Thursday, 2 April 2026

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:51): I move:

That the following changes to standing orders take effect from next sitting week:

(1)   omit all the words and expressions in standing order 14.06(1)(c) and replace with ‘will table any statements required by an Act of Parliament and the statements will be incorporated in Hansard;’; and

(2)   omit all the words and expressions in standing order 14.07(1)(d) and replace with ‘will table any statements required by an Act of Parliament and the statements will be incorporated in Hansard;’.

Just to make a few remarks on these changes to the standing orders, this is a motion that supports parliamentarians to enact one of the obligations that we signed up to when the Parliament passed the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025. It was that members of Parliament who introduce a bill to Parliament must prepare a statement of treaty compatibility to be presented before the second-reading speech. Tabling a statement of treaty compatibility is an important step forward to allow members of Parliament to assess the impacts of any proposed laws on First Peoples before voting on such laws. The statement will set out details of consultation, if any, with the assembly of Gellung Warl and an assessment of whether the bill is compatible with certain objects. It is very similar to the obligation to prepare a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities assessment, which by now everyone is very familiar with. This change is to respond to the fact that First Peoples have historically not been consulted or had their views heard on issues that directly impact them. We have learned about this history from the Yoorrook Justice Commission, and we apologised for this history. Treaty is about how we can make sure the past does not happen again.

It is important to point out that the statement of treaty compatibility does not take away anyone’s rights. It simply supports the Parliament to make better-informed decisions that are in the best interests of all Victorians, including First Peoples. The statement of treaty compatibility will not mean First Peoples get a greater influence on lawmaking. This is a procedural requirement on the relevant member of Parliament. It does not require that the views of the assembly of Gellung Warl are implemented; nor does it require the legislation to align with any criteria in relation to First Peoples’ rights. All that is required is for the relevant member to explain whether and how a bill is consistent or not with the assembly of Gellung Warl’s views and whether the bill is compatible or not with advancing First Peoples’ rights and addressing disadvantage experienced by First Peoples. This of course mirrors the current requirement for a statement of compatibility under the charter. As I said, this will ensure that First Peoples’ rights, alongside the human rights of all Victorians, are considered in the legislative process. It builds on an existing process for consultation with the community that may be affected by legislation. It does not take away the ability of other parts of the community to be heard on any legislative reform.

As I have outlined, this change to the standing orders is technical in nature – a result of the passage of the treaty bill. It is a procedural motion. It is not about reprosecuting the merit of the treaty act. It is simply supporting the Parliament to make better-informed decisions that are in the best interests of all Victorians. The motion is about recognising that the best solutions come from those who live the experience and that when Aboriginal people have a real say the outcomes are better for everyone, because treaty unites; it does not divide.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:55): In relation to the amendment to standing order 62, the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this motion. In fact we will stand up and oppose this motion. We do not need to reprosecute something that we have spent days and hours prosecuting, but it would be untenable for us, noting our position, noting our opposition to treaty, to let this slide through. This change to the standing orders requires every bill brought into the Parliament for consideration to have a statement of treaty compatibility. What is being proposed here is not just a minor procedural adjustment, it represents a fundamental shift in how legislation is scrutinised and developed by the Parliament. By requiring a statement of treaty compatibility for every bill, it elevates it to the same level of status and operational footing as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities encompasses all Victorians equally. It looks at all Victorians and assesses the merits of that charter on every single individual, irrespective of where they originally come from, their age, gender, faith or whatever. It is absolutely fair across the board. This charter requires a bill to be assessed against a defined set of rights, invites legal interpretation and increasingly shapes how legislation is drafted, debated and, in some cases, challenged. This motion would replicate that model, the model of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. In practical terms, the treaty becomes a standing lens through which all legislation must pass, regardless of its intent or subject matter.

Our concern about this motion is that the treaty more broadly embeds a broad and still-evolving framework across all legislation. The charter of human rights contains defined rights that have been tested and interpreted over time, whereas the treaty principles are still being developed. The Liberals and Nationals have opposed the treaty, and we continue to do so on this motion. This motion would give them immediate and universal application. It creates uncertainty for departments, for stakeholders and for the Parliament itself. It also risks the balance of legislative scrutiny. It embeds a structural requirement across the entire legislative framework without first demonstrating how it will operate in practice, what thresholds there are and how conflicts and inconsistencies will be resolved. We do not support creating an overarching framework that applies universally across all legislation and alters the way this Parliament functions without clear safeguards.

Our position on treaty has been consistent all through the debate on the Statewide Treaty bill. We believe we need to ensure that democracy is consistent right across the board, across all Victorians. We do not support measures that undermine our system or our government or democracy. In concluding my brief remarks, this is an important consideration. This government is pushing forward, as it has the right to do, and we are pushing back, as we have a right to do.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:58): I rise to speak strongly in support of this motion that has been put forward by the Treasurer. The Greens very much welcome this step, which is essentially implementing a commitment that was made as part of the treaty act that has passed this Parliament already. This is the government actually just following through and doing what has already been committed to. But I think it is more than just simply ticking a box. I think this will be a really valuable addition to our bill process. What it really gets to is accountability. This government has committed to implementing treaty, and it has made commitments around ensuring that all the decisions-making by this Parliament will consider the impact on First Nations people.

One of the ways that we can hold the government to account on this is to ensure that any bill that is presented to this Parliament has considered, and explicitly explains how it has considered, whether it is consistent with treaty and the obligations required under treaty. Contrary to some of the remarks that were made by Ms Bath, it does not actually require any change in that bill, it simply requires whoever has created the bill to consider treaty and also explain whether it is or is not consistent with treaty. So it does not force the bill to be consistent with treaty, but I hope that in a sense it does, because by having to consider treaty I think it may actually and hopefully will create a moment of pause sometimes before a bill is brought to this chamber and at times maybe cause it to go back to the drawing board to consider, ‘Hang on a second. We didn’t consider treaty, we didn’t consider First Peoples, and we need to.’

There have been a number of bills that have come through this place – and I do not need to go through what they were, but particularly in the justice space – where I am almost certain that if this requirement had been in place you would find that these bills would not have been consistent with treaty, and a statement that said that would have had to be produced. We know that some of these bills were not consistent with the charter of human rights, which is also a requirement that we currently have, but at least there would be that level of transparency and scrutiny. And as I said, I would hope that in some instances it would cause the government to take stock and think, ‘Hang on a second. We have committed to treaty; this legislation isn’t consistent with treaty, maybe this isn’t something we should be putting forward.’

So we are very, very supportive of this move, and I hope we see more of this. In the long run, I think what hopefully it will mean is that in the development of a bill, before you even get to the end point and have to fill out the statement of compatibility, you have been thinking about treaty and First Peoples from the very inception and the very beginnings of the formation of the bill. Instruments like this help to do that. Just as we like to see consideration of other human rights about things – we have embedded gender equity principles in budgeting now – the whole reason for doing this is to ensure that we are addressing systemic inequities and imbalances in the way that decisions are made. By forcing some sort of consideration of them in the process, hopefully what we can end up with is better and fairer laws. But at the very least what this will do is provide some greater transparency and accountability, and as I said, we are strongly supportive of it.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:03): I rise to speak on the standing order presented by Minister Symes, and I do so with a heavy heart for history but a resolute spirit for our collective future. I of course begin by acknowledging that we are on the sacred and unceded lands of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung people, and to their elders past and present I offer my deep respects. In this place of power we must recognise that for generations First Peoples across Victoria fought to keep their connection to country alive, often in the space of really deliberate efforts to break it. I carry that history with me today, honouring the strength and resilience of the oldest living culture here on earth.

We stand here in a place of rich history and culture, not just of parliamentary tradition but tens of thousands of years of human connection, lore and story that were built into this place long before the columns were built. Treaty is not merely a policy, it is one of the most significant pieces of reconciliation legislation that this government or any government in this nation has ever passed. In fact we are making history as the first jurisdiction in Australia to move beyond rhetoric and into a tangible framework of First Nations treaty. For over 200 years my people have suffered unimaginable pain – a pain that is not from a single event in history but a continuous wave that still ricochets through our communities today. It is seen in the health outcomes of our children, the overincarceration of our men and women and the persistent gaps in life expectancy, and it is a direct result of a silence that has lasted two centuries. For over a decade the Allan Labor government has worked tirelessly with First Nations communities across our state and their representative bodies to give Victorians a voice that they have been denied. This has not been a top-down process – this is important for the chamber to know – it has been a grassroots movement built on the sweat and tears of elders who pledged their life’s effort to see this day and the tireless energy of young leaders who refuse to let the future look like the past.

I just need to say that for too long our existence has been ignored or, worse, treated as a problem. I have spoken about treaty at every opportunity before this chamber and reaffirmed many times that our lands were taken and destroyed under a fiction known as terra nullius. Our sacred sites, places of significance, were renamed to honour colonisers who never understood their significance. That is why every single bill that comes before us has to consider treaty and must consider the significance of that legislation.

I can say that this is not part of a sad history. What we have seen is a deliberate ruin of a culture that is the oldest continuing culture on earth, but we certainly were not going to stop. You see, treaty gives the First Peoples of Victoria a voice, something that was considered a privilege or a political gift until very recently, but in reality it is a right. As we move towards a brighter future we are forced to continue to contend with the shadows of the past. I have seen the lies and the disinformation and the poisonous brand of hate spread across Victoria from those opposite. I have heard tired tropes about my people – that treaty is an attack on democracy, that it is a distraction, that it creates division – and I find it deeply cynical that they have pledged to destroy the treaty process as an election promise for this coming November.

They are promising to tear down a bridge that took countless years to build. This is not just an attack on Aboriginal Victorians. It is an attack on the moral fabric of Victoria. It is an attempt to drag us back to a time of paternalism and silence. I am profoundly disappointed that those opposite have so openly shared their disregard for First Nations self-determination. To the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, I really am truly astounded by her behaviour. Not too long ago she stood on the steps of this Parliament and accepted the invitation of our elders to walk through the smoke and accept their warm words of welcome. She applauded the former co-chairs of the First Peoples’ Assembly. She smiled at the cameras. She shook hands. She posed with the elders and the leaders and she performed the role of a supporter when the cameras were rolling, but now, in the light of political opportunism, Jess Wilson seeks to destroy their selfless and dedicated work. The member for Kew does this all in the service of a blatant appeasement of One Nation. You call it a treaty of division, but the only division taking place is created by your words. You are driving a wedge between Victorians for the sake of a few points in the polls.

The recent South Australian election has come up many times this week, but it has left many of us celebrating and with high hopes. But it serves as a warning for the challenges ahead. We have seen how One Nation and its affiliates have leaned into a strategy of misinformation, particularly regarding First Nations legislation in Parliament. They have weaponised fear and spread falsehoods about secret costs and special rights to fracture the community. With the Victorian state election looming this November we cannot afford for these divisive tactics to come here. We champion the truth and dismantle these deceptive narratives right now or we are at risk of letting misinformation dictate our collective future.

Let us clear the air of the misinformation that we are going to hear. Treaty is an agreement. At the core of it, and in its entirety, it is a modern, mature agreement between this Parliament and Aboriginal Victorians to make changes that improve the lives of all Victorians. History shows us that when we support the most vulnerable and when we empower the marginalised, the entire community is uplifted. Let us be explicit for those that are fed on a diet of fear: it is not about anything being taken away from anyone. No-one is losing their home. It does not change the constitution. We are working within the robust framework of Victorian law. It does not create a third chamber. I have heard it many times.

This is a persistent myth designed to scare people into thinking their democratic vote is being diluted, and it simply is not. It does not take private property away from our farmers. We need to acknowledge that our agricultural community is vital to Victoria, and treaty seeks to work with landowners, not against them. It does not affect access to parks or public land. In fact I have worked with traditional owners who see their value in land management continue when it comes to parks, particularly in the face of bushfire risks.

Let me just say: treaty is not about making laws for Victorians but with Victorians. It is about a partnership.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Order! Ms Watt to continue without assistance.

Sheena WATT: For 200 years consultation meant being told what was going to happen to us. Treaty changes that dynamic. It ensures that when policies are made about health, education and our land, we are at the table not as a courtesy but as a partner. This standing order change means that treaty is considered in every single piece of legislation. The statement of treaty compatibility is the essential first step of the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 to be enacted. To a layperson, this might sound like some bureaucratic detail, but its importance cannot be overstated. It is not a mere pledge. It is a formal statement of accountability. It requires every member of this Parliament, when introducing a bill, to declare whether that legislation is compatible with rights enjoyed by all Victorians.

Members interjecting.

Jacinta Ermacora: On a point of order, Acting President, it is difficult to hear properly and respectfully with the racket and the goings-on.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): In light of the fact that I previously asked for quiet in the chamber, I uphold the point of order. Ms Crozier! Ms Watt to continue without assistance.

Sheena WATT: I cannot overstate my profound disappointment that this motion is not being supported by those opposite, because at its heart it is a procedural motion, a necessary mechanism of the law we have already committed to. It is a desperate distraction. While we are trying to do the heavy lifting of history, this generation right now in this Parliament, those opposite are playing with their friends at the fringes, attempting to derail progress, derail reconciliation and derail something that has taken generations to get here.

The member for Brighton – I heard his comments this morning, and the truth is that they were a masterclass in misinformation. His words only serve to highlight his own ill-informed view of the tireless work of government to ensure that every Victorian is cared for. Those opposite like to pretend that we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, to suggest that focusing on treaties somehow distracts from the immediate needs of the community. It is a false choice. It is a lazy political tactic, and I am calling it for just what it is. I can list all the things that we have done this week. We have spoken about it in this place, I have seen it on the doors, I have read the releases, the calls that have come into my offices – it is extraordinary, including only today all the food relief programs that are going out there. To suggest that treaties are a distraction is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of Parliament. We are here to govern for the now. We are here to heal the wounds of the past. We must and we should do both, and we can do both. We need to stop using the cost of living as a shield to hide your discomfort with racial justice and racial equality. Victorians deserve a Parliament that can care for their wallets and their conscience at the same time.

This provides transparency and consistency in every piece of legislation. For centuries First Nations people have been left out of the room. What this does is says that in the past legislation has been passed that decimated our families and erased our rights, and this is changing because the statement of treaty compatibility is an assurance. It is an assurance that Aboriginal Victorians have oversight into legislation that affects them. It is an assurance that the Aboriginal perspective is no longer an afterthought, a footnote, an ‘Oh, we’ll get to that later’. It is an assurance that when legislation directly affects Victorians, it is held accountable in the very place that has historically and purposefully left First Nations people out. When we look back on this moment in years to come, whether it the original passage of the bill or the steps that we have moved today to implement it, I know what side of history I want to be on, and I know what side we will be on here. I will not be remembered as someone who tried to block the path to healing every single chance that they could.

To the opposition, which wants to fight an election on fear, tell Victorians that there is not enough to go around and that if First Peoples get a voice, others have to lose theirs: this is a lie. Rights are not a pie. If you give some to those who have none; it does not mean that there are less for you. We are a state that prides ourselves on progress. We led the way on so many things, whether it was the eight-hour day, the secret ballot or the social reforms that the rest of the country eventually followed. We now lead the way on treaty. To use First Nations people as a political football – shame on you. Your rhetoric is damaging, and it will not stop the momentum of justice.

Last year was a celebration of all Victorians. It was a moment when the invisible became visible. My heart goes out to so many on the long list of mob and allies, whether it is the work of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, the First Peoples’ Assembly, the former ministers, my colleagues – thanks for standing with us. It is true that you have to fight for change, and treaty is no different. To the First Peoples of Victoria: we see you, we hear you, we are walking this path with you, we are resolute, we are firm and we are not stopping. To all Victorians – and I mean all Victorians: treaty is for you too. It is for a future where we walk together, proud of our history – and the whole history – and confident in our shared future . Every single piece of legislation that will come before this place will reaffirm that. I commend this motion.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:17): I rise to speak on this Labor government motion to amend standing order 62. In doing so I want to take exception to the interjection from Ms Shing, who raised the issue of the Voice. Unlike Ms Shing, we have listened to the people of Victoria, who voted in a majority not to have the Voice.

Harriet Shing: Jess Wilson voted yes.

Bev McARTHUR: And she listened to the people of Victoria. You have failed to listen to the people of Victoria. Let me tell you that the booth in my electorate that had the highest proportion of ‘no’ voters was the booth –

Sarah Mansfield: On a point of order, Acting President, the motion does not speak about the federal referendum on the Voice, so I am just wondering if we could get back to the motion.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, Acting President, Ms Shing’s contribution was wideranging around the rights and a whole range of things, with interjections. I think Mrs McArthur has every right to bring into the debate exactly what Victorians voted for, and that was against the Voice.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I also mentioned that Ms Bath used to support treaty and was on her feet in this place supporting treaty and that a number of those opposite have supported treaty. I would also take issue with a number of comments, a number of interjections, which I consider to be grossly unparliamentary, including that Ms Crozier referred to the comments being made by Ms Watt as ‘gaslighting’.

Members interjecting.

Harriet Shing: You have just repeated those allegations now, and you have just said ‘diddums’ when Ms Watt was on her feet talking about longstanding injustice for the oldest continuous culture on earth. It has been an absolutely disgraceful display from you this afternoon.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Minister Shing, that is not a point of order.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, Acting President, it is not a point of order. We can interject. Mrs McArthur needs to go back to her contribution. I suggest you ask her to do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I uphold Dr Mansfield’s original point of order, and I will ask Mrs McArthur to continue her contribution through the Chair.

Bev McARTHUR: I was saying that the booth that had the highest proportion of ‘no’ votes in Victoria was in Framlingham – the highest percentage of Aboriginal Indigenous population in this state, so I rest my case. I take exception also to the contribution that Ms Watt made where she castigated Leader of the Opposition Jess Wilson, who listened to the people of Victoria, unlike your government, and spoke against the treaty. I believe in reconciliation grounded in honesty, equality and shared purpose.

Members interjecting.

Sheena Watt: On a point of order, Ms Crozier just again referred to my remarks as gaslighting, and I ask that she withdraw it, please.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Ms Crozier, I ask you to withdraw those comments.

Georgie CROZIER: For the purposes of this debate and for Mrs McArthur to be able to put her point of view, I withdraw.

Bev McARTHUR: This proposal is not about reconciliation. It is separation written into the standing orders of Parliament, and we oppose it. It creates a second political gatekeeper. If every bill must be tested for treaty compatibility and negotiated with a separate body, Parliament is no longer the sole lawmaking institution in practice. It undermines the principle of equal citizenship. Laws should be made by one Parliament for one people, not filtered through separate structures based on ancestry. It moves Victoria towards two separate systems of governance. That is precisely the problem many of us warned about from the start: not reconciliation but separation. It weakens Parliament’s sovereignty.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Mrs McArthur to continue, without assistance.

Bev McARTHUR: As I was saying, it weakens parliamentary sovereignty. Members of Parliament are elected by all Victorians and accountable to all Victorians. An unelected or separately elected advisory body should not have a privileged role in the making of every law. It embeds permanent division into the legislative process. Once every bill must be assessed through a treaty lens, identity becomes a standing feature of governance rather than something that unites us as equal citizens. It risks causing legal and procedural uncertainty. Can we really define what ‘sufficient consultation’ is or what ‘treaty compatibility’ actually means? If not, the result will be delay, confusion and constant argument. As a result it hands more power to lawyers, activists and bureaucrats. This would not improve life for disadvantaged people on the ground. It would create another process class living off consultation, interpretation and compliance. Can we be certain it will not delay urgent legislation? In a crisis, Parliament should be able to act decisively for the whole state. Mandatory negotiation laws would make government slower, more cumbersome and less responsive.

It gives special process rights to one group of Victorians over every other group. Farmers, small businesses, migrants, pensioners and regional communities all live with the laws Parliament passes, but none would have this entrenched procedural veto point. It rests on weak democratic legitimacy. The treaty process has never enjoyed a clear, enthusiastic mandate from the Victorian public, yet its advocates keep trying to lock it into the machinery of government. It will not remain merely symbolic. Supporters always present these mechanisms as modest or procedural, but once embedded they become precedents for broader claims, broader obligations and greater institutional power. It is self-defeating politically. The more the treaty process is used to privilege one structure in the passage of every law, the more it alienates ordinary Victorians who believe in fairness, equality and one standard for all. The whole idea rests on a contradiction. It claims to promote unity but requires division. It claims to respect democracy but dilutes parliamentary authority. It claims to be all about reconciliation but entrenches separation. As I said when we debated this previously, Victoria does not need every bill dragged through a second, identity-based approval process. We need one Parliament, one law and one standard of citizenship for every citizen. By requiring a statement of treaty compatibility for every bill, this proposal elevates treaty principles to the same operational footing as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Our concern about this motion, among others, is that with treaty more broadly it embeds a broad and still evolving framework across all legislation without clear limits. That creates uncertainty for departments, for stakeholders and for the Parliament itself. It also risks shifting the balance of legislative scrutiny.

Our position has been consistent. We do not believe the treaty to deliver outcomes for First Nations Victorians. We are true believers in our democracy and our system of government. We do not support measures that undermine our system of government and our democracy. We do not support measures that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year without a single outcome tied to that funding. We do support practical measures that deliver real outcomes for First Nations communities.

In conclusion, Labor’s priorities are clearly misguided. Victorians across the state are being hit by significant cost-of-living impacts, particularly the huge spikes in fuel prices. Too many Victorians are being forced to choose whether to go to the supermarket or fill up the car. That is why it is so insulting that the government is choosing to focus on the treaty today rather than focusing on easing the cost-of-living pressure for Victorians, particularly families going into the school holidays. They are choosing not to focus on all Victorians today or on how they can be supported during this fuel crisis. The Allan Labor government’s priorities are absolutely wrong. We will oppose this motion and so should others. It is a disgrace that you are doing this, and we oppose it wholeheartedly.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:27): I came into this debate seeing this as a fairly procedural idea, but after hearing the government’s and the Greens’ contributions I am fairly convinced that it is a terrible idea. If I said, ‘I’m going to pick a particular group based on the colour of their skin, and I’m going to have every piece of legislation that goes through Parliament go to them and we’re going to decide whether or not they’re happy with it’, it would be outrageous if I did that. That would be absolutely outrageous. Yet that is exactly what this government is doing with this statement of compatibility, elevating it to the same level as the charter. I have got no problems with the charter – the charter is a tick-box exercise in any case – but this idea of having a particular racial group have all legislation assessed against whether or not they like it or whether or not it is compatible with treaty is just wrong. It is just wrong. It undermines a fundamental principle of Western democracy of equality under law.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, we do live under a Western system, and I am proud of our Western system. I think that the institutions that we have inherited are well worth defending, and I intend to keep defending them. We will not be intimidated by the government, no matter how much –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Order! There have been a lot of interjections. Mr Limbrick, please continue your contribution through the Chair, and I would ask that the chamber not assist.

David LIMBRICK: Victorians are sick of being browbeaten and intimidated by the government. That time is over. We are not scared of the government anymore. People are willing to stand up and say, ‘No, we don’t want to do this.’ I think that having this racial divide integrated into our Parliament is wrong. It undermines a fundamental principle, and we should oppose it.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (15:29): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this debate – although, for what should be a procedural debate, it is rather disappointing where we find ourselves in this place.

Bev McArthur: You thought you would just slip it through.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: To pick up on Mrs McArthur’s interjection, I will perhaps start where she left off, which was her reflections on proposing that the Parliament should be talking about things like cost-of-living services for Victorians, particularly vulnerable Victorians. In recognition of the times and the state of the world in which we find ourselves and the very real implications of that here at home, it is disappointing that this debate has been reduced to the state it has on something that should be a procedural matter. If it were not for those opposite, we would be able to return to the very things that you speak of, Mrs McArthur. It is also extremely disappointing for me. Indeed if only I could wave a magic wand. It is Holy Week and it is Holy Thursday and for me the conclusion of the Lenten period and, moving into the celebration of Easter on the weekend, the conclusion of a time of reflection and reconciliation. That we find ourselves having –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Order! The minister will continue without assistance.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That we find ourselves having such an appalling debate from my perspective on Holy Thursday as we go into Good Friday, when I would expect – or hope perhaps – that there would be a spirit of brotherhood and solidarity around this place and in our community, is extremely disappointing.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I find Ms Crozier’s interjections extremely offensive.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: If I may, Ms Crozier, everyone has listened to the debate from those opposite, and as I have indicated –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Acting President, I would appreciate your assistance here. If people want to continue to have this debate, then we should be allowed to have it without the rudeness from those opposite.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I remind all members that this is a procedural debate, and I am going to again ask for the speaker to be afforded the opportunity to speak without interjection.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Acting President. Today’s debate speaks to the very choice that Victorians will have when it comes to this November. It is a choice that is extremely important for all Victorians, and it is a choice about who is on the side of all Victorians. Those opposite, when they are not mismanaging things like their own preselection processes let alone reducing themselves to a debate like this, are seeking in this place to stoke division. What we are simply trying to do here is enact the very legislation that was passed by this chamber last year. We are not relitigating the legislative debate right now, we are seeking to move a procedural motion that gives rise to the enaction of the very legislation that this Parliament voted for. Mrs McArthur spoke at length –

Richard Welch interjected.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: You may have opposed it, but you did not have the numbers to defeat it, Mr Welch, to pick up on your interjection. The legislation passed this Parliament, it was the will of this Parliament that the legislation do pass, and what this motion does is simply enact that legislation. We heard from those opposite, in particular Mrs McArthur, and we sat here and listened to a very long speech about the sovereignty of the Parliament and the importance of the Parliament to do its democratic will. That is exactly what this Parliament did at the end of last year, and exactly what we are doing now is enacting that very legislation. You may not find yourselves in the majority, but the majority of this chamber actually voted for it, so this motion should just be a procedural motion that is passed to enact the legislation that had the majority support of this chamber.

Bev McArthur: I have a point of order, Acting President. You have put up a motion for debate. We are entitled to debate the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Mrs McArthur, points of order are to go through the Chair. They are not a point of debate.

Bev McArthur: I totally reject her assertion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, we are simply seeking to enact the legislation. We seek to ensure that what this Parliament has agreed to – namely, the preparation and presentation of a statement of compatibility for treaty – can occur. It does not take away anyone’s rights. As was said earlier, the rights are not a pie. It is a very good line.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Rights are not a pie. There is enough for everyone to go around. You do not need to be worried about this, Mrs McArthur. No-one is seeking to take yours. We are seeking to ensure that there is an equal distribution of them. And it is certainly the place of this chamber to pass the necessary motions to change the standing orders to reflect the legislation as it was passed at the end of last year. It is merely a procedural requirement on the relevant member of Parliament of the day.

Members interjecting.

Gayle Tierney: On a point of order, Acting President, the minister is sitting right next to me and I can barely hear her. The constant interjections are absolutely improper, and I ask you to bring the house to order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I uphold the point of order, and for what might be the 10th time in this debate remind all members to not interject while a speaker is speaking.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I was saying, the statement of treaty compatibility does not take away anyone’s rights. It simply supports the Parliament to make better informed decisions which are in the best interests of all Victorians, including First Peoples. And as I said, this is merely a procedural requirement on the relevant member of Parliament. It does not require that the views of the assembly of Gellung Warl are implemented, nor does it require that the legislation align with any criteria in relation to First Peoples’ rights.

Regrettably, I am not surprised by the position of those opposite, because when you have a leader in this place who has suggested that First Peoples should be grateful for colonisation, it demonstrates not only how out of touch those opposite are but how their focus continues to be on stoking that division. I know division is something they are well accustomed to over there, but it is not something that I think should be brought into this place.

What is being asked of members of this place is merely to listen to First Peoples. All that is required is for the relevant member to explain whether and how a bill is consistent or not consistent with the position of Gellung Warl and whether the bill is compatible or not compatible with advancing First Peoples’ rights and addressing disadvantage experienced by First Peoples. This is similar to the current requirement, as has been said, for the statement of compatibility under the charter. All that this will do is ensure that First Peoples’ rights, alongside the human rights of all Victorians, are considered in the legislative process. If you do not support the rights and wellbeing of First Peoples, then you should simply have the guts to actually say it, and if you do not plan to listen to First Peoples, do not just ignore their wishes but again have the guts to say so.

Treaty is about how we make sure that the past does not happen again, and the statement of treaty compatibility is an opportunity for Parliament to hear directly about how laws we consider in this place can impact on First Peoples and how First Peoples have been consulted on matters that affect them. Everyone still has the right to vote as they see fit in relation to any of those laws in this place. I have seen in my portfolio how this consultation can improve the lives of First People. When you listen and then you act, you get better outcomes.

As I said when we were in the committee stage of the relevant bill, the nation-leading Community Protecting Boorais program, allowing Aboriginal agencies to undertake child protection investigations, is a direct result of listening to First Peoples. I fondly remember when this initiative was a bipartisan position when Dr Bach was in this place, because he also understood this, and it was him who supported us to embed a statement of recognition and recognition principles into the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, because at some points in time you have had people on that side of the chamber who recognised that to improve the over-representation of First Peoples in the child protection system there had to be changes to the system. Business as usual was not an option and we could work collaboratively and together on those things in a spirit of reconciliation, but since his departure from the dumpster fire that is the Victorian Liberal Party over here we have seen a change in their position.

We saw this change when it came to the comments of Ms Crozier in this place in late 2024 regarding a VACCA case. Aunty Muriel Bamblett stated in her letter to me then:

No effort was made by the Opposition to contact VACCA to verify any information before making a series of assertions casting imputations and aspersions about VACCA that had no basis in fact.

This tells you all you need to know on their position on this motion. They do not want to make that effort. They are not interested in the facts. They are not interested in how any legislation in this place impacts specifically on First Peoples and they are not committed to the process of reconciliation as a result. They do not want to make the effort that would be required through this procedural change, and they do not want to make this change despite it being a requirement of the bill that this Parliament passed.

If we go back to Mrs McArthur’s comments about respecting the right of the Parliament to make those decisions, if that was the case, we would be debating this motion, implementing it with the support of this chamber and moving back on to the other issues, as you suggested, Mrs McArthur. But as we see time and time and time again, those over there would rather sit there and stoke division than have a valid conversation about the other issues of the day. They do not want to make this change because they do not care.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:40): We heard a very strange contribution there that did not go anywhere –

Members interjecting.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, I just heard Ms Ermacora say, ‘This will be a lesson in racism,’ and I find that offensive. I ask her to withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Ms Ermacora, please withdraw.

Jacinta Ermacora: In the interests of this procedural debate and in the interests of what has been said, I am happy to withdraw.

David Davis interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I am satisfied that she has withdrawn.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I have asked for it to be withdrawn, and it has been withdrawn.

David DAVIS: It has not been unconditionally withdrawn, I put to you, Acting President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): It has been withdrawn. Mr Davis, you may continue your contribution.

David DAVIS: I will put on record that I do not believe it has been unconditionally withdrawn, and I think it is scurrilous. I begin by noting that we had a contribution from Ms Watt where she said this is about a bridge and an agreement. This is not about a bridge, this is about division, and it is about actually dividing one Victorian from another. The bill went through – that is correct. As we have heard from Ms Blandthorn, the bill certainly went through, but the bill was a divisive bill. It flew in the face of what Victorians decided in the Voice referendum: 45.9 per cent to 54.1 per cent; 2.06 million Victorians voted yes, and 2.18 million Victorians voted no. A clear and decisive majority voted no in that referendum, and they voted no to this sort of divisive approach. To the point that was made by Ms Blandthorn that it was passed by this chamber, let me just make one point here. The day after the bill was passed, the government, after withholding a freedom-of-information request for more than two years, released a brief from former Premier Daniel Andrews: a $110-million settlement with two Indigenous groups.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, we are having a procedural debate. There is some capacity, I would imagine, for latitude, given the enthusiasm with which you have taken us to all corners of a debate and a discussion across multiple jurisdictions, but to stray into areas around freedom-of-information requests and matters that have no connection whatsoever to the standing orders, I would suggest, is – to paraphrase the word that Ms Watt used before – a bridge far too far.

David DAVIS: On the point of order, Acting President, I am responding directly to what the minister said about the bill having passed, and I am making the point that some key information was withheld by the government before the passage of that bill. I am about to read that information. The information was critical for the chamber to know. The bill passed, as she has allowed, and I am responding directly to what she said earlier in this debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I do not uphold the point of order. It has been a very wideranging debate, but Mr Davis, I ask you to come back to the motion.

David DAVIS: As I said, the claim by the minister that, because the bill has been passed, people have no right to have further views –

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Acting President, I did not say that anyone does not have any right to any view at all, as Mr Davis has suggested. I ask that he withdraw that and return to the substance of the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I uphold that point of order, having listened to all contributions. Mr Davis, please withdraw.

David DAVIS: I withdraw. The freedom-of-information request, in the redacted section that was withheld for more than two years – this is Daniel Andrews – said:

… in future, it is intended that the Treaty pathway will be incentivised as the preferred option for Traditional Owners seeking recognition and reparations …

This treaty act is about reparations. This is about inserting in the standing orders leverage, power and control over the chamber and over the democratic process. That is what it is about doing. It is about control and ensuring that the chamber is unable to operate without the sword of Damocles hanging over it, without some trigger being put in place. That is what is being inserted here. It is directly against what we really should have in this chamber, and it is not equal under the charter of human rights, which is about all Victorians. This is about one group of Victorians, and it is about privileging one group of Victorians over another group of Victorians and trying to put an additional control and an additional trigger in there to make it harder to pass legislation which certain groups do not like. That is actually what it is intended to do. It is divisive, it is unnecessary and it is forcing sectional matters to the fore in the chamber, and that is what it is intended to do. Let us be very clear on what it is intended to do. It is not a bridge; it is not an agreement. It is something that has been imposed on Victorians. Victorians in the most recent vote that is analogous to this, in the Voice referendum, voted decisively, 2.18 million to 2.06 million, against it. The government withheld critical information about reparations as the prime target of treaty – that is what the government did. Daniel Andrews claimed in his own briefing that reparations were the key.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, it may seem like it is Trumpfest today, but if Mr Davis has allegations of electoral fraud to be making in respect of a former Premier, then he should move those by way of substantive motion, because this is beyond ridiculous.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I bring Mr Davis back to the motion.

David DAVIS: There was a no vote in the referendum on the Voice, and that was the last time that this matter was tested. There was not a resounding yes on the treaty at all. Key information has been withheld from the community. The government is very careful. When the first steps of this went through, I asked the then Leader of the Government in this chamber Ms Symes directly about reparations, and she was very evasive and very slippery in how she responded to those questions. The government has been very cautious about reparations.

Far from cost of living being the government’s prime focus, the government is, through these steps, ramping up additional hits and charges that are going to land on Victorians. This is about reparations, it is about payments, it is about money, it is about resources and it is about loading the chamber’s dice in favour of one group over another group. I say all Victorians should be treated equally. I say all Victorians should be treated fairly. I say disadvantage should be treated as disadvantage wherever it is. I say that the treaty act as we understand it was a very unfortunate moment for this chamber and a very unfortunate moment for Victoria. Leaving that aside, this is a further step in entrenching leverage and a mechanism to actually make sure that the dice in the chamber are loaded against those who do not support treaty and do not support an uneven, separatist type of approach.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:49): I was watching this in my office, and I have to say I was just so disgusted, I felt I just had to come up and make a very brief comment. Can I firstly commend the comments from Ms Watt. I think she captured exactly the moral as well as the legal obligations that are incumbent upon this chamber to comply with a legal obligation that we have as a result of the ratification of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. I think that is our first point of departure and should remain our focus. And if we are to debate, then that debate should be how that obligation will be met, not whether or not it should be heard. We are not here to rerun a debate over treaty and whether or not it has anything to do with the Voice. That debate has been had, that debate has been lost by the opposition, and we need to move on and make some decisions about how we meet those obligations. References, clearly, to the Voice are not apples-to-apples. It is a separate sphere, it is a different procedure, it is a different institution and I will not go into it further. But it is, I think, insulting to the intelligence of both the house and the Victorian public to suggest that there is a compatibility.

I would also like to say that I have personally attacked this government because we have not been doing this. I think about the optics of having, on the day, I think it was, that treaty was signed or ratified by the Governor, the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025 being presented, when there was no consultation with the First Nations community. It was criticised by a number of us, correctly so. It would be absolutely hypocritical for us now not to welcome the fact that the government is going to meet its legal obligations. This is a good thing to do. It is the right thing to do. I commend this procedural motion to the house.

Council divided on motion: