Thursday, 30 October 2025
Bills
Statewide Treaty Bill 2025
Please do not quote
Proof only
Bills
Statewide Treaty Bill 2025
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (10:09)
Melina BATH: Minister, I am sure that this will be a long debate of questions and answers. I begin my questions in relation to the comments that you made at the end of the second-reading debate:
The name of Gellung Warl has been approved by the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation after consultation. The community members mentioned by those opposite –
meaning us –
are not native title holders for Gunaikurnai.
I put on record that I have received many pieces of information and letters from three specific people. One is Linda Mullet, one is Pauline Mullet and one is Cheryl Drayton. For the record, they are all Kurnai elders, and Cheryl Drayton has written to me specifically saying that they have been determined by the Federal Court of Australia as legitimate native title holders under the Native Title Act of 1993. In the Commonwealth, this federal determination establishes the Kurnai people’s enduring rights and connection to lands and waters. Minister, have you had any advice since your comments the other day, two days ago, and would you like to reflect or provide some commentary on your comments?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I stand by my statement on Tuesday. The native title holders for Gunaikurnai country are all people descended from the ancestors recognised in the Federal Court judgement of 2010. These people identify as Gunai or Kurnai and established the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to represent them and hold their native title on trust for them. GLAWAC is inclusive of all native title holders, including the community members which the opposition referred to, and is their decision-making body. The point being made by the community members that the opposition quote, which is that only Kurnai are native title holders, is incorrect. The court has held that an inclusive group of Gunai and Kurnai people are traditional owners for that country. The exclusive Kurnai native title case was dismissed by the court. This group is not the authority on things like naming Gellung Warl, GLAWAC is, and they approved the name.
Melina BATH: Minister, can you clarify the process by which the name Gellung Warl was approved and which traditional owners and organisations were formally consulted? I will leave that question as the starter.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria coordinated a rigorous and culturally appropriate consensus process for all of the language terms used in the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 and treaty, including the use of Gellung Warl. This included consideration by assembly members, the Yurpa Committee, the assembly’s elders standing group and the cultural elements working group, and liaison with the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages and cultural knowledge holders. The use of Gellung Warl was formally endorsed by the board of the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, GLAWAC. GLAWAC are the registered Aboriginal party, as I just outlined, that represents the Gunaikurnai people, the traditional owners of their country as determined by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the prescribed body corporate for the Gunaikurnai as the native title holder as determined by the Federal Court in 2010 and confirmed by the Federal Court in 2018.
Melina BATH: Why were the Kurnai elders, that are native title holders, not considered or not reviewed or not asked in this process about the name Gellung Warl?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I just outlined and I can repeat for the house, the use of Gellung Warl was formally endorsed by the board of the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, and GLAWAC are the registered Aboriginal party that represents Gunaikurnai people, the traditional owners of their country as determined by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the prescribed body corporate for the Gunaikurnai as the native title holder as determined by the Federal Court in 2010 and confirmed by the Federal Court in 2018. In my earlier point I also spoke to the extensive consultation around the use of the name.
Melina BATH: But my question stands: in the process, why didn’t the government, who wrote this piece of legislation, consult with Kurnai elders? I put it in the context that these Kurnai elders are a native title holder. Why were they not consulted?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: You can keep repeating the same question, but as I have already outlined twice now, they were: they are members of the GLAWAC and were included in that process. The name was a matter for the assembly as the democratic body.
Melina BATH: Minister, the bill was written by the government, and the government has a responsibility to consult broadly on its determination to write this piece of legislation. Can you provide a list of all entities, corporations and native title holder groups that the government consulted with in determining the name?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I outlined, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria coordinated a rigorous and culturally appropriate consent process for all of the language terms used in the Statewide Treaty Bill, as is appropriate, including the use of ‘Gellung Warl’, and this included consideration by assembly members, the Yurpa Committee, the assembly’s elders standing group, cultural elements working group, and liaison with the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages and cultural knowledge holders.
Melina BATH: Minister, how does your department verify the legitimacy of traditional owner groups as compared to native title holders when disagreements like this arise within the community?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would just like the member to rephrase her question, or clarify her question is probably a better point as to what her question is in relation to the bill.
Melina BATH: Can the minister confirm whether a legal review was conducted to assess whether any provisions of the treaty bill are inconsistent with the Native Title Act 1993, and if so, what advice have you received and can you explain that advice?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As the representing minister, I obviously do not directly receive that advice. Let me just clarify for a moment.
As I have previously indicated in my earlier answers and referred to, obviously native title is determined by court under Commonwealth law. But also, if you look at clause 5, it specifies that the bill must be interpreted in a way that does not prejudice or reduce rights or expectations of traditional owners or First Peoples under existing laws or native title rights and interests under the Native Title Act 1993 of the Commonwealth. Clause 5(3) states that no provision in the bill ‘is intended to affect native title rights and interests otherwise than in accordance with the Native Title Act 1993 of the Commonwealth’.
Melina BATH: Noting your response, Minister, the Kurnai elders, who have native title claim, are stating publicly and to the government, to the Governor-General and to members of Parliament that they feel aggrieved and that they actually feel that this is a breach of clause 5 of the treaty bill. Can you explain how you can have a clause in this bill that is then inconsistent with the status of this particular set of native title holders?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Ms Bath, again for the same question. But as I have already outlined to you repeatedly, I think, in the 5 to 10 minutes that we have been going, Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation is the representative organisation. They hold native title on trust and are an authoritative body. They are the appropriate body to consider things like the naming of ‘Gellung Warl’ and GLAWAC have approved that name.
Melina BATH: Minister, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that only native title holders are recognised under the Native Title Act and are authorised to speak for their rights in treaty negotiations, not just directors of prescribed body corporates – PBCs?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I outlined in I think the first question, it has been determined that GLAWAC is the appropriate authority to make the authorisation in relation to the naming of Gellung Warl. You can continue to ask the same question in different ways over and over again, Ms Bath, but we will be here for a very long time if that is how you intend to operate this morning.
Melina BATH: My question did not mention any entity. It actually said, ‘What mechanisms are in place that only native title holders are recognised under the Native Title Act and authorised to speak on their rights in treaty negotiations, not just prescribed body corporates?’ That was my question. This is a broad question that can be considered across the state, and you have not answered it, Minister.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This line of questioning is really trying to question the Commonwealth native title process. The Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 says we must uphold the Native Title Act. Clause 5 is clear about how this does and does not interface with native title rights or expectations of traditional owners, and I will leave it at that.
Melina BATH: Minister, given the traditional owner corporations are legally constituted to represent only their registered members, how does the bill prevent these entities from purporting to speak for native title holders who are not members?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I have indicated, the court has determined that GLAWAC is the appropriate body for these decisions and recognition to be made, and if the members that you are referring to take issue, they need to raise that up through the appropriate process and with GLAWAC.
Melina BATH: Minister, again, I have not mentioned anybody; I am actually seeking the understanding of the treaty process and the treaty bill. What criteria are used to verify individuals appointed to represent native title holders in the treaty process that are culturally legitimate and descend from the relevant apical ancestors?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The Native Title Act appoints the prescribed body corporate to hold native title on trust as representative of all native title holders. In the issue which you raised with me yesterday and again today and indeed through the media in relation to those people, that remains GLAWAC, and it is obviously others for others. But the Native Title Act appoints a prescribed body corporate to hold native title on trust as representative of the native title holders.
Melina BATH: What legal recourse is available to native title holders who believe their rights have been undermined by decisions or rules made under the treaty framework?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The Federal Court.
Melina BATH: In relation to the treaty bill, does the government have the position that the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 adequately accounts for complex internal community dynamics around cultural authority and how the Traditional Owner Settlement Act will intersect with the Statewide Treaty?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, the first sentence of the preamble states:
The State of Victoria acknowledges the unique status of First Peoples and their unceded connection to Country, history, cultures and enduring strength.
Please define the term ‘unceded’ by reference to case law or statute.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The way I will respond to that question is to say that Mabo recognised that terra nullius is null and void, and there is a long understanding that tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal culture and history and population was here first.
Bev McARTHUR: Then, Minister, please explain the legal ramifications of acknowledging that there is any unceded territory in Victoria.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The solicitor-general has provided advice on the content of the bill, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in relation to the bill, and the treaty, and that advice has informed the drafting of the legislation.
Bev McARTHUR: Are you prepared to provide that advice to the chamber?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously, as the representing minister this is not my advice – I am just clarifying – but the advice is subject to legal privilege, as you would expect.
Bev McARTHUR: Well, if we are basing this treaty bill on an aspect of government that says the land is unceded and you have got advice on that matter from the solicitor-general but you are not prepared to give it to this Parliament, which has to make the decision on voting on this bill, let alone the public of Victoria, then you are denying the opportunity of anybody to have full and frank information about how you have come to this decision-making process. Why can’t you be transparent? If you have nothing to hide, provide the information.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The advice is privileged.
Bev McARTHUR: That says it all, Minister. Minister, if sovereignty has never been ceded, does that make the state government illegitimate?
Bev McARTHUR: Is the Parliament sovereign over Gellung Warl?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The sovereignty of the Parliament is not in question, Mrs McArthur, as we discussed yesterday.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, in part 1, clause 2, the bill describes ongoing statewide treaty-making as involving the transfer of decision-making, rule-making and advisory and other powers and functions from the state government to Gellung Warl. Is there any end point to this treaty-making process?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I outlined in my summing-up remarks yesterday, or potentially the day before, we know, as do all families, that when families have the opportunity to make self-determined decisions for themselves and their children, outcomes are better.
Bev McARTHUR: So Gellung Warl is therefore sovereign over the Parliament? Does it eventually supersede the role of Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I reject the premise of your question, Mrs McArthur, and the answer is no.
Bev McARTHUR: In part 2, clause 12, ‘Functions and powers of Gellung Warl’, it says:
Gellung Warl has the power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.
What does it actually mean when the bill says Gellung Warl would have the power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done? All things that are necessary or convenient to be done – what does that mean?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill is giving effect to Aboriginal people being able to self-determine what is in their and their families’ best interests.
Bev McARTHUR: Is the government prepared to say now what the limits of Gellung Warl’s powers will be?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Gellung Warl will have the opportunity, as we have said, to reflect on decisions and programs and systems and how they can best serve Aboriginal people and Aboriginal families and work with government on how we can deliver on those self-determined outcomes so that children and families of Aboriginal people get better outcomes.
Bev McARTHUR: So there are no limits, Minister?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: They are prescribed by legislation, Mrs McArthur.
Bev McARTHUR: Clause 12 outlines that Gellung Warl has the ability to make grants. Given that Gellung Warl is not subject to the directional control of the minister, what kind of oversight would those grants be subject to?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ultimately, Gellung Warl will be subject to the same oversight and accountability measures as is all of government, and that includes things such as the Ombudsman, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and so forth. The usual existing oversight powers will remain for those entities.
Bev McARTHUR: Does that include the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC)?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: They will be subject to the Financial Management Act 1994?
Bev McARTHUR: In clause 13, ‘Gellung Warl not subject to direction or control’, the bill says:
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.
So if the minister cannot control Gellung Warl, who can?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: In a day-to-day functional sense, the minister still administers the act.
Bev McARTHUR: So can you assure us that this makes them accountable for their actions by the minister?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Gellung Warl is subject to the Financial Management Act. There is existing oversight. In the day-to-day function the minister administers the act and under clause 7 Gellung Warl is accountable to Parliament.
Bev McARTHUR: Does this not just make this another arm of government on top of all the other layers of government here in Victoria?
Bev McARTHUR: The bill states repeatedly that:
… Gellung Warl is generative and will continue to evolve as it takes on further powers, functions and responsibilities in relation to First Peoples through the ongoing Statewide Treaty-making process.
As part of this ongoing treaty-making process, will you rule out the possibility of reparation payments being made?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: All legislation, all entities created as part of legislation in this state continually evolve. We see that in our day-to-day operations in this place, and that will continue to remain the case in relation to the evolution of Gellung Warl.
Bev McARTHUR: With great respect, Minister, you have not answered the question. Will you rule out the possibility of reparation payments being made?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The negotiation topics are clearly listed in the treaty negotiation framework, and that is a public document.
Bev McARTHUR: I will take that as a no. Will you rule out having seats reserved in Parliament for those who claim to be Aboriginal?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, Mrs McArthur, the negotiation topics are clearly listed in the negotiation framework for treaty, and that is a public document.
Bev McARTHUR: The bill states:
Each year, the Minister, in consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly and with the Presiding Officers, must determine a sitting day or sitting days on which the First Peoples’ Assembly is to present an annual address to a joint sitting of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly.
It suggests there could be more than one sitting day. Is there any limit to the number of days?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be determined by the presiding officers, Mrs McArthur.
Bev McARTHUR: So it could be on top of the existing sitting calendar, or will this reduce the number of sitting days to pass legislation?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be determined by the presiding officers.
Bev McARTHUR: Will the Parliament be offering any other special sitting days to any other multicultural or representative group in Victoria?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, Mrs McArthur, these are matters for the Parliament and the presiding officers in particular.
Bev McARTHUR: So, Minister, you cannot rule that out.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would not want to speak for the President or the Speaker, Mrs McArthur.
Bev McARTHUR: In the preamble on pages 3 to 4, it states:
The State recognises the importance of this Statewide Treaty and future Treaties proceeding in a manner that is consistent with the principles articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples …
Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
Is the intention of the bill to facilitate the creation of future Indigenous-only political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The purpose of the bill, Mrs McArthur, is to establish treaty and to provide Aboriginal people with the opportunity to make decisions that affect them in a self-determined way.
Bev McARTHUR: Section 3 states that the First Peoples’ Assembly may make substantive rules. The objects of part 4 include:
to empower the First Peoples’ Assembly to make substantive rules … including to make rules that affect First Peoples;
Is it not the case that this bill will lead to different laws applying to different Victorians, depending entirely on their race?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill is only relevant to First Peoples, and its confirmation of Aboriginality is only prescribed in the bill. Let me see.
The assembly of Gellung Warl will have the power to make internal rules which relate to internal affairs and the operation of Gellung Warl and substantive rules about issues that directly affect First Peoples. Substantive rules only apply to First Peoples and First Peoples’ organisations. There is currently only one substantive rule making power set out in the bill, relating to how First Peoples’ organisations issue certificates in relation to confirmation of Aboriginality, as I spoke to before.
Bev McARTHUR: Section 144 establishes automatic appropriations from the Consolidated Fund. Is it not the case that this removes Parliament’s fundamental power to control public spending through the annual budget process?
Bev McARTHUR: What is the government’s justification for excluding the First Peoples’ Assembly from the financial scrutiny that applies equally to every other publicly funded body?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As you said, Gellung Warl will be funded by special appropriation. The bill includes a special appropriation with yearly caps to fund the operation of Gellung Warl and all its entities, and the amount to be appropriated includes costs and expenses incurred in establishing Gellung Warl, operational funding, fixed-term capital expenditure and so forth. Gellung Warl may only spend this funding to fulfil its statutory functions and obligations, and it will obviously be subject to the Financial Management Act and ultimately is accountable to all of the other oversight bodies that we referred to in your earlier line of questioning.
Melina BATH: Minister, I just want to read something that I have from a Kurnai elder, and it starts:
Dear Ms Bath,
Pursuant to Standing Order 9.59 of the Legislative Council, we submit this written request on behalf of the Kurnai Elders and members of the Kurnai Aboriginal Corporation, whose rights, standing, and reputation have been adversely affected by statements …
We respectfully assert the following:
1. Federal Determination of Native Title
The Federal Court of Australia has determined the Kurnai people as the legitimate Native Title holders under the Native Title Act … This determination recognises our enduring rights, identity, and unbroken connection to Country – including land, waters, and heritage.
Ms Drayton goes on to say:
We draw the attention of the House to a critical legal inconsistency between:
- The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic); and
- The 2010 Gunaikurnai Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) registered under the Native Title Act …
While the Settlement Act states that Native Title is not extinguished by the transfer of freehold … to GLaWAC, the 2010 ILUA contradictorily provides that Native Title will be extinguished upon … transfer.
This contradiction goes to the validity of both instruments. As the Native Title Act is a Commonwealth law, section 109 of the Australian Constitution makes it clear that Federal law prevails over any inconsistent State provision.
The Kurnai people never consented to the Settlement process under the State Act. We therefore retain our Federal Native Title rights and interests as determined by the Court. Any exercise of authority … under the Settlement framework must be preceded by free, prior, and informed consent of Kurnai common law holders, in accordance with Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People … and section 203BC of the Native Title Act …
We have not, and will not, provide that consent. This inconsistency, and any administrative decisions flowing from it, should urgently be investigated on both legal and procedural grounds to ensure the supremacy of Federal law and the protection of the Kurnai people’s rights.
Ms Drayton continues:
Truth Telling and Accountability
The ongoing Truth Telling process in Victoria must be grounded in lawful recognition of the true Traditional Owners. It cannot proceed as a political exercise that excludes the voices of those directly affected.
Truth Telling must reflect the lived experiences of dispossession, removal, and exclusion, and not be confined to corporations or agencies operating under State Frameworks without consent. Until the Kurnai people’s lawful and cultural authority is respected, any process claiming to tell the truth remains incomplete and misleading.
We call for parliamentary and ministerial accountability in this respect, including transparent review of policies, agreements, and representations made under the guise of reconciliation or treaty preparation.
Finally:
Harm and Request for Apology
The Minister’s statements have caused significant harm to the dignity, cultural authority, and reputation of Kurnai Elders and people. This harm extends across Gippsland and beyond, damaging trust, reconciliation efforts, and the spirit of self-determination.
Accordingly, we seek:
- A formal statement of correction to the Legislative Council; and
- A public apology to the Kurnai Elders and people for the harm and misrepresentation caused.
We thank you for receiving this submission under Standing Order 9.59 and for your continued advocacy for fairness, accountability, and truth within the Victorian Parliament.
This was submitted on behalf of the Kurnai elders and the Kurnai Aboriginal Corporation. Minister, that was a long and detailed letter, but I wanted to put it on record. In the spirit of reconciliation and on behalf of the Kurnai elders, I ask you to take note of their consideration and that letter.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Ms Bath, for your question. At the outset I would echo my support for the President’s advice yesterday as to the usual process through which to raise such grievances, and it is not the committee stage of a bill. In responding to your contribution just then – and as I said earlier, I stand by my statement on Tuesday – the native title holders for Gunaikurnai country are all people descended from ancestors recognised in the Federal Court judgement of 2010. Those people identify as Gunai or Kurnai and established the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to represent them and hold their native title on trust for them. GLAWAC is inclusive of all native title holders, including the community members that the opposition refers to, and is their decision-making body. The point that the community members the opposition quote make, which is that only Kurnai are native title holders, is incorrect. The court has held that an inclusive group of Gunai and Kurnai people are the traditional owners of that country. The exclusive Kurnai native title case was dismissed by the court. This group is not the authority on things like naming Gellung Warl; GLAWAC is, and they approved the name. I can also quote the official statement of GLAWAC:
The Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation confirms that it considered and approved a request to use Gunaikurnai language in naming the First Peoples’ Treaty representative body, Gellung Warl.
The decision was made through GLaWAC’s recognised cultural and governance processes, guided by the advice of Elders, endorsed through formal decision-making structures and validated by the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages … All such decisions are undertaken with care, respect and oversight, to ensure that cultural integrity is upheld.
As the Registered Aboriginal Party and Traditional Owner Corporation for Gunaikurnai Country, GLaWAC represents a collective voice, while respecting that individuals may hold different perspectives. These matters are governed by clear cultural protocols, and GLaWAC remains committed to its role as the cultural authority for Gunaikurnai people and Country.
I can also, Ms Bath, to assist you, refer you to where the Federal Court has held that Gunaikurnai elders are represented by GLAWAC, and I can also read from the relevant court judgment:
… the Court heard lengthy arguments in relation to the correctness of the composition of the GunaiKurnai claim group when the Kurnai unsuccessfully sought a separate native title determination in Rose on behalf of the Kurnai Clans v State of Victoria [2010] FCA 460 (‘Rose’). Ms Mullett, the applicant for joinder in this proceeding, had been the lead advocate for recognition of the Kurnai as a group separate from the Gunai in Rose. After the 2010 consent determination, the GunaiKurnai claim group combined the names ‘Gunai’ and ‘Kurnai’ in an effort to remove perceptions of difference. In the case at hand, Mortimer J found no reason to depart from the basis of North J’s decision in Rose that the Kurnai formed part of a larger Gunai/Kurnai society.
Sitting suspended 10:51 am until 10:53 am.
Melina BATH: Minister, thank you for your response, but I just want to put on record that in your response you may have inadvertently misled the house, because in your response you claimed that I purport that only the Kurnai elders have responsibility or right to make this or are the only group, and I do not. I just wish them to be recognised. I am not delegitimising one group over another, I am attempting to ask the government to recognise legitimacy of opinion and right. I just put that on record, Minister. I am not attempting to do what you have said, and I just want you to recognise that.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I do not intend to put words in your mouth. I am simply pointing out that GLAWAC is the relevant authority to represent the Gunai and the Kurnai people. Those people who identify as Gunai or Kurnai have the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to represent them and hold their native title on trust for them.
Melina BATH: Thank you, and I will move on from that point at the moment. Minister, you stated before that the minister administers the act, and the act has both enabling and proscriptive legislation. If we look at this in the context of Victorians and Victorians wanting to understand Gellung Warl, can the minister explain how Victorians can hold Gellung Warl to account when it is not subject to ministerial responsibility or Parliament estimates scrutiny? How are Victorians going to have a level of oversight of Gellung Warl?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Gellung Warl is a representative body. It will make self-determined decisions. It is obviously still subject to the Financial Management Act. The relevant minister has responsibility for the administration act. The usual oversight bodies – Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), IBAC, the Ombudsman – all still have oversight responsibilities in relation to this. There is oversight. There is accountability. There is obviously the electoral process. There are community accountability obligations. That is the integrity system. There are statutory reporting and management requirements. Gellung Warl is subject to all the same types of oversight as Victorian public bodies and other comparable entities, like local councils. In particular, Gellung Warl is subject to democratic oversight of its performance of functions and fulfilment of cultural responsibilities through its own elections and the Victorian integrity system, as I outlined; and the statutory obligations under the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 and the statewide treaty implementation requirements. As with any other public entity, there are obviously all of the other oversight and anti-corruption mechanisms that apply, and so it will be subject to significant oversight and accountability.
Melina BATH: Why does the Statewide Treaty Bill not require Gellung Warl to table its annual report in Parliament before public scrutiny, as is the standard practice for other statutory bodies funded by taxpayers?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It does, Ms Bath.
Melina BATH: Can you explain clause 150, on annual reporting obligations?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ms Bath, it appears that clause 150 is fairly self-explanatory and goes to the answer I just previously gave you. Is there anything in particular that you wanted explained from within clause 150 that concerns you?
Melina BATH: No, I will move on. What obligations exist for the government to respond to representations within a timeframe or with a public explanation? What is the government’s requirement to respond to representations?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, I am not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase that, please, and explain what you mean.
Melina BATH: In relation to clauses 76 to around clause 90, and representations to government, what obligations exist for the government to respond to representations within a timeframe?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ms Bath, these clauses are really about a new relationship between government and First Peoples. There is not a legally binding obligation, if that is what you are attempting to extract.
Melina BATH: You have just said that it is a relationship. I just want to understand. What obligations are there? Are there no obligations for the government to respond to representations in a timeframe?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Perhaps it will allay your fears if I say there are no coercive powers. This is about consultation and ensuring that both within Gellung Warl and across government decisions are made in a way that is consultative, that the relationship is reframed as a partnership and that Aboriginal people have the right to self-determination in decisions about them and their families. And as we all know, families all across Victoria do better when they have self-determination in their own lives.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you have said that this treaty – well, the whole process – is subject to IBAC and other oversight bodies. But part 21 of the bill itself would undermine investigations from these bodies, because part 21 of the bill requires integrity bodies like the IBAC, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General to develop cultural safety guidelines and procedures in consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly. If IBAC was investigating the First Peoples’ Assembly, would cultural safety requirements undermine the independence of the investigation? Wouldn’t this mean IBAC has to coordinate its investigation activities with the institution it is investigating?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 as well, to make clear that the Gellung Warl is subject to oversight by IBAC, and the amendments ensure the IBAC act is applied in relation to Gellung Warl in a way that aligns with its independent character and is fit for its unique cultural responsibilities and governance practices.
Bev McARTHUR: But that defies logic, Minister. If they have to comply and develop cultural safety guidelines and procedures in consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly but they are obliged to investigate them within those cultural safety guidelines, it is a contradiction. How could they possibly do that?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The amendments include various replacements of the role of the minister administering the bill, currently the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, in receiving certain information about Gellung Warl from IBAC, with the chairpersons of the assembly of Gellung Warl to ensure that IBAC is providing information to a person with powers to remedy and respond to issues. If the IBAC is going to provide a report to Parliament in relation to it, it must provide an advance copy of that report to the treaty authority. This is a preliminary step in the ability for the treaty authority to dissolve the First Peoples’ Assembly, which it can only do after receipt of a report from IBAC or the Ombudsman. The IBAC must, in consultation with the assembly of Gellung Warl, establish written guidelines and procedures to promote and safeguard cultural safety in how it carries out powers and functions in relation to Gellung Warl. These guidelines and procedures will support the organisational development and practice of cultural safety and cultural competency, including when it is providing oversight of Gellung Warl. But the key point here, Mrs McArthur, is the amendments do not impact the independence of IBAC. The amendments apply the existing scheme of the IBAC act to Gellung Warl. The requirement to make guidelines and procedures in relation to cultural safety are non-binding, such that there is no impact on the discretion of the IBAC as to how it exercises its function. For the avoidance of doubt, which again might allay your fears, Mrs McArthur, the amendments include an express provision that nothing in the section requiring the guidelines and procedures to be made impact the independence of IBAC.
Bev McARTHUR: So if a citizen made a complaint to the Ombudsman about Gellung Warl, the Ombudsman would have to adhere to these cultural safety procedures, obviously. What are the parameters around these cultural safety procedures, and would this compromise the independence of the investigation?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, Mrs McArthur, they are non-binding, but if it helps you understand the bill a little better, the bill amends the Ombudsman Act 1973 to make clear that Gellung Warl is subject to oversight by the Ombudsman. The amendments also ensure the Ombudsman Act is applied in relation to Gellung Warl in a way that aligns with its independent character and is fit for its unique cultural responsibilities and governance practices. Gellung Warl will be subject to the Ombudsman Act as a public body and will therefore be required to engage with the Ombudsman in the same manner as other public authorities. Additionally, an assembly of Gellung Warl members will also be able to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about an administrative action taken by, or an authority when acting on behalf of, an aggrieved person. This also mirrors the ability for a member of Parliament to make a complaint on behalf of an aggrieved person. The amendments do not impact the independence of the Ombudsman; the amendments apply the existing scheme of the Ombudsman Act 1973 to Gellung Warl.
Bev McARTHUR: You are not convincing. Why is the act described as giving effect to a treaty when it is an ordinary statute passed by one Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is an important part of the treaty process here in Victoria, Mrs McArthur.
Joe McCRACKEN: I am going to go back to clause 1. Clause 1(a)(v) empowers Gellung Warl to hold the state government to account. What legal mechanisms underpin this accountability and what remedies exist if the government refuses engagement?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said earlier, Mr McCracken – I am sorry I have been facing this direction, so I am not sure if you were in the house to hear – this is about a new relationship between Aboriginal people and government, and it is an opportunity to recast that relationship in a way in which it is more of a partnership and a way in which Aboriginal people can self-determine decisions that impact them and their families.
Joe McCRACKEN: My question, Minister, just to make it clear is: what legal mechanisms underpin this accountability and what remedies exist if the government – a future government – refuses engagement?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously the role is to provide greater accountability for the state’s actions and impacts on First People in order to help address the disadvantage experienced by First Peoples, as we have discussed. It will also support, as I have said, the enduring transformation of government and of the public service towards a state without institutional racism, discrimination or unconscious bias. It will recommend self-determined and practical solutions. If I turn to the interaction provisions with government, there will be various ways in which information can be requested and various ways in which government and Gellung Warl are held to account.
Joe McCRACKEN: My question was what remedy exists if the government refuses engagement?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said earlier, Mr McCracken, it is non-binding and there are no coercive powers. This is about redefining the relationship in a spirit of removing institutional racism and in a spirit of accepting self-determination as the best way forward. There is a degree of commitment to that process through this legislation, and obviously within Gellung Warl itself, to ensure that works, but ultimately there are no coercive powers.
Joe McCRACKEN: Does the phrase ‘provide for ongoing truth-telling and healing’ in clause 1(a)(iii) import a continuing statutory obligation on the Crown, or is it symbolic?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would have thought that everybody in this place is committed to ongoing truth-telling and that it is, for all of us, something that is more than symbolic.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: On the issue of truth-telling and self-determination, Minister, and based on the response that you have given to my colleague Ms Bath, it appears from what we are putting together here in treaty that only some voices are going to be recognised by this particular assembly and that only some voices are going to be listened to by the government – not others who are born and are descended from Aboriginal people and are not self-proclaiming to be Aboriginal or those who are meeting up and becoming friends with Aboriginal people and being given the opportunity to call themselves Aboriginal – and that those who are genuinely of Aboriginal descent, many of those voices, will be totally dismissed, misheard or not heard at all through this treaty process. Can you explain further how this is going to be more inclusive of all people of Aboriginal descent who are from Victorian communities and countries so that we do not have a situation where we will only listen to the ones for which the government has actually said, ‘We recognise this group, we recognise that group and we recognise this group over here’? Many others who are genuinely descended from and are Aboriginal people and who know what their ancestry is and their community are not being heard. Can you please tell me how we are going to overcome that through this process of treaty that the government is putting together at the moment?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Clause 120 of the bill says that ongoing truth-telling is to be inclusive of all Victorians.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: So given that, why was it that there was the response of a complete dismissal of an Aboriginal person that had written in about their concerns and about their feelings and their priorities from the Gunaikurnai community. It was just ‘Well, we don’t recognise them because they’re not from this particular authority.’ Why was that response given?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: If we want to go back there again, we can, but I stand by my statements on Tuesday and I stand by what I have already read into the Hansard from GLAWAC as the body which approved the name and is the appropriate authority to approve the name. I will let you consider Hansard if you would like to ask that question again, Mrs Hermans.
Joe McCRACKEN: I am going to move on to clause 2(1)(b). Does that envisage further treaties as subordinate instruments or as future acts of Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr McCracken, further treaties can be negotiated. If they require further laws, then that will be a consideration for the Parliament.
Joe McCRACKEN: Sorry, just to make it crystal clear: they will be future acts of Parliament, not subordinate instruments. Is that correct understanding?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Not necessarily, Mr McCracken. Treaties can be negotiated and legislation remains a matter for the Parliament.
Joe McCRACKEN: Clause 2(1)(c) purports to advance the inherent rights of self-determination of First Peoples. How does that align with section 8 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which already applies equally to all persons?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: While several charter rights are relevant to the bill, as outlined in the statement of compatibility, the bill is unlikely to limit any of those rights. Where potentially arguable limits were identified, the statement of compatibility concludes that those limits would be reasonably justified under section 7(2) of the charter.
Joe McCRACKEN: Clause 2(2)(a) references the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria Ltd ACN 636 189 412. Does this create a statutory succession from a private company limited by guarantee to a statutory authority?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is obviously the evolution of the assembly into Gellung Warl, based on the successes of the previous few years.
Joe McCRACKEN: So just to be absolutely clear, that is a yes?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, Mr McCracken, it is the evolution of the assembly into Gellung Warl, based on the successes over the past few years.
Joe McCRACKEN: Clause 2(2)(f) refers to:
… ongoing transfer of decision-making, rule-making, advisory and other powers …
Which existing statutory powers are contemplated for transfer and under what mechanisms: regulation, negotiation or legislative?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The assembly of Gellung Warl must make decisions by at least a majority and will have to follow internal decision-making processes and policies which are required to cover specific matters modelled off state policies to ensure the integrity of the appointment process. The assembly will be empowered to make all appointments of members to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, for example, and an appointment of the designated First Peoples member to the Heritage Council.
Joe McCRACKEN: Sorry, Minister, that is not exactly what I was asking. Under the transfer of power – rule-making, advisory and other powers – which existing statutory powers are contemplated to transfer and under what mechanism: regulation, negotiation or legislative amendment?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: You are hypothesising about future decisions to be made. We are unclear as to what your question is, Mr McCracken.
Joe McCRACKEN: I am happy to clarify. Which existing statutory powers are listed for transfer whether by regulation, legislation or negotiation?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr McCracken, to be clear, the only ones at the current point in time are the ones that I just outlined. Future ones will be subject to negotiation and legislation.
Joe McCRACKEN: I do not think I am going to get a clear answer on that one. Does clause 2 establish any obligation on the state, or are the objects merely interpretive guidelines under section 35(a) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984? It is clause 2 I am talking about in particular.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: In our understanding of your question, Mr McCracken, I would refer you to my previous answers, and perhaps you would like to find a different way to phrase your question if there is something different that you are looking for.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, the preamble of this bill expressly links Victoria’s treaty process to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). I went there before, but can the minister clarify the legal effect of that reference? Does it mean that principles within the United Nations declaration, such as restitution of traditional lands, compensation or self-determination, will have binding force in Victorian law?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The establishment of Gellung Warl is obviously consistent with UNDRIP’s right to self-determination. Gellung Warl will enable First Peoples in Victoria to have a say over matters specifically impacting them, and the establishment of Gellung Warl as an ongoing democratic representative and deliberative body with decision-making powers will enable First Peoples communities to design and deliver practical solutions for their own communities.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, with great respect, you have not answered the question. Does it mean that restitution of traditional lands, compensation or self-determination will have binding force over Victorian law?
Bev McARTHUR: Now I want to go to Nginma Ngainga Wara, the accountability mechanism. Part 9, division 4, clause 103 outlines that this body may conduct an inquiry into institutional racism, discrimination, unconscious bias or a lack of cultural safety. Can you define ‘unconscious bias’ in this context?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This intention relates to the Closing the Gap definitions, and I would refer you there, Mrs McArthur.
Bev McARTHUR: The definition of ‘unconscious bias’, please.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mrs McArthur, as I have said, we are seeking here to establish a body which has self-determination at its core, which has the opportunity to break down systems that include institutional racism and to use these mechanisms to close the gap, and I would refer you to the definitions associated with Closing the Gap.
Bev McARTHUR: Can you give me an example of what unconscious bias might include? What would it look like?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mrs McArthur, this is not an opportunity for me to hypothesise or to make my own reflections, but an opportunity to ask questions that relate directly to the bill. I would ask you to provide me with that, and I would be more than happy to assist you.
Bev McARTHUR: Well, we do need to know what you believe this means. What form would these inquiries take? Would they be open to the public, for example? Would the findings be released to the public?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I also apologise if I do not get this pronunciation correct, but the Nginma Ngainga Wara, the accountability body, can conduct inquiries into structural or systemic matters where those matters relate to, firstly, the government’s performance to achieve the outcomes it has committed to in relation to First Peoples; secondly, institutional racism, unconscious bias or a lack of cultural safety; or thirdly, the implementation of the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s recommendations. Nginma Ngainga Wara, the accountability body, will produce a report on each of its inquiries, which will be provided to the assembly of Gellung Warl. Inquiries, indeed, are an important way that Nginma Ngainga Wara will be able to request information that it needs to ensure its recommendations and proposed solutions are practical and that they are workable.
Nginma Ngainga Wara can hold only one inquiry a year into a particular portfolio area. Further inquiries into the same portfolio area must be agreed to by the relevant minister. Nginma Ngainga Wara is required to comply with all standard principles of natural justice in preparing its reports and recommendations. The assembly will choose if and how it wants to engage with the government on the reports and whether to publish the report. Lastly, in making recommendations, the bill requires that Nginma Ngainga Wara considers budgetary impacts and available resourcing, and that the recommendations are practical and capable of implementation by the Victorian government. This process is intended to be genuinely facilitative and to lead to proposed solutions that can practically improve government and have a positive impact on First Peoples.
Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister, but you have not told us whether they will be made public, whether the findings will be released to the public. Clause 106 says that Nginma Ngainga Wara can conduct an inquiry ‘as it thinks fit’ – as it thinks fit. That is pretty extraordinary, isn’t it? Does not that just give them the ability to run the inquiry in any way they see fit? What protections does the public have that this will not be some form of kangaroo court?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: While the Victorian government is committed to engaging with Nginma Ngainga Wara in good faith to achieve better outcomes for First People, Nginma Ngainga Wara’s ability to request information is not compulsive. It cannot compel the provision of any information. Furthermore, the recommendations and proposed solutions will not create any specific obligation for the Victorian government. As with many other accountability mechanisms, they will be recommendations only, not legally binding orders or requirements and so there are no limitations on forcing government.
Bev McARTHUR: Minister, just to confirm, the inquiries will not be made in public, and the recommendations of the inquiry will not be released to the public. Can you confirm that this is not a public activity in any way, shape or form? It is an internal activity brought about by this organisation but without accountability to the public or this Parliament.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is not exclusively an internal matter. Nginma Ngainga Wara may refer matters to another body if it considers that the other body is better placed to deal with the relevant matter, for example, and the bodies that it can refer things to are listed at schedule 4 in the bill. They include the Auditor-General, IBAC, the Environment Protection Authority and the Ombudsman, for example. It has to engage First Peoples, report annually on activities and report annually on activities in its annual report.
Melina BATH: Minister, in relation to that, you said it can hold one investigation into a portfolio per year. How many portfolios exist in the executive government in state Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have not individually counted them up, Ms Bath. Let me just check.
There are obviously at least 22 ministers. One of us will count up the number of portfolios and provide them to you. But I would say also in response to your question that, as I said, Nginma Ngainga Wara obviously has the constraints of its financial resources and time and other resources with which to conduct inquiries as well. But if your question is how many individual portfolios are in government, we will provide you with that information. I suggest it is probably publicly available.
Melina BATH: I think my count was about 45, but I stand to be corrected by government officials. Is there a cap on inquiries into other statutory bodies or government services? Is there any limitation – and if so, what – for the inquiry arm to inquire into government bodies, organisations or services?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: If you are referring to inquiries conducted by Nginma Ngainga Wara, then my previous answer would remain relevant in terms of their own capacity limitations resources and so forth. If you are referring to inquiries that they might ask of others, again, those inquiries would have to meet those relevant thresholds, but I am not sure if I have correctly anticipated your question.
Melina BATH: I respect the answer that the minister has provided, but indeed there is nothing in this Statewide Treaty Bill that limits I will just say the inquiry arm, the investigative arm, in investigating other statutory bodies and other government services. That is correct, isn’t it? There is no limitation on this body investigating other statutory bodies or government services in their intent.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said earlier, Ms Bath, Nginma Ngainga Wara can conduct inquiries into structural, systemic matters where those matters relate to the government’s performance to achieve the outcomes it has committed to in relation to First Peoples, institutional racism, unconscious bias, a lack of cultural safety or the implementation of the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s recommendations. Nginma Ngainga Wara will produce a report on each of its inquiries, and that will be provided to the assembly of Gellung Warl. It is important to note that inquiries are an important way for Nginma Ngainga Wara to request the information that it needs to ensure its recommendations and proposed solutions are practical and workable, and as I said, it can only hold one per year into a particular portfolio. It is required to comply with all standard principles of natural justice and so forth.
Melina BATH: There could be – and I am just picking literally at random – an investigation based on those criteria into the CFA or the SES or Parks Victoria. The list is long and extensive. You have said that the bill states that the inquiry arm will report back to Gellung Warl as a whole, but can those entities, like the CFA, for example, see that report? Are they able to make a counterclaim for additional information or a response? If there are, say, adverse findings, is there a reciprocal mechanism in this bill for that other entity to respond to the contents of the report if it is not seen by that entity?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This is the accountability mechanism that is needed under the national agreement to close the gap. It is limited by its functions, and procedural fairness is included in the bill.
Melina BATH: We can get on to funding in a little bit, but in terms of the inquiry arm, if this arm for that budget for that year has met and, say, is about to exceed its budget, there is nothing stopping that arm from going to the Treasurer and the Premier or the minister and seeking further funds. There is no cap technically on requesting further funds in order to complete an inquiry that it sees fit.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I indicated in an earlier answer, the accountability body will obviously be constrained by its resources and it can make requests, as all parts of government can, for further appropriations. That goes through its own individual process, which may or may not be successful.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: I would just like to pick up from where Ms Bath was speaking. In part 8, clause 89(3), it says:
The authority or State-funded service provider must respond in writing to the First Peoples’ Assembly within 60 days after receiving any submission or questions, unless a longer period is agreed to by the First Peoples’ Assembly.
What would happen if a longer period is not agreed to, and if the service provider failed to comply with the request within the 60 days?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There are no coercive powers, Mrs Hermans.
Joe McCRACKEN: I am going to focus my questions on clause 4 here, the definitions. Clause 4 defines ‘agency’ and ‘authority’ with reference to the Public Administration Act 2004 but excludes excluded bodies. What is the rationale for excluding integrity agencies such as IBAC and the Auditor-General, given they have an oversight role?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The oversight roles of the integrity agencies continue to apply to Gellung Warl.
Joe McCRACKEN: That was not my question, Minister. I said in clause 4, which are the definitions, you have defined ‘agency’ and ‘authority’. What was the rationale for excluding integrity agencies such as IBAC or the Auditor-General, given they have such a significant oversight role?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The only thing that they are excluded from, Mr McCracken, are the inquiries that are Nginma Ngainga Wara on the basis of protecting the integrity of those inquiries.
Joe McCRACKEN: The definition of First Peoples there includes both traditional owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in Victoria. Does that definition extend rights to non-traditional owners domiciled in the state, and how are residents verified for the electoral purposes?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, Mr McCracken, could you repeat your question?
Joe McCRACKEN: It says the definition of ‘First Peoples’ includes both traditional owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in Victoria. Does this definition extend rights to non-traditional-owners domiciled in the state, and how is residence verified for electoral purposes?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: My advice, Mr McCracken, is First Peoples who are non-Victorian traditional owners are eligible to vote in elections of general seat members if they have been residing in Victoria for at least three of the last five years. The assembly is answerable to all First Peoples in Victoria through its democratic nature, community governance and answerability framework and its cultural obligations and responsibility. The establishment of Gellung Warl and the assembly in particular provides a formal mechanism through which First Peoples in Victoria will be able to exercise their right to self-determination and provides a means by which First Peoples can raise and address issues relevant to Victorian First Peoples within the state. First Peoples living in Victoria can obviously vote in that process. While there are restrictions on the membership of the assembly, these matters reflect outcomes negotiated with the First Peoples’ Assembly, being the representative and deliberative body with authority to negotiate on behalf of First Peoples with the state. The assembly is nevertheless answerable to First Peoples through its democratic nature, as I said.
Joe McCRACKEN: The last one I questioned there I do not think I got a response to. How is residence verified for electoral purposes?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Address, as usual – electoral rolls, Mr McCracken.
Joe McCRACKEN: The term ‘State government’ is defined to exclude the judiciary and the Parliament. Does that imply that Gellung Warl may not make representations to Parliament under part 7 except by invitation?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: They are excluded so that they maintain their independence, Mr McCracken. But as we discussed, I think before you were in the chamber, they can be invited by the Presiding Officers.
Joe McCRACKEN: Clause 4 defines ‘substantive rule’ and ‘internal rule’. Are such rules legislative instruments under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, and if so, will they be subject to disallowance by either house under section 23 of the act?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes.
Joe McCRACKEN: Does the inclusion of ‘Treaty Authority’ within the definitions cross-reference correctly to section 6 of the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Act 2022, or does it risk interpretive inconsistency if that act is later amended?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As it stands, Mr McCracken, if one piece of legislation was amended that had an impact on another then that would be considered obviously in the drafting and consideration of future legislation.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: I have just got some questions about the First Peoples’ Assembly and its function. I realise that comes in later in part 3, clause 18(1). But I wondered, in terms of curriculum, what will be involved with truth-telling in the Victorian curriculum? Is it going to involve criticisms of our constitutional monarchy, our flag or our Westminster Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, what is the question, Mrs Hermans?
Ann-Marie HERMANS: What will be involved with truth-telling in the Victorian curriculum? Is it going to involve criticisms of our constitutional monarchy, our flag or our Westminster Parliament?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: For the benefit of the house, Mrs Hermans, truth-telling is telling the truth about the history of Australia.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: Obviously in terms of truth, we have two truths about the actual name of some things and how people feel about that. Truth has different perspectives, so truth-telling does not mean telling one perspective at the expense of not giving all the information and all perspectives. I do not feel that the answer is actually very substantial or helpful. What assurances will the minister be giving that the geographical places will not be renamed without full public consultation in line with the guidelines of the Geographical Place Names Act 1998?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I will pick up your comment first before I answer your question, but to reinforce: there is always one truth. There might be different feelings and interpretations and perspectives on that, but truth-telling involves the telling of the truth. In relation to your specific question, the assembly of Gellung Warl will become a naming authority only for specified geographic features located on state-controlled land, and these features are limited to waterways, waterfalls and national and state parks. It will be able to put forward proposals for new names for those features. As the naming authority, the assembly of Gellung Warl must operate within the state’s existing systems for place naming and must be compliant with the existing legislation and frameworks for naming proposal it puts forward. This will require the assembly of Gellung Warl to undertake community engagement as part of any naming proposal it puts forward or considers. Like all naming authorities, the assembly of Gellung Warl cannot unilaterally make decisions on place-naming proposals, which must be registered by the Registrar of Geographic Names. In Victoria we have statutory requirements for naming roads, features and localities, which are commonly referred to as the naming rules, and the naming rules uphold the guidelines in the Geographic Place Names Act 1998. All institutions which are able to prepare naming proposals under the relevant legislation must submit names to the Registrar of Geographic Names and follow a clear process, including community consultation, regarding any changes proposed.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: But that does not give us the assurance that there will be a full public consultation in line with those guidelines. I am aware that a lack of consultation has taken place in areas where I live, and it has caused tremendous anxiety. I will say that even the Aboriginal consultation that was definitely limited, and I would like to think it was not coerced. What will be involved with cultural competency training for public service staff? What would be the consequences for a staff member who refuses to participate in this training?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The assembly of Gellung Warl, Mrs Hermans, can make non-binding guidelines and standards in carrying out its statutory functions, including two express matters in the bill: promoting and safeguarding cultural safety and the sharing and trading of First Peoples’ existing water entitlements. The substantive question that you raised fits into, obviously, the former.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: If a staff member, though, felt that some of the competency training that was being provided was not something that they felt that they could participate in, what would be the consequences for a staff member who refused to participate in this training? Would that be considered to be a form of measurement or detection of unconscious bias? Because we still do not have a way of measuring or detecting unconscious bias in the information that you have given us.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, Mrs Hermans, Gellung Warl can make guidelines. These guidelines will be non-binding and optional.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: In terms of the unconscious bias and where that may take us, how are we going to have terms that are reasonable in terms of the way that that will be dealt with? If we are going to allow the assembly to determine unconscious bias, will we be given a definition of what that is going to look like so that people are aware that this is how this will be detected?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, the assembly will make non-binding guidelines and standards in carrying out its statutory functions, including on two express matters, one of which is cultural safety. The guidelines will be non-binding and optional, and they will obviously be shared with those to whom the guidelines apply.
Melina BATH: I just want to retrace some steps in relation to some of the questions that Mr McCracken was asking in relation to First Peoples that can come from other states. As long as they have lived in the state of Victoria for three out of five years, they can be eligible to come on the Gellung Warl First Peoples’ Assembly, or Gellung Warl electoral roll – so that is in the bill. The other part that is in the bill is that if you are 16 years old, you can vote. That is different to the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission, in that you need to be 18 years old in order to vote. Can the government explain this differential, and what safeguards are provided for those younger people who are not registered as adults yet, who are not yet 18, so that there will be both cultural safety and safety from influence afforded to them?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The electoral rules mirror the current assembly electoral rules, which allow First Peoples who are 16 or older to vote, as the assembly seek to include both youth and elder voices in their current structure. The electoral rules have been designed to preserve as much of the current assembly structures as possible, building on the successes of the previous years and limiting impact on current membership. If the bill were to raise the voting age to 18, this would obviously negatively impact and disenfranchise a section of the assembly voting population and undermine the successes of the previous years. Gellung Warl electoral rules established by this bill do not have, obviously, any effect on either state or Commonwealth electoral rules or regulations.
Melina BATH: Minister, if we combine the fact that you can be in the state for three out of five years – we will say the last three years – and that you have to be 16 years old, is it such that the bill enables somebody who moved into the state of Victoria when they were 13 years old from Far North Queensland and is now 16 is eligible to vote for First Peoples’ Assembly elections, where there are millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds every year that would be considered and internally distributed as the Gellung Warl sees fit?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ms Bath, 16-year-olds who meet the other requirements to be eligible to enrol to vote will obviously enrol to vote. This is obviously in line with the successes of the assembly in recent years, which includes 16-year-olds being able to vote. To turn around and now say that 16-year-olds would not be allowed to vote would cause them to be disenfranchised.
Melina BATH: But the status at play exists that somebody can have been 13 years old, move into this state from a different state – from Far North Queensland, far Western Australia or wherever – and then turn 16 and be eligible to vote. That is the reality of this bill. The other point that you raised in your contribution just then is that if the bill did not contain that set and people had to be 18 years old in order to vote, it would diminish the pool of people who are in the current pool of electors. What I want to understand is how many are in the pool already, and how many people can vote in the elections for the First Peoples’ Assembly?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The assembly’s 2024 annual report stated that more than 8000 Aboriginal community members are enrolled to vote with the assembly. The Victorian government does not track the number of Aboriginal Victorians that vote in state elections, for example. The assembly’s electoral roll is an independent electoral roll which the state does not administer. However, the assembly’s 2024 annual report stated that there were more than 8000, as I said.
Melina BATH: I appreciate that response. Does the government know how many of that 8000 voted in the 2023 elections?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The assembly’s electoral roll is an independent electoral roll which the state does not have access to.
Melina BATH: So there is no oversight to see whether from the government point of view or from a minister for First Peoples point of view there is no oversight to understand how many of those 8000 people on the electoral roll – the internal electoral roll, separate to the VEC – voted for the First Peoples’ Assembly?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The assembly has a strong and growing voter turnout, as we understand. Since its first election in 2019, the assembly has more than tripled its roll, and the 2023 election saw a 200 per cent increase in votes cast, with more than 7000 people participating.
Melina BATH: You have just said a 200 per cent increase. What was that in real terms, in numbers, and what was the original percentage in in numbers, Minister – if you have got those numbers for us?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I am a social services minister because I cannot do the numbers that quickly in my head. I need a calculator, Ms Bath. But, as I said, since its first election in 2019 it has more than tripled its roll. There was a 200 per cent increase. The state does not hold the electoral roll, and the assembly does not publish exact voter turnout figures in their annual report. But I am sure we can provide a breakdown by making that calculation for you.
Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.