healing. This bill has been developed in partnership with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, and it marks a significant milestone in the state’s decade-long journey towards truth, justice and self-determination.

I want to take some time to speak about the many culturally significant landmarks and natural resources that are important to First Nations people in my region. The North-Eastern Metropolitan Region is a region that is steeped in First Nations peoples’ history and culture. Before European arrival and for countless generations, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people lived and cared for this country, relying on the plentiful resources of Birrarung – what Europeans now know as the Yarra – but their deep spiritual and cultural connection to the land is reflected in their use of the natural resources for food, medicine and shelter. The Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people knew the river as Birrarung, a place of mists and shadows. The river and its valleys are central to their cultural, spiritual and social lives, as well as a dreaming path they followed through the seasons. Birrarung runs from the city to the mountains, but just outside of Banyule, near where I live, I have been fortunate to see the dulai wurrung feeding and playing. Also nearby, on the banks of Birrarung, I have seen the many marram who graze on the grasses and the warin, who have made many burrows – some are so huge you need to be careful not to fall in one when you are out walking. I have seen gawan, wimbirr, muk muk, gurrng-gurrng and of course the walert that seem to be absolutely everywhere. And you can hear the ngarrert and the gungu and see them in the billabongs just off Birrarung.

The history of Wonga Park is deeply connected to the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people, the traditional owners. The suburb itself is named after Wurundjeri leader Simon Wonga, whose land ownership was actually recorded on a 19th-century grazing property map. Pound Bend and Wittons Reserve in Warrandyte are important gathering places. Wittons Reserve records the Wurundjeri history of the site, which is considered sacred women’s country. Certain songlines were also forged by the great creator spirits of the Dreaming and have ancestral stories attached to them. The Wurundjeri songline at the Mount Lofty walk, which begins at Wittons Reserve, is part of a major Wurundjeri travelling route or songline into the Yarra Valley. Songlines contain information about the land and how a traveller should respectfully make their trip. This includes the types of food that were safe to eat, places to be avoided and the boundaries of each mob’s country that the traveller could pass through.

In Bulleen, close to the banks of Birrarung, stands the significant Yingabeal song tree, yinga meaning ‘sing’ or ‘song’ and beal meaning ‘red gum’, which stands on the grounds today of Heidi Museum of Modern Art. It is a very significant marker, where five different songlines converge. It is culturally important for navigation and ceremonies; the tree’s scar indicates it was used to create a canoe, and it is considered a sacred gathering place. It is estimated that this tree is between 600 and 700 years old. The Bulleen flats area is a significant cultural landscape for Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people, and it is humbling to have such significant cultural and spiritual connections to First Nations people in my region.

In Croydon and Ringwood East, Mullum Mullum Aboriginal Gathering Place provides a culturally safe and inclusive space for First Nations people to come together to feel connected and empowered. The gathering place supports and facilitates a range of cultural activities and programs and provides a safe space for storytelling where First Nations people across the eastern region can gather, connect and grow. It is one of the largest gathering places in Victoria. Their work is of immense significance, and I thank them for their engagement with me and my colleagues as well.

But now, as I turn to the bill, sadly, those of us on the government benches expected the disinformation, the scare campaigns, the blatant gaslighting and the fearmongering from those opposite. It is all so disappointing, especially given the significance of what treaty stands for and what this will do for First Nations people. But sadly, we have seen this before. The Liberals and the Nationals have chosen not to take an opportunity that would be remembered in this state’s history as a time to work together on closing the gap to ensure that First Nations people are able to enjoy long and healthy lives; to ensure their children are born healthy; to ensure their children thrive in their early years and achieve their full learning potential, are engaged in employment and education and have secure, affordable housing; to improve levels of social and emotional wellbeing; and to reduce their over-representation in the criminal justice and child protection systems.

But no – sadly, rather than choosing hope, kindness, to do something that is good, right and just and to walk the path of reconciliation and healing together, the Liberals and Nationals have chosen to turn their backs and stick with a failed approach that is patronising, will continue to foster hatred and division and is steeped in paternalism. It is a serious question: what is it that our First Nations people are asking for? What would be so hard to agree on? They ask us to recognise the hurt and the harm that colonisation has caused them, the dispossession and the intergenerational trauma. These are known facts and they are indisputable. We know that the Liberal–Nationals have pledged to continue to rob our First Nations people of the chance for healing, for moving forward – and to improve health outcomes and to improve educational outcomes and employment outcomes? No. The Liberal–Nationals will go down in history for their mean-spiritedness with their pledge to revoke treaty within the first 100 days of them being elected to govern this state, should they ever get that privilege. Significantly, it is a lost opportunity by those opposite to do something good and powerful, not only for our First Nations people, who have welcomed us to their country, but for our state and society as a whole – because the indisputable truth is, what a colonial, European government has offered to First Nations people has not worked. It has failed them, and it has failed society as a whole, because if we want to consider ourselves a successful society, any economic and social progress should be equitable, with everyone having a chance to benefit and not to simply watch on with self-serving hand-wringing while others are left behind.

The Victorian Labor government has been walking the pathway towards reconciliation and healing with our First Nations people for many years, despite what has been put in this chamber today by those opposite. The Victorian Labor government committed to discussing treaties with Aboriginal Victorians in early 2016. A treaty working group was established to consult with First Nations communities on the development of a representative body to provide advice to community and government on the next steps in the treaty-making process. In January 2018 the Victorian Treaty Advancement Commission commenced its operations and continued the work started by the working group. In March 2018 the working group handed over its final report to the Victorian Treaty Advancement Commission, delivering key recommendations on the design of the Aboriginal representative body. The Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 was Australia’s first ever treaty law. The treaty act reflected the intent to work in genuine partnership with traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians to give meaningful and practical effect to the right to self-determination. It passed both houses of the Victorian Parliament in June 2018 and commenced on 1 August 2018. Then the First Peoples’ Assembly was established in 2019, and subsequently the Victorian government and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria commenced negotiations on the treaty elements required under the treaty act in August 2020. The appointment of the five commissioners to the Yoorrook Justice Commission was announced in May 2021, and the Victorian government and First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria then made history with the opening of negotiations for Australia’s first treaty. And now before us we have the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025. So, as you can see – as I have just laid out contrary to what those opposite have said – this has not been conducted in secret. This has been conducted in plain sight and in daylight.

Treaty will establish the First Peoples’ Assembly as a permanent representative body to provide advice to government under the new statutory corporation called Gellung Warl. Gellung Warl will also include a truth-telling body to be known as Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna and an accountability body known as Nginma Ngainga Wara. The latter will ensure the government upholds its commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Treaty will support truth-telling by establishing a process for ongoing truth-telling and healing across Victoria, including reshaping the school curriculum to include First Peoples’ perspectives from prep to year 10 and restoring traditional place names for natural landmarks like parks, waterways and waterfalls. Treaty will provide a mechanism for shared decision-making and ensure a framework for First Peoples to have a say in government decisions and policies that impact their communities. Treaty will foster reconciliation by building a deeper understanding and mutual respect between all Victorians, which will be a significant step towards self-determination and a more reconciled state.

Treaty will not change the state or federal constitutions. It will not create a third chamber of Parliament, despite what has been put in this place by those opposite today, and treaty will not deliver individual reparations. It is well beyond time that we listened to First Nations people. It is well beyond time that First Nations people had self-determination in the policies and processes that impact their everyday lives. It is well beyond time that we acknowledge what we have done so far has not worked. It is well beyond time now that we walk this pathway together and work towards a more reconciled state where everybody prospers. It is well beyond time that we sought reconciliation and healing with First Nations people. I commend this bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:06): Before I start my speech that I prepared earlier, I think I need to call something out. It is rather galling to be lectured to by the government and the Greens on truth, respect and misinformation whilst repeatedly insulting and erasing my colleague Ms Tyrrell. I think it is absolutely outrageous.

However, I recognise that today will be a day of celebration for those people who have the best interests of Aboriginal people at heart and believe treaty is the way forward. I hope that they will understand that all of us have the best interests of Aboriginal people at heart, but not all of us believe in the treaty. I also want to see Aboriginal people thriving in this state. It is just that we have different opinions on how to achieve this. Aboriginal people are diverse and have many different opinions, as we have seen today. They have lived independently for tens of thousands of years without interference. But many are rightly sceptical that more government and more bureaucracy and more meetings will do anything to improve their lives. Others have genuine concerns that the power being handed to traditional owner corporations will create division and elites within their own communities.

Anyone who saw my first speech in this place will be able to figure out the position of the Libertarian Party. I said then that I reject identity politics:

Pitting man against woman, black against white and Christian against Muslim is a recipe for social chaos. All Australians are valuable and should be treated equally under the law.

I have since seen several examples of the government inserting gender, religion or race into the law, and the results have ranged from bad to outright disastrous. Not only will you find a clue about my position on treaty in my first speech, you will also find my prediction – chaos. I can predict this with confidence because we have already seen what happens when you insert racial division into public decision-making.

The banning of rock climbs in Arapiles and the Grampians has caused enormous damage to the social cohesion of communities like Natimuk. In communities like this, climbing is not just the lifeblood of the community, it has been a way of life for generations. Natimuk is an area that was, at least until recently, full of Greens voters. The people there are very sympathetic to the wishes of the Indigenous people, and you will not find better custodians of the local land. But despite this, the hearts of the people in towns around the area have been broken by effective bans on many iconic rock climbs. During this process, the climbers were insulted with false claims about environmental vandalism, then ignored for a very long time and now made to feel like second-class citizens. I have said previously in this place that if you cannot make this kind of agreement work with rock climbers, then you cannot make it work anywhere.

Following treaty, I expect to see even more lockouts coming to public land. When people can no longer do things that they have enjoyed with their families for years, you create enormous resentment, not reconciliation, and some people are likely to defy lockouts. You may even get arrested for their crimes. This is what chaos looks like.

We have already seen what happens when cultural heritage plans become a requirement. I am aware of a man in my electorate of south-east Melbourne who wants to build a shed on a block of land in an existing industrial area of an industrial suburb. He expects a cultural management plan will cause delays and cost him thousands of dollars. I have also heard of cultural heritage plans being required for the replacement of something like public barbecues in a park. This is ridiculous and creates cynicism about Aboriginal culture, not respect. What is worse, I am concerned that conditions where permits are required will create an environment highly conducive to corruption.

After the impassioned speeches are over today and after the celebrations amongst the political class are over, Victorians will be left with a massive hangover from this impractical and divisive bill. Many Victorians will be shocked that it even happened because they thought they voted against this kind of thing at the federal referendum. Libertarians have championed equality under the law for centuries, will continue to believe in it, and I will uphold it again today. The Libertarian Party opposes this bill.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:10): I will start by saying in the truest moral sense I love my fellow Australians. I feel a sense of moral obligation to my fellow Australians. I feel a sense of functional obligation to the health and wellbeing and strength of my fellow Australians’ families, the health of their marriages, their access to opportunity, the pride and success of their children and their ability to fulfil their potential, whether they live next door to me, in the next suburb or in the next region. I feel it, and it was always reinforced in everything I was taught. It is not only a moral imperative but an obligation and responsibility of citizenship, and I mean obligation in the most positive sense – in the sense that there is honour and value and correctness in having that responsibility. That is why it is said that seeking to shoulder that responsibility is also an incredibly fulfilling part of the human experience. Shared responsibility, care in common – love for one another is not a burden. It is a privilege that rewards both the giver and the receiver. It is not transactional. It is mutual. It carries with it a very clear notion that as fellow travellers on our roads, the word ‘we’ matters. There is a powerful difference between ‘I’ and ‘we’. But even then, ‘we’ is not a word that dissolves the individual; ‘we’ is the meeting of individuals and choosing to work together. It implies freely given consent. It implies common purpose. It implies a common walk.

For my Indigenous brothers and sisters, I choose ‘we’. I care for my Indigenous brothers and sisters because they are my fellow Australians. I care for them in a way that is impossible for me to care about the citizens of another land, however wonderful that other land might be. We are not foreigners to each other, we are one people. My future is tied to their success and theirs is to mine. Our children’s futures are tied to each other inseparably. We are not from different countries. We do not want to be from different countries, we do not want to act as if we are from different countries and we do not want laws that make us live as if we are from separate countries. I choose ‘we’.

The burdens Indigenous families have carried since the time of European settlement are beyond profound. Even ‘profound’ is too light a word. I suspect my school was different to others, but growing up in Leongatha, South Gippsland, in the 1970s, the history of local Aboriginal communities, their unique culture and care of habitat, their clothing and foods and spiritual life were taught and received with interest. And yes, in the 1970s we were taught about the atrocities too. They were not hidden, minimised or left out of the story of Australian history or development. It was there and it was in context. At settlement it was a time of ‘them’ and ‘us’, but we did not want to remain there. It could not possibly have been healthy or progressive or constructive to leave the story there. Our curriculum chose ‘we’. I have learned since that this was not the norm in 1970s education, but there it is.

We celebrated Aboriginal life, history and modern-day achievement. In our area at that time we honestly idolised Evonne Goolagong, Lionel Rose, Bennelong and Neville Bonner – not token admiration, not qualified by anything. And when we learned about it, we celebrated the 1967 referendum that made ‘we’ official. I cannot tell you what pride we had that that referendum passed with a 97 per cent yes vote. Only the power of ‘we’ could deliver a referendum result like that – the power of equality before the law, the power of shared Australian identity and destiny, the power of walking together, the discarding of any disgusting sense that anyone should be treated differently on account of their race or the colour of their skin.

That was the stuff of bigots, and it did not belong here and it would not be tolerated. I saw in my parents – dedicated Christians, both of them – a deep-rooted shame about the attitudes to Indigenous people that abounded in their own childhoods, something they articulated very clearly in a quiet anger and self-rebuke that they did not use to describe any of their other beliefs. I saw them devote their lives to removing any practice of racism from society, from casual and crude jokes and exclusivism in manners and language to the cultural racism of low expectations, the harmful partitioning and isolation of communities from each other and to the formal harmful practices in law, education, work and regulation. My parents and so, so many others of that generation fought tooth and nail to move Australia forward together. That generation – Indigenous and native-born Australian and New Australian alike – all chose ‘we’, they demanded ‘we’, they legislated ‘we’, they funded ‘we’ and they cared for and cultivated ‘we’. They started and shared that work and left it to us to complete it; this treaty would not be what they envisioned. I cannot support something that will institutionalise ‘them and us’, legalise ‘them and us’, culturally reinforce ‘them and us’ and drive this state to live ‘them and us’. It is anathema to every notion of reconciliation, equality and principle that I can conceive. It leads us nowhere but to being ‘them and us’. It will not work. It will not endure. It will not deliver the further change it asserts it will; it cannot.

None of this is to say that those supporting this law do so in bad faith – far from it; I just disagree. I cannot move past the cognitive dissonance of a proposal that says in order to have reconciliation we must be institutionally separated. I disagree that we achieve unity by institutionalising separateness. I believe it will lead to perverse and unintended outcomes. I believe it undermines our liberal democracy. It removes the most important principles of equality before the law, equal treatment before the law, equal rights before the law and equal accountability for our actions before the law.

There are genuinely held democratic concerns at stake here, and while this treaty comes to Parliament as a bill, it is by any meaningful measure a constitutional change. It adds bodies to Parliament. It changes the lines of accountability. It challenges the primacy of the elected Parliament to another body intentionally and yet, wildly, loosely. It empowers members of that body with rights members of Parliament themselves do not have. It is a body that has guaranteed funding in perpetuity with no cap to spending. It is exempt from parliamentary and public scrutiny itself. It has unique freedom of information exemptions and is exempt from the public service act for hiring practices. Even IBAC will report to it, not to Parliament. It grants substantial powers over rules, procedures and oversight but can determine its own composition and electoral processes. It operates via a private electoral roll with any counting system it chooses, without limit. At any time any particular group of assembly members can alter the terms, conditions, extent and eligibility of the assembly, and there is no Victorian Electoral Commission oversight of that. It is a law unto itself, without a single check and balance essential to any successful, enduring democratic process or body. It is inserted into nearly every stage of the Victorian legislative process, with ill-defined explanations of process, rigour, timescale and extent. It has the power to negotiate further treaties that will in turn bind other Victorians without say. All democratic processes demand transparency and scrutiny – this bill does the opposite.

There is also no social licence for this constitutional change.

A change of this scale and depth – and both sides have gone to lengths to agree that this is so – should have been agreed to by all Victorians. All Victorians should have had a say in this, and moreover, all Victorians should have been involved in the shaping of it visibly and had a say in the changes that will affect them. It should have been a process of ‘we’. There should have been a bipartisan process. There should have been education and information to everyone in the state. Instead the whole thing is being presented merely as a bill of Parliament pushed through on the numbers. The phrase ‘the treaty era’ has been used. Well, no-one in Victoria voted for this, and few Victorians have any idea what it implies, who it will affect and how it will affect the functioning of the state. There has been insufficient discussion with the Victorian people and insufficient information. Yet it is demanded that, regardless, we must support this unquestioningly, or else somehow we do not care for or want the best interests of Indigenous Australians. This is a cruel thing to assert, and those who assert it demean themselves. I know who I am, I know what I believe, and I know where my heart lies. The idea that it is this or nothing is a disingenuous, divisive assertion – it is not so.

This bill is the government’s admission of failure in the great Australian mission of equality, and in throwing up its hands, it has come to this. It is not the right approach. Passion is natural in anything you care deeply about, but it is not evidence and it does not grant moral authority. This process has leaned heavily on ideological notions of restorative justice, cultural safety and self-determination. What merit they may have in some contexts – and they do – has become lost here. They are far removed from their origins and weaponised to justify something that is extreme and divisive. It is not just a case of saying that previous governments have failed so we are trying something new. To suggest this trivialises what is happening. This is extreme. It is by definition divisive. It does not address past wrongs. You cannot solve one injustice by imposing another. It is not the way to bring lasting change. There is a better way. The present government may have given up, but I do not think Victorians have. And given the choice, Victorians would prefer a process focused on outcomes, not new bureaucracies and rules paid at the price of equality and unity. It is not a price Indigenous Australians should have to pay for what is their right, because the loss of equality is a price paid by all. We should be ‘we’. We want to walk together. This treaty says we cannot. This treaty divides us. I cannot in all conscience support it.

This is a day of many long speeches, some forensic, some emotional, all tones, all beats. And I thank everyone who contributed on all sides. I see no point in relitigating or repeating things. I will be far less articulate and clear than others have already been. But I want to pay significant tribute to my colleague Melina Bath, who has worked hard with all communities on this and who has had to lead on a matter where emotions are high. It is all too easy to forget the ability to disagree with respect. Ms Bath on our behalf has done so. And as Ms Bath said, it is not the challenge that is in dispute, it is the solution to those challenges we contest. We contest in good faith, and we contest with better alternatives.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:24): It is a powerful and historic opportunity to stand here on Wurundjeri country and, in doing so, pay my respects to their elders – to stand here on Wurundjeri country as a member of the Parliament of Victoria and cast my vote for treaty, our nation’s first statewide treaty with its First People. It is an historic moment – a vote to establish Gellung Warl, an ongoing representative body for the First Peoples of Victoria elected by and for First Peoples, answerable to First People, and to give Gellung Warl powers and functions for ongoing statewide treaty making; a vote to support truth-telling through Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna, an office of truth-telling and healing, collecting the truth of our past and supporting public education on our state’s shared history; and a vote for the Nginma Ngainga Wara, an outcomes and justice commission to help keep us all accountable.

We have heard many times today, particularly from those who rise in opposition to this bill, talk about democracy in the Parliament. So I thought I would start there. I thought I would start this speech by reflecting on democracy and this Parliament and our history, and it is particularly significant for those of us sitting here as members of this Legislative Council, a body that until 1950 used property as a qualification for its voting franchise. And that was by design. If you go back and have a look at the select committee report that drafted Victoria’s 1855 constitution act, the Legislative Council, and I quote that report:

… should represent the Education, Wealth, and more especially the settled Interests of the Country …

Think about the words ‘settled interests’. They were property owners, who were then described as settlers – who now we may think of as colonisers or dispossessors, who had property that was gained through the forcible dispossession of the traditional owners. The dispossession was furthered by the laws that this very body then enacted.

Starting with a first: Victoria was the first jurisdiction to pass a law here, the Aborigines Protection Act 1869, that wrought untold damage on Aboriginal people in this state. Our first-in-the-nation laws then had the effect of prescribing where any Aboriginal or tribe of Aborigines shall reside, set out restrictions on contracts, earnings and employment and the care, custody and education of children and specified that bedding and clothing was ‘only on loan, and shall remain the property of Her Majesty’. That is what our predecessors in this place did, and many further acts were passed in the decades that followed. I recommend that people read the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s powerful articulation of the impact that those laws that this place passed had on Aboriginal Victorians.

As the commission itself so powerfully noted, colonisation has not ended. It is a continuing process. There is a very good discussion in the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s report in recognising the effects of intergenerational trauma and the effects that the laws passed then and the actions taken then have had, passing through generations and still being felt today. A recognition of that intergenerational trauma is something that everyone here who seeks to contemplate their vote on laws today needs to consider. And so, as we stand in these gilded walls, I believe that we have a special responsibility to take action, a special responsibility to change the words that have echoed through this chamber over its history, a special responsibility as members of this Legislative Council to address the injustices enacted by our predecessors, who were granted their seats by dint of their ownership of stolen land.

We cannot undo the past, but we can recognise it and commit to a better future. That is what the Statewide Treaty Bill seeks to achieve. At the core of the treaty process is the principle of self-determination. Yoorrook’s third report said, and I quote:

Self-determination is critical to ending systemic injustice. Systems cannot work properly for First Peoples until they are fully self-determining. Self-determination can be achieved only by transferring decision-making power, authority, control and resources to First Peoples on nation-based, collective, regional and statewide levels. Mere transfer of functions, consultative roles or resources is insufficient.

Treaty represents an unprecedented opportunity to achieve self-determination.

That is what Yoorrook told us just a short time ago. That is what this bill delivers: self-determination, an ongoing process of choice to ensure that Aboriginal people are able to meet their social, cultural and economic needs.

Gellung Warl – ‘the tip of the spear’ in the language of the Gunaikurnai – is a body designed at its very core to advance the principles of self-determination and the cornerstones of a future built on treaty. I think the work of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria in getting us to this point absolutely needs to be recognised. I made some reflections in my speech just a moment ago about these gilded walls. Before I was elected to this place, I had the absolute privilege of being able to stick my head in in 2019 and have a look at the first meeting of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria in this very chamber, with the possum skins spread upon the table and the smells of the eucalyptus adorning the room. I had never seen this place look like that before, and I was very proud to witness it. I think it is a demonstration of what we can achieve when we work together.

But today is not just about laws and it is not just about bodies. It is about people. It is about Aboriginal Victorians and the impact that these laws will have on their lives. We know, from the considerable work that has been done over many years to better understand it, the impact that colonisation, dispossession and the suppression of language and cultural identity have had on Aboriginal people here in Victoria. We have read the reports. They are lining our shelves. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Bringing Them Home report, the Closing the Gap reports, the volumes of the Yoorrook commission’s landmark truth-telling report: the message has been consistent and clear. I spent some time recently reading just some – you cannot read it all again – of the voluminous evidence that has been provided to these bodies over the years. There are many stories contained in the pages of those reports, and I have read some of them – names of people I do not know and have never met. I have spoken to some who are close to me, friends and people who are now part of my broader family alike, and there are many stories that I could recount here today to add their voice to this debate. But I have got just one that I want to share.

I listened to this man’s story recently. We spoke and talked about it, and he consented to my sharing with you here in this contribution to this important debate the story he told. Jarvis is a Yorta Yorta man whose life was shaped by the experiences of racism where he grew up. At his school children in the same classroom were treated differently because of the colour of their skin, an environment that led to him being expelled from that school. That changed his life, and not for the better. He struggled with addiction, arrest and imprisonment, and Jarvis told a story of being at war with the system and how, at his very rock bottom, he found inspiration from his family to get his life back through years of rehabilitation. He told of climbing personal mountains and of the cultural support he received. He spoke of his healing journey. During that rehabilitation, Jarvis said, he travelled regularly on a bus from where he was staying to where he was doing a training course to get his cert IV, and every day he would go past graffiti that just said ‘Treaty’. He saw that one word from the bus every day for six months and thought, ‘How can I play my part?’ He described that something was burning inside him, fuelling his desire to play his part to help his personal healing journey, so he started attending yarning circles. He began to organise his own events about treaty back in Shepparton. These are Jarvis’s words:

… all my life people … didn’t expect me to be a winner. They didn’t expect me to succeed.

…

… when all hope was lost and all trust was gone, I was able to turn that back around … no-one is ever too far gone.

That is what we need: more truth-telling, more awareness, empowering individuals and communities, supporting self-determination, enacting treaty.

It is an important moment we have before us today and an important vote we are about to take. It is an important moment for many, and particularly for this government. The path has been long. It has not always been easy, we know. In 1988 the Barunga Statement was presented to the prime minister. He said we would deliver a treaty. He did not. We made significant advances before 1967, starting with the freedom rides and removing the structural racism that stained the founding document of our nation.

We saw Whitlam and Lingiari – after the introduction of a land rights bill, the returning of lands to the Gurindji; the Native Title Act 1993, recognising the lie of terra nullius; and the apology to the stolen generations that recognised the enduring impact of the systematic removal of Aboriginal children from their families, so powerfully noted in Bringing Them Home.

This statewide treaty should rightly be noted in that list of progress. That is how significant it is, what we are doing today. The treaty process in Victoria began a decade ago with a commitment to a shared path, through the work of the Victorian Treaty Advancement Commission, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and the Yoorrook Justice Commission to this bill today, a nation-leading piece of legislation. Victoria is first in the nation with this piece of legislation, led by the Aboriginal community and this Labor government. It has taken time, but the time has been worth it. This is a moment to be seized, an opportunity for the path ahead to be built on different foundations. I am proud to lend my support to this bill, to this first piece of legislation in Australia for a treaty. May the future be brighter as we walk a path forward together.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (17:36): I rise to speak proudly in support of the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025. This bill really matters because it puts in law a simple truth that First Peoples have asked us to honour for generations: decisions about First Peoples communities should be made by First Peoples communities.

The First Peoples’ Assembly has been clear that treaty is about practical self-determination. It is about communities having the power to set priorities, design services and protect country and culture and being properly resourced to do so. It is how we move from symbolic recognition to shared authority and accountability. Treaty is not a slogan; it is the framework that allows real agreements to be negotiated so that change is durable and can be measured. The First Peoples’ Assembly has said again and again that closing the gap requires more than programs to be delivered to people. Rather, it needs decision-making power to be handed to First Nations communities. This bill helps create the structures to do that. It builds on the truth-telling, the important task achieved through the Yoorrook Justice Commission, and it puts us on a path to take the next step. Treaty is also a pathway to healing. The assembly’s clear message is that truth and justice belong together. Treaty recognises that harm was done through dispossession and the breaking of lore and culture. By agreeing to fair rules for how we live and govern together, we set out how to repair what can be repaired and to prevent further harm. That means fair processes for land and water agreements, cultural heritage, language, education and health. It means economic participation backed by a strong self-determination fund, so that communities are not asked to negotiate with empty pockets.

I also know that many of my constituents in Southern Metro Region, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, truly welcome this day. They have walked on this shared road for decades. Many people in the community have been coming to me in recent weeks, excited about the step we are about to take in this place today, having supported reconciliation, attended Sorry Day services, turned up for NAIDOC exhibitions and backed community organisations that keep culture strong. There is so much appetite for the good that treaty will deliver for all of us, because it sets fair rules, it creates certainty and it will help deliver better health, education, housing and justice outcomes. To those opposite who are demanding practical action, I say: this is a road that will deliver it.

Two weeks ago we heard in the Assembly about what makes treaty a fair process, guided by free, prior and informed consent. It must be transparent, it must be accountable and it must deliver authority and resources to community-controlled organisations. It must endure beyond election cycles.

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]