Tuesday, 16 August 2022

Bills

Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr LEANE:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:51): I am very pleased to rise to make a contribution on this important piece of legislation. It was made plain through the debate in the other place that the Liberal and National parties support this legislation, and in the debate there—and it was a wideranging debate—broadly speaking the theme of that debate was regarding reconciliation and what we can now do and must now do in order to seek to achieve reconciliation between First Nations people here in Victoria and those of us, like me, who are not First Nations people. The Premier has talked publicly about this bill, and he has said that first and foremost it is about addressing past injustices. So I do want to talk about some of the things that I think we can do as we seek to continue down the road that leads to reconciliation, given that the Premier has said that this bill is about seeking to redress past injustices. I also then do want to highlight some areas of present injustice when it comes to Indigenous Victorians, because I think that it is a legitimate exercise as we seek reconciliation to dwell upon past injustices and seek wherever possible and through appropriate means to make amends for them, but that must be done in my view in tandem with a very thorough exercise of seeking out and coming to an understanding of present injustices and then putting in place as strong as possible policy responses to deal with those.

In my former life as a schoolteacher it always struck me as very odd that we teach so little Australian history in our schools. In particular it always struck me as odd that the particularly complex and contested period of our history between 1788—white settlement—and the middle of the 20th century is not taught at all to so many Victorian students. There are subjects on Indigenous culture pre the arrival of white settlers, and it is appropriate that we should learn about that—of course it is—and there are some subjects that deal broadly with Australian history in the 20th century, but many, many students learn nothing about the deeply complex and contested period of our history directly after the arrival of white settlers in 1788, during which undoubtedly appalling injustices were inflicted upon Indigenous Victorians.

There is one subject, a VCE subject entitled ‘Australian history’, that a tiny number of students choose to complete. Last time I checked it was about 600 students, and every year the numbers fall by about 100. I actually never taught that particular subject. I taught the rival history subject, a history of revolutions, and what we have seen over many years is more and more students right across the state choosing to undertake a history of revolutions—and that is their right—and fewer and fewer undertaking Australian history. Perhaps previously education ministers and education bureaucrats thought that the gap in our curriculum from years 7 to 11 was one that could be tolerated because students could choose Australian history in years 11 and 12. Well, they are not doing that. If the current trend persists, in the next three or four years that subject will die completely. In my view it is urgently necessary, coupled with the processes that are outlined with some specificity in this bill, to increase the knowledge of the community—the knowledge of all of us—of our complex and contested history, especially the period directly after 1788.

To my shame, only recently have I been learning more and more about this period. I say that as somebody who studied history at university for more than a decade and taught history, including Australian history, at numerous institutions. Just recently my family and I were staying at Yarra Glen, and we went for a walk around a quite lovely billabong. We came upon a plaque. On that plaque was recounted the quite extraordinary story of a local Indigenous leader, Jagga Jagga, who had been taken by troopers to the homestead at Yering. It told the amazing story of the way in which local Indigenous people outsmarted the troopers and were able to get back Jagga Jagga. I thought to myself, ‘What an empowering story’. I was not sure if it was entirely correct, because I confess, despite the fact that I have taught Australian history over many, many years, I had never heard it before, and that is to my own shame. However, I checked—I checked multiple sources. Of course we should learn about the dreadful injustices of the past, but there are so many deeply empowering stories like this one about the many amazing elements of Indigenous culture and history that it would be a wonderful thing if as Victorians we had a far better understanding of them.

I heard the Premier when he said that this bill was first and foremost seeking to deal with past injustices. My proposition is that all of us need to increase and expand our knowledge of Australian history, especially the period after 1788, and I would posit the view that we can best do that through our school system. I would also say that as we continue down the path that leads to reconciliation we must be mindful of appalling present injustices. No process that seeks to deal with past injustices, real and painful as they are, can be successful unless we couple that approach with a steely determination to deal with the very real present injustices that we see in Victoria today.

I had the great privilege of catching up with Aunty Muriel Bamblett in our last sitting week. She is on the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, and she is passionate about furthering several elements that are put forward in this bill. She is also the CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency. As the Shadow Minister for Child Protection and Youth Justice I was already aware of some of the appalling outcomes we see for young Indigenous people in our child protection system. I take the point that Dr Ratnam raised already today: we see huge numbers of young Indigenous people entering our child protection system. Aunty Muriel told me that in fact statistics show one in nine Indigenous babies today is taken from their mother by the state here in Victoria—one in nine. That is easily the worst proportion in the country—easily.

Today, right now, one in 10 young Indigenous people is in our care system—one in 10. Now, to me—I am sure to all members—that is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs. The proportion for non-Indigenous children is radically different. I believe that while we are dealing with complex issues, the work has been done by wonderful community organisations like Aunty Muriel’s, like the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, like Berry Street, like Anglicare Victoria, to demonstrate to decision-makers what we can do very differently so that we desist with these policies that continue to lead to the mass removal of Indigenous babies and Indigenous children in the state of Victoria. It would mean significant changes to our child protection policies to focus on evidence-based approaches to prevention and early care. It would mean shifting far greater power away from the department and away from government to ACCOs, Aboriginal community controlled organisations. I believe those organisations have really significant capacity to deliver culturally appropriate supports early so that we can make real inroads, as we have not done for so many years, into the appalling proportions of Indigenous babies and Indigenous children who are still being removed from their families today. Those proportions have not changed for many years. And once they are in the out-of-home care system I am afraid we know what happens to the vast majority of young Indigenous people. We know this because of landmark work by our independent children’s commissioner and our Indigenous children’s commissioner released just last year in their report entitled Our Youth, Our Way.

I am afraid things in our care system are not like they used to be. When I was born under a Labor government into Victoria’s care system, that system could be a springboard to a life of incredible opportunity. Today the children’s commissioner has found that outcomes for young Indigenous kids in care are quite appalling. The rates of violence, sexual abuse and forced prostitution are huge. She said, and I agree, that so many young people who find themselves in care through absolutely no fault of their own are then funnelled into our youth justice system. We have been talking about that again today. Again, very oftentimes, in my view, it is through no fault of their own.

The children’s commissioner has been shining a light recently and has had some excellent reporting in the press about what happens to young people in Victoria’s youth justice system. I am afraid we simply see that these young people, some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged and traumatised young people in our state, are not provided an opportunity to engage in meaningful education or mental health support in order to provide a pathway to real rehabilitation. No, they are further traumatised and ultimately criminalised, leading to massive rates of reoffending and then ongoing engagement in our broader adult criminal justice system.

Dr Ratnam talked about the appalling issue of ongoing Indigenous deaths in custody. What the children’s commissioner has said, and I do agree with her wholeheartedly, is that all of these issues—very complex issues, I grant you—are connected and interconnected. And yet I do not believe that for a long time here in the state of Victoria we have had the kind of focus that we need on providing the early help and the preventative supports to vulnerable families to stop first and foremost the ongoing removal by the state of so many Indigenous children that then leads to engagement with youth justice, further trauma, criminalisation and engagement in our adult systems.

In the debate in the other place it was made plain that the Liberal and National parties support this legislation. We wholeheartedly support ongoing efforts to achieve reconciliation, and seeking to deal with very real past injustices has a big part to play there. My hope is that there will be real, ongoing engagement with members of the First Nations assembly and with other Indigenous leaders in order to deal with some of the appalling ongoing injustices today, in particular those regarding the manner in which we see so many Indigenous young people funnelled into our child protection and youth justice systems. We can do those things together. Indeed my proposition today would be that we must do those things together if we are to achieve our shared outcome of real reconciliation.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:05): I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung, and pay my respects to elders past and present. I would also like to acknowledge elders from any other communities who may be present with us here today. I further note that my learned colleague Sheena Watt MP, a proud Aboriginal woman, very much wanted to be here today for this vital reform and is deeply disappointed that, owing to illness, she cannot be. However, I would like to express that her spirit is strong and it is with us today—now I am feeling emotional. I am really happy for her, but I am so sad that she could not present this, because she should be the one leading this bill. But I will do my best and stop crying.

I am really proud to be able to speak on this bill and say what this bill does, because I would hate to think that we would take anything away from the incredible amount of work it has taken to get to this point in time. I particularly acknowledge the work of the First Peoples’ Assembly in contributing to what we are able to deliver here today. Victoria is the first and only jurisdiction to action both the treaty and the truth elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—not just words but action delivered by our Labor government in partnership with Victoria’s Aboriginal community. Treaty is unfinished business. It is an opportunity to come to terms with our past and work together for a shared future. I am getting emotional again. I felt emotional when this bill came to the lower house, so I have got to pull it together.

I am just so relieved that this is happening here today. I am just so relieved. But it requires us to do things differently. New institutions will allow treaty to be negotiated on a truly equal footing between the state and First Peoples. This includes a new Treaty Authority that will oversee treaty negotiations. The Treaty Authority is the first of its kind in Australia and is based on a model put forward by the First Peoples’ Assembly. Thirty-one members of the assembly, covering every corner of Victoria, have contributed to the development of the Treaty Authority model and this bill. This is self-determination in action. The proposed Treaty Authority model is innovative, legally novel and designed to most effectively and fairly oversee negotiations in Victoria’s context. This is unique. It is nation-leading work without precedent. Treaty will change the cultural landscape of our state. It will forever alter how we view and understand our identity, our history and our future. It will create a future where we give back what was never ours to take and where First Nations communities have autonomy, power and self-determination. But treaty also provides a bridge between the First Nations communities and non-Aboriginal Victorians. It will create a stronger and fairer Victoria for us all. Every Victorian should be proud of the progress we have made towards treaty, truth, justice and self-determination for Aboriginal Victorians.

Going to some of the more technical aspects of the bill, the Treaty Authority’s functions are laid out in the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018. These include facilitating and overseeing treaty negotiations, administering the treaty negotiation framework, providing for resolution of disputes in treaty negotiations in accordance with the treaty negotiation framework, carrying out research to support treaty negotiations and the administration of the treaty negotiation framework. The state and the assembly have agreed that the Treaty Authority will have an additional function of providing for resolution of disputes incidental to or in connection with treaty negotiations. This includes supporting the resolution of disputes between traditional owner groups.

Why is the Treaty Authority being established via a novel legal model? The assembly proposed a Treaty Authority model that is an independent, unincorporated body comprised of individual members and supported by facilitating legislation that confers legal capacity and the powers of a body corporate. I should note, and I think this is a really critical part of making real change, that the Andrews Labor government has come to the treaty process with open hearts and open minds and acknowledges that to give justice to this process we must do things differently. This model aims to maximise the independence of the Treaty Authority and reflects the government’s willingness to pursue novel approaches through the treaty process. As the First Peoples’ Assembly says, this is decolonisation in action. The government is relinquishing some of its control and power, and the First Peoples of Victoria are asserting their right to have the freedom and power to make the decisions that affect First Peoples communities’ culture and country. This will ultimately forge a stronger future for all Victorians.

The Treaty Authority’s role in Victoria’s treaty process is also, I should note, based on best practice examples from other jurisdictions such as the British Columbia Treaty Commission, and—I think this is another important element in terms of understanding exactly what the body will do and what its purpose is—it will be a facilitative body focused on building positive treaty partnerships rather than a tribunal or quasi-judicial body with coercive powers. The Treaty Authority’s all-Aboriginal membership will observe and uphold Aboriginal law, lore and cultural authority, led by Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal voices and Aboriginal leaders. This befits the cross-cultural nature of Victoria’s treaty process and aims to support new relationships between the state and First Peoples and the proper recognition of the unique lore and cultures of Victoria’s peoples.

I will speak a little bit further on the technical elements of the bill, but I will not focus heavily on that because there will probably be a number of speakers today. I think on many levels this is also about a cultural evolution of our state, so I do want to focus a lot more on the actual meaning of these reforms and how they will impact all Victorians for the better. However, looking at the issue of what the bill will actually do, the bill recognises the establishment of the Treaty Authority under the Treaty Authority Agreement and facilitates its operations. The bill will enable the Treaty Authority to operate as a legal entity by conferring on it powers and capacities, including having perpetual succession; the power to sue and be sued; to enter into agreements to acquire, hold and dispose of property in its own name; to be a member of or hold shares in a company, act as a trustee or participate in the formation of a company, trust or other body; and to be able to perform its functions and exercise its powers within and outside Victoria as well as outside Australia. These are powers and capacities commonly given to bodies corporate and will enable the Treaty Authority to operate as though it were a body corporate.

There are just a couple more key issues in terms of looking at some of the technical aspects of the bill that I do want to flag. One of them is that the bill appropriates funds from the Consolidated Fund for the Treaty Authority’s operations. Why does this matter? Because it is providing an ongoing and secure funding stream independent of the government’s annual budget process. I think it is self-explanatory as to why that is a critical element. Secondly, in terms of governance, the bill applies specific requirements under the Financial Management Act 1994 to the Treaty Authority, including requiring annual financial reporting to be provided to Parliament. This will ensure parliamentary oversight of funds appropriated by the bill, as is right and proper.

As I say, there are many vicissitudes of this bill which are very important when you are establishing such a critical process. However, a further element that I did wish to zone in on is that the bill does not require the Treaty Authority to report to a minister, and this is coming to that element of independence. It is not subject to the direction or control of a minister or government. This independence is a requirement under the 2018 treaty act, which provides that the Treaty Authority is not subject to direction or control of a minister—I am just emphasising that point for obvious reasons. The bill does not determine who can negotiate a treaty; this will be addressed in the treaty negotiations framework. While the bill amends the treaty act to allow the Aboriginal representative body, currently the First Peoples’ Assembly, to enter into treaty negotiations, this simply removes a legal barrier which might otherwise have prevented it from doing so. So that is just to touch on a couple of those critical elements but not pull away from other elements of the bill which are also pertinent to its success in terms of achieving the fairness and justice that we do require for our state.

I did think it would be important to just touch on and update where Victoria’s treaty process is actually at. Victoria’s nation-leading treaty process is advancing in partnership with Aboriginal Victorians while working with the assembly, the first statewide democratically elected representative body for Aboriginal Victorians in the state’s history. Victoria is currently in phase 2 of a three-phase treaty process. In line with the 2018 treaty act, phase 2 involves the state and First Peoples’ Assembly working in partnership to establish the treaty elements necessary to support future treaty negotiations. This includes an independent Treaty Authority to oversee and facilitate future treaty negotiations. Negotiations are ongoing to establish the treaty negotiation framework and self-determination fund, and we expect these negotiations to conclude in the coming months to enable treaty negotiations to commence in 2023. Just to note further, the Andrews Labor government has invested more than $218 million in Victoria’s treaty process, including $151.4 million this year, as Victoria progresses in the next phase of this landmark process.

There is so much more to be said in this space, and I will not be able to do it justice today save for the fact that it is a very proud day for Victoria. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed and have put in so much work—years and years of blood, sweat and tears, let us be honest—to get to this point in time. This whole process is unfinished business. We are not there, but we are very much taking a critical step forward to ensure that self-determination for Victoria’s Aboriginal people is a reality. It is just vital for all of us to be able to create a much better future for our state. Thank you also to the observers in the gallery who are here today.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:18): I want to start today by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we speak today, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I also want to pay my respects to elders with us here today, to members of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and to all the First Nations people that have worked so hard to develop this legislation and the Treaty Authority agreement.

The Greens warmly welcome the introduction of the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022 into Parliament. This authority is the centrepiece of the treaty process and is critical to its success. Treaties are fundamental to healing the deep wounds caused to First Nations communities by the colonisation of this land. For too long First Nations people have been vilified, traumatised and denied their rights to land, economic opportunity and self-determination. Treaties are the way to begin to fix this wrong. Treaties are an agreement between the government and the First Peoples where, on equal footing, parties negotiate reparations, rights to land and water, rights to self-govern and practice culture, and rights to economic opportunities. It is an opportunity to negotiate how the story of this country, its landscapes and its institutions can be re-visioned to reflect the true history, not the whitewashed version told for the last few hundred years.

Treaty is the opportunity to heal and to create a better future based on mutual respect, rights and empowerment of the First Peoples of this land. During my speech today I will be reading out some quotes provided by members of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria about the treaty process and the significance of the Treaty Authority bill and agreement. It is always fundamental on First Nations issues that First Nations voices are at the heart of the debate—in this case from the people who have been involved in bringing this authority to life. I will start by reading a quote from Uncle Andrew Gardiner, a Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung reserved seat holder and traditional owner of the land on which we speak today. His quote gives some context to this bill:

The Treaty Authority Agreement is another historic marker along the process for our people in negotiating their Treaties with the State Government and another step closer for the Assembly in achieving that goal.

As outlined in the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 and further articulated in the Treaty Authority Agreement established in this bill, the role of the Treaty Authority is to facilitate and oversee treaty negotiations, administer the treaty negotiation framework, assist parties to resolve disputes that may arise in treaty negotiations and carry out research to support and inform treaty negotiations. This is the cornerstone body in the treaty process.

The independence of this authority and ensuring that it is empowered to uphold lore, law and cultural authority is absolutely critical to the treaty process. This will help decolonise this process to the extent possible in the current circumstances. Leanne Miller, Dhulanyagen Ulupna of the Yorta Yorta people and member for the North East Region, articulated the role of the authority:

Treaty Authority Agreement is a significant legislation in Victorian History, it’s enacting the formation of an umpire in relation to First Nations Treaty making. A Treaty Authority will enact a deeper level of listening, Culture, a balance of Aboriginal LORE and Law.

Tracey Evans, Gunditjmara woman and member for the Metropolitan Region, articulated it further:

When we as First Peoples and Traditional Owners of Victoria stand strong in culture and lore we give the loudest voice to our people. The pathways of justice and upholding our inherent rights must be at the heart of the Treaty Authority work going forward.

So we are hearing just how critical ensuring culture, lore and First Peoples rights has been to the design of the Treaty Authority. This bill establishes the novel legal arrangements of the authority as an unincorporated body with the roles and responsibilities of a body corporate. This will hopefully provide the legal parameters to secure its independence. We strongly welcome that the Treaty Authority’s funding is established in legislation, ensuring limited interference from the government without the accountability process of Parliament. It is important that its funding is not beholden to budget cycles.

This bill is in fact quite brief, and the details of the Treaty Authority’s process for the establishment, the structure and the accountability measures are contained within the Treaty Authority Agreement made between the state and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria. The agreement lays out important processes and tenets for the authority members to be selected and to operate under. The central tenets of the Treaty Authority are as follows: upholding self-determination and empowerment of First Peoples, independence and impartiality, accountability, relationship-building, facilitation and integrity in the process for all. These are all very important tenets, and certainly the Greens support these.

It also recognises the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and specifies that Aboriginal lore forms a legal system and that Aboriginal lore and law have equal footing with the Western legal system. I just want to pause on this point for a moment. When the Greens were negotiating to pass the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Bill 2018 we campaigned hard to have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples included in this bill as the guiding principle for the treaty process. At the time, the government would only accept making reference to it in the preamble, which is the non-legally-binding section of the bill, as they did not want to be legally bound to upholding the principles of the UNDRIP. To me this raises important questions about how legally binding this Treaty Authority Agreement is if the government is willing to recognise the UNDRIP and Aboriginal lore in it. I will be asking more detailed questions about this in the committee of the whole. We certainly would not want to see this very important and admirable tenet of this authority and the standards regarding the accountability and structures being able to be weakened as they are not actually legally binding.

Moving on, the Treaty Authority Agreement stipulates that the structure of the authority will be no less than five and not more than seven members. This is a good and reasonable number of members to achieve accountability while maintaining tight management of the process. It stipulates that if the number of members falls below five but is at least two, the Treaty Authority may continue to perform its functions and exercise its powers. Only when it falls below two will the authority cease until it has more than two members. This is a little concerning, however, because just two members seems quite a low threshold for continuation of the authority’s work if we are to ensure a continued faith amongst the community in its independence, balance, accountability and integrity. So we will be asking further questions in the committee of the whole about this as well.

The Treaty Authority Agreement also lays out that a panel will select the Treaty Authority members. The panel will consist of one member from the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, one from the state and three individuals nominated by agreement of the parties. I note that the selection process for the truth-telling process was similar to this, and there was some concern amongst the community as there were questions about the balance in the independent panel. I very much hope greater focus will be brought to this process to ensure it will be free from such concerns.

In selecting the members of the Treaty Authority, the panel will be required to ensure that the appointment ensures the authority’s independence, that members are suitably qualified and competent and that the authority is culturally strong, transparent, fair, impartial and so on. These are deeply important criteria.

In summary, the Greens welcome and strongly support this treaty authority bill. We strongly support the tenets in it and believe that cultural authority as well as independence and accountability measures are critical design features, as so many First Nations voices have told us.

One thing the Greens spoke about in the other house, and I will mention here again, is the importance of this authority acting in accordance with the obligations under the treaty act for fairness and equity. Right through this process we have heard deep concerns from non-registered Aboriginal party (non-RAP) nations that they have not been provided with a reserve seat or an avenue for representation and participation in the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and thus in the formation of the treaty framework. There is now a pathway, but significant barriers do remain to participation, including lack of secretariat funding for nations to do all the administrative work required.

The Treaty Authority must be a circuit-breaker. It must be a body trusted by all nations to uphold the tenets of impartiality and uphold self-determination and empowerment of all First Peoples. It must ensure that fairness and equity principles apply so that all nations that approach it can enter into negotiations with the state on an equal footing; little is more important to the integrity of the treaty process.

The values of equality for all First Peoples must also be extended to the administration of the self-determination fund, which this bill establishes as the responsibility of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria. This fund must be significant in size and very fairly managed if it is to operate in accordance with the legislated obligation in the treaty act to create equal standing between the state and parties. Let me be clear: we are talking about the state with all its staffing, legal experts and financial resources being on equal standing with parties, including nations with little money or staff or experience with such negotiations. Equal standing is a critical legislated obligation agreed to by this government that we expect it to fully meet with the self-determination fund, and that means significant funds for First Peoples for equal staffing, upskilling, legal advice and community consultation for all applicants to treaty negotiations. Moreover, the distribution of the self-determination funds to First Peoples must be impartial, fair and equitable. So far the distribution of government funds within the treaty process has been far from equal, with non-RAP nations being excluded from funding. So now more than ever we need a commitment from everyone involved in this process that the self-determination fund must be managed impartially and with a commitment to fairness and the self-determination of all traditional owner groups.

The Greens will continue to be strong supporters of this treaty process. We will also continue to hold the government to account and push them to reflect and strengthen the integrity of the process so that the principles, values and tenets that are legislated are implemented. We will continue to fight for an inclusive, fair and just treaty process.

I would like to finish today with a quote from Jacinta Chaplin, Wadi Wadi member and member for North West Region. There is deep wisdom in her words and an important reminder of the significance of this process:

The past defined where we are now. What we do next will define what we become.

So much has been taken out of our control, the damage has been done. Now we are responsible for what is passed on to the next leaders

I believe in the aspiration of the Assembly and I am passionate about Community having voices. We can create unity amongst ourselves. We as a people are the only ones that can pass on our customs and practices and demand the government respect our ways as we are still here.

I believe we now have some solid structures in place and we will see the effects starting to roll out. This is our time to keep our culture strong and to lead the ways to continue our practices and to support the new leaders to care for Country and keep our traditions alive into the future.

I commend this bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 1.30 pm until 2.08 pm.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:08): I am very pleased to make my contribution on the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022, and in doing so I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which Parliament sits and we stand today in this house of red, the Wurundjeri people, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge all of the Indigenous people who have worked so fulsomely with the Parliament and the executive to bring this bill before us today and all Victorians who have contributed collaboratively in this process.

I was present a few weeks ago when my leader, the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Peter Walsh, made his contribution in the lower house as our lead speaker on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals. I very much took on board his comments and would like to reflect some of those in this house. The Nationals are committed to advancing the process in Victoria in a way that supports self-determination, reconciliation and strengthening of communities and connection to country. I am the Shadow Assistant Minister for Public Land Use, and I think that is an area that I would like to sit my contribution in shortly as well.

We want to continue to work closely with traditional owners and registered Aboriginal parties to ensure that this process drives genuine progress towards closing the gap, and we know that that is a term that has been around for a long time. It is a vision, but the elements within that still have a long way to go. It is important that we all remain focused and in fact renew our focus on the Closing the Gap targets. All of the Australian states and territories made that agreement some time ago.

This bill continues the advancement of Victoria’s treaty process by facilitating the establishment of the authority, the body by which the framework is underpinned and the conversations are had. This facilitates its operation through a legal force and a legal entity. It also makes some minor amendments to the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 to look at that framework, self-determination and the funds that sit behind that and the establishment of those elements by agreement between both the Aboriginal representative body—the First Nations people—and the state.

This is really part of a phase, and this bill is the next part. The first phase was the establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly, and I acknowledge that there are members of the First Peoples’ Assembly in the house today. Also in that first phase was the establishment of the Victorian treaty commissioner. This now is the second phase. The bill specifically looks at establishing the authority as an independent body, but it also facilitates the operations by that force and its activities, facilitating the treaty negotiations and the administrative framework. We all need administrative frameworks and for them to be hopefully as smooth sailing as possible to assist parties to, where there is conflict, interest or diversity of views and disputes, resolve those throughout the negotiations and to carry out research and support informed treaty negotiations.

In the past my party, in the previous government, had the Honourable Jeanette Powell from Shepparton. She is small of stature but big of heart, and I know she worked really compassionately and with determination to bring about better change and to work for the Indigenous community. When Jeanette retired we had the Honourable Tim Bull from East Gippsland in my Eastern Victoria electorate. I read Tim’s contribution. He grew up with many from the community there, and I think he was often trounced in football by many of the very elite sportspeople down that way in East Gippsland. It was a great privilege, as he said in his contribution. And, as I have said, now The Nationals leader, Peter Walsh, is our representative and spokesperson.

A few months ago we were in Shepparton and Aunty Geraldine opened our National Party state conference; we have one every May. I had not had the privilege of meeting Aunty Geraldine before, but you could see the importance and the quality of Aunty Geraldine. I think irrespective of where we were born, who we were born from and our lineage, you always respect and understand people of integrity and quality, and it is always good to listen to them and to seek to understand their point of view. That was certainly my impression of Aunty Geraldine. She spoke on the floor in Parliament only a few weeks ago as that representative.

I will mirror some of Dr Bach’s contribution. Probably from my own perspective and from an Eastern Victoria perspective—from the people that I have met and the concerns they have raised with me through my office over time—unfortunately we really still need to wholesomely, with integrity and with intent, focus on where there is incredibly unacceptable disadvantage.

In speaking with some wonderful people in my electorate that look after and provide additional supports to children in out-of-home care, unfortunately Indigenous children are over-represented. They are also still over-represented in child protection and in our youth justice system and they are under-represented in educational attainments. I think that needs to be a focus of every person standing in this Parliament. We want all of our people, all Victorians, to reach the highest outcomes, to reach their potential, but we certainly need to focus on those groups and indeed our Indigenous children who may not be meeting that full potential. It is super important, and I put my willingness to do whatever I can on the record.

In relation to my contribution today, I did write to as many people as I could in my Eastern Victoria Region to ask them for their opinion and to give me some feedback. We make representation, we stand here as one person, but we need to represent a diversity of views. I have somebody I want to mention, and a little later I would like to share with the house his comments about the process.

I want to use an example of public land management as a way that we can walk together, we can learn together and we can learn from very wise traditional owners about the past. Certainly it was a highlight of my career to take up an opportunity back in 2017 to go to Cape York and to Melsonby—or Gaarraay—National Park to meet and renew acquaintances up there with some people I have met down here. It was to do with the importance of learning about firestick. It is something that once you seek to understand it and can feel it from the ground up you become a convert, and I am certainly a convert. Up there, there were a range of nations. Gunnai/Kurnai members were there, Wurundjeri were there. Uncle David Wandin spoke and was invited to speak. There were Dja Dja Wurrung and Yorta Yorta people, young and old. Mountain cattle men and women were there as well, and South Gippsland ladies with hats and sneakers on were also there and listening.

In some of this it is important to stop, think, listen and feel, and certainly the firestick practice and methodology were really important to this group of people and the diverse clans that were there seeking to understand. Victor Steffensen spent two decades out on country with the wise elders and learned this and shared this. He was standing out there, in bare feet, talking on country, and it was really an honour to listen. His words were often around ‘Let fire be like water and trickle over the ground’, ‘The tree canopy is sacred’ and ‘Observe and listen to those indicators’—so grasses, the birds, the bees, the possums and the like. It is both simple and highly complex and specialised. I do not even pretend to fully understand. I just have a glimpse of the importance of it, but it can really heal country. I then came back with Uncle David Wandin and spent time out Healesville way and in the Yarra Ranges listening to him on country. I think in some way it is an example of how we can learn and listen and work together.

Also, in 2019 they came to the Barmah State Forest. I went to Nowra in 2018, and in 2019 they came and did burning on country up at the Barmah. Unfortunately Parliament sat that week and even on the Friday. Now I would probably be far more bolshie and I would take off and leave Parliament to go to it, but I was far too compliant back in those days—a little while ago.

Finally, let me just make some comments about Gunnai/Kurnai in my electorate and the very wise and esteemed leader Grattan Mullett. I value his calmness, his kindness and his wisdom. I could not get in touch with Grattan this time round, but on their website they talk about how:

Cultural Fire occurs with the right fire, in the right time and in the right way, in the right place.

We use fire to make the land healthy, for ceremony and as a means for communication with each other and the spirits. Our children grow up understanding these cultural practices and teach their children. We help others to understand the benefits of the use of the right fire to manage and protect Country.

Hopefully a little bit through my sharing that with my party, we are certainly very encouraged about continuing that bringing of fire. It is not me bringing it, but I am enabling, facilitating and supporting the traditional owners to bring it onto their country as they see fit. And there are diverse views. Indeed there are others who do not believe in or want firestick, and we appreciate that too. It is not up to me to make those comments other than to say that there are many that certainly do see the benefit of it.

A few weeks ago I had the absolute privilege of sitting down for a short time with Uncle Lloyd Hood—and again we talk of quality and that sort of centredness that comes with wise people. I wanted to pick his brains about treaty, and he made some interesting comments. I also learned about his early life in Lake Tyers, the very hard work that he did as a young man and the wise things that he is doing now, going back on country with young people and encouraging them to get back in touch with country. As I said, he is certainly a respected Gunnai/Kurnai elder. I am paraphrasing him, so these are not quotes, but when we spoke he spoke about walking together and working together. He also wants to ensure that all clan groups are involved. He said that treaty is a new thing and we must do it well and it must be unpacked in clear terms so that grassroots traditional owners can engage and understand.

I read a report from Federation Uni the other day. I have got a science degree, and it just seemed a little bit like gobbledegook to me. That was separate to this process entirely, but clear language and good communication brings about really positive steps. I think that is what Uncle Lloyd was saying. He was also saying, ‘Well, what does treaty look like 10 years down the track?’. He wants genuine discussion and return visits with clear language to his people on Gunnai/Kurnai land. I do not really want to be outrageous with this, but he also mentioned the Voice. He said that there will be division on what that means as well and that he does not want anything to be tokenistic—it actually has to be very well grounded. Finally, I thank him for sharing his views, and I will continue to seek to listen and understand his point of view and those of others who wish to engage— (Time expired)

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:23): I rise to speak on the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022. I acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which this Parliament stands, the Wurundjeri. I pay my respects to their elders and ancestors past, present and emerging.

Sometimes in this place we do not cover ourselves in glory. Sometimes we have a little bit too much grandstanding, which is not something we can be proud of. But today we can be proud. To see this bill debated here in this Parliament fills me with a great sense of pride. I would like to begin by acknowledging the incredible leadership of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, which is the democratically elected voice leading the treaty process in Victoria. This bill has been shaped and driven by the assembly—thank you. As the assembly co-chair and proud Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung nation said:

It’s time to do things differently, enough of the top-down government approach. Treaty is about putting First Peoples in the driver’s seat so we can make the decisions that affect our communities …

It was a historic moment in June, prior to this bill being debated in the other place, when the assembly’s co-chairs, accompanied by the rest of the assembly members, addressed the Parliament and asked MPs to support this bill and breathe life into the Treaty Authority. Today I am proud to stand with the assembly and pledge my support.

This bill puts us on a path towards treaty, a path towards reconciliation. It is an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the pain inflicted by colonisation and to work towards creating a better future. The bill establishes an independent body responsible for negotiating a treaty or treaties between government and Victoria’s First Peoples. This is critical to the treaty process as it will facilitate negotiations and resolve disputes. My hope is that this independent umpire will be effective in ensuring mutual respect and that negotiations are undertaken in good faith.

This treaty authority is without precedent. I have no doubt that other jurisdictions will soon follow suit with their own treaty authorities, recognising that the government being party to negotiations prevents it from being able to umpire such an important process. The success of these negotiations will depend on engagement, conversation and productive relations. I am confident that there is the will to make this happen. I have heard arguments that this authority is unnecessary and that negotiations should be carried out by the Parliament. I disagree. The treaty process is too important to be subject to the politics of this house. The authority will sit outside government bureaucracy and will not report to a minister: this authority is independent.

Central to this treaty process is the right of self-determination. Self-determination is an ongoing process of choice to ensure that First Nations communities are able to meet their social, cultural and economic needs. All peoples have the right to self-determination, but we know the opportunities for First Nations Australians to exercise this right have been limited due to ongoing colonisation, dispossession, exclusion and discrimination. The Treaty Authority is just the beginning of a systematic change that is needed.

The members of this Treaty Authority will be appointed by an independent panel and will all be First Peoples. In the future I expect to see some structural change that facilitates First Nations community-led policy development. There is much work to be done, and of course this is a complex process and there will be many views expressed. The treaty, or treaties, will mean different things to different people. All we can do is move forward with compassion, an open mind and a genuine desire to do the best we can for our First Nations people. This is about giving First Nations people the power to make their own decisions about issues that affect their lives and their communities. This bill is a step in the right direction, and I am proud to support it today. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:28): It is with great pleasure that I rise in this house today to also make a contribution on the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022. I would like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we meet today, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I would also like to acknowledge that as a member for South Eastern Metropolitan Region I am fortunate to represent the lands of the Boon Wurrung people. I would like to pay my respects to their elders and ancestors past and present, elders from across Victoria and First Nations people who join us here today or may be watching or listening online.

For generations our laws and institutions were designed to exclude First Peoples, dilute their culture and steal their lands. It is these difficult truths that we as Victorians must reflect on during the treaty process. We should treat this not simply as a bandaid to cover the cracks but as a real opportunity to recognise the hurt and pain that has been caused and begin to unravel the systems currently in place holding our First Peoples back from achieving their full potential. For far too long First Peoples have been calling for treaty to secure structural change to improve their lives and to ensure they have the autonomy and power to make the decisions that affect them, their communities and country. In 2016 the Andrews Labor government made a commitment to begin the process of treaty with Victoria’s First Peoples. This was a necessary first step towards creating a better and fairer Victoria. These commitments were enshrined in law with the passage of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018.

The act outlined a road map for the treaty process, ensuring that the government listened to the voices of First Peoples and allowed the process to be led by their people and their communities. One of the key elements of the act, the Treaty Authority, has now been established through agreement between the state and the First Peoples’ Assembly, and it forms the focus of the bill before us today. The Treaty Authority has been empowered to fairly and effectively oversee treaty negotiations as well as administer the treaty negotiations framework, provide for dispute resolution and carry out research with respect to Aboriginal law, lore and cultural authority. The Treaty Authority will be completely independent, with its internal governance process prescribed by the Treaty Authority Agreement, not by this bill before us today. The Treaty Authority will be the first body of its kind in Australia, and given its unique status as an unincorporated body, this bill seeks to recognise its independence, facilitate its operations and give legal force to its actions.

The authority will be made up entirely of First Peoples members. The bill enshrines secure and ongoing funding, which is vital for it to remain completely independent of the government’s annual budget process. Most importantly, the Treaty Authority will not report to a minister, nor will it be subject to the direction or control of the minister or government of the day. This independence will instil public trust in the authority and maintain integrity throughout the treaty process. Since the beginning of this treaty process we have heard from many First Nations people who have called for Victoria to be different, to be bold and to find a new way forward. This unique treaty authority model is reflective of the need to do things differently as we advance Victoria’s treaty process.

My colleague Ms Taylor covered in much detail many of the technical elements of the bill and I do not intend to repeat them in my contribution today, but there are some elements that I do want to touch on. The bill will amend the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018. These amendments will allow for the establishment of the treaty negotiation framework and the self-determination fund. These are the remaining core elements of the treaty process, and both are currently being negotiated between the state of Victoria and the First Peoples’ Assembly.

Firstly, the act will be amended to specify that the Aboriginal representative body is not prevented from being a party to the treaty negotiations. Essentially this amendment will remove any legal barrier to the Aboriginal representative body participating in treaty negotiations, whilst not prioritising any particular party over another. As with any other parties seeking to negotiate a treaty, including the state, the Aboriginal representative body will itself need to meet minimum standards to enter treaty negotiations. These minimum standards will be set out in the treaty negotiation framework and must be met by any party before it can participate in treaty negotiations. Secondly, the act will be amended to provide greater flexibility in how the self-determination fund can be administered. Ultimately this will ensure the Aboriginal representative body has sufficient flexibility to administer the self-determination fund based on good financial practice and in a manner that most effectively satisfies its purpose and supports the self-determination of Aboriginal Victorians in the treaty process.

I would like to acknowledge all members of the First Peoples’ Assembly for their dedication and hard work in getting us to where we are today. I also wish to recognise the work of traditional owners, elders, young people and the grassroots organisations who have campaigned over generations and continue to be a voice for change in our community. We would not be here having this debate today without your ongoing commitment to truth and treaty.

As I touched on at the beginning of my contribution, it is impossible to change the past, but as Victorians we now have a unique opportunity to show Australia how to move forward by recognising our historic wrongs and addressing ongoing injustices. Our commitment to treaty is also a commitment to help heal the wounds of the past, support reconciliation and pave the way for a better and fairer Victoria. In the words of Aunty Geraldine Atkinson:

Treaty is about driving fundamental outcomes for our community by putting Aboriginal people in the driver’s seat. This is the right side of history.

The passing of this bill today will be a truly momentous occasion where we are continuing on our path to treaty and we are doing it together. I commend this bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:35): This bill purports to be just an administrative support instrument—nothing to see here—but at its heart it is about dividing Victorians, and therefore Australians, into two classes. However, in my heart:

We are one, but we are many

And from all the lands on earth we come

We’ll share a dream and sing with one voice

I am, you are, we are Australian.

Why is it necessary to separate Australians? Why is it necessary to have a treaty with ourselves? We surely need less government intervention in directing individuals to live cohesively, not more. Where there is disadvantage it should be addressed not through virtue signalling but through practical assistance, and such support should be non-discriminatory, not based on the colour of your skin, on your ethnicity, sexuality or culture or on revisionist history. We need all Australians, and that means all Victorians, to live as one. Whether we be Indigenous, migrants or descended from first settlers, we should be one nation, not a collection of tribes. My overwhelming desire is to bring people together, not facilitate separation by difference.

We know that the Treaty Authority has been agreed to by the First Peoples’ Assembly. However, we also know that only around 7 per cent of the Aboriginal population in Victoria voted in the assembly election. It appears that within the 1 per cent of the Victorian population who identify as Aboriginal, only a fraction voted for this governing body. In fact it was reported in the Age in 2019 that from the 30 000 potential voter pool only 2000 ballots were cast. The article further reported that in the Metro voting division, where there were 10 000 eligible residents, just 783 ballots were cast to elect nine assembly members. Sissy Austin, who won a spot in the South West voting division for the assembly, where just 364 votes were cast, was reported as having said that the tiny turnout pointed to deeper problems in the treaty process. This means that those elected to this so-called ‘representative body’ take up their seats with fewer than 40 per cent first preference votes, and this is the body tasked with negotiating the establishment of a treaty authority and a treaty negotiation framework. Is this inclusive of the Aboriginal population of Victoria, or is it in itself unrepresentative?

Victoria already has a raft of Indigenous support mechanisms in this treaty space designed to revisit history. In 2020 this state introduced the stolen generations redress scheme, which agrees in principle to a self-determination fund and establishes a truth and justice process. In 2021 the Yoorrook Justice Commission, an interim elders voice and an interim dispute resolution process, was set up. There is an Indigenous industry in Victoria, largely overseen by a small number of interconnected members of one group. There are many bodies but frequently the same players, and there is substantial concern that many are associated with one group who, in the words of a senior representative of another traditional owners corporation:

… have undue influence and control across high level decision making within Aboriginal Affairs in … Victoria.

The list of bodies is almost too long to list but includes Aboriginal Victoria, the National Native Title Council—which has now become First Nations Legal and Research Services—Native Title Services Victoria, the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations, the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria. ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, was dissolved in 2004 after corruption allegations and legal action taken against its chair, Geoff Clark. It was replaced by the National Indigenous Council.

We know that beyond bodies specifically set up for assistance there are other ways to offer support. In the education and health sectors and even in the justice system Aboriginal children and offenders receive preferential treatment. This is all good, and this is what should be happening. But does it actually work, and how will a treaty with ourselves make a further difference to the disadvantaged?

I can do no better than go to the newly elected Country Liberal Party senator for the Northern Territory Jacinta Price, whose maiden speech has rightly received significant praise and endorsement. She set as her goal:

… to halt the pointless virtue signalling and focus on the solutions that bring real change that changes the lives of Australia’s most vulnerable citizens—solutions that give them real lives not the enduring nightmare of violence and terror they currently live.

And that is from a senator who is Aboriginal. In my own electorate of Western Victoria Region there is institutionalised poverty, family dysfunction, low education standards and intergenerational welfare dependency. These people simply do not benefit from the pointless virtue signalling the senator identified. They will not hear it or even know it is happening, and they most certainly will not experience any improvement to their lives. They have not in decades to date, and expanding the industry is just repeating the same old mistakes again, as if doing enough simply to salve our own conscience matters to them.

Some years ago Jacinta noticed that the most prominent and powerful representatives of their communities have most of the resources and control, and that:

Those who have managed to take advantage of the plentiful resources available in the Aboriginal industry have done so without effecting much change for the most vulnerable.

I cannot help but notice that $13 million was previously spent to prepare the assembly tasked with designing a framework for future treaty negotiations. The minister told the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee last year that $16.9 million is being spent on advancing treaty, and the Yoorrook Justice Commission is budgeted at $58.3 million. This is not about support initiatives or infrastructure or even protecting heritage. How much of these tens of millions has gone beyond the professional class? How much has gone towards effecting change for the most vulnerable? My concern is not just about how well-meaning a system is worked out—however, the fact is that in practice individuals and bureaucracies end up representing themselves and expanding their own empires—it is also with the principle itself, and it goes wider than this discussion of treaty or the Voice or Aboriginal affairs more generally. It is the insidious nature of identity politics, of which this bill is just another example.

Neville Bonner was the first Aboriginal Australian to become a member of the Parliament of Australia, yet decades before the term ‘culture wars’ we talk about today he reacted against the same patronising, paternalistic and ultimately damaging stereotypes. He told of an encounter with former leader Bill Hayden, who questioned him on why he was handing out how-to-vote cards for a Liberal friend. ‘What are you doing handing out those … cards?’, said Bill, ‘We do more for you bloody Aborigines than those bastards do’. I do not think it was the language that offended Senator Bonner and provoked him to support liberal values, it was the presumption that his racial identity must dictate his politics, and even more so that he should be grateful for the handouts of others. His belief in liberty was like mine. It is fundamentally illiberal to treat any group within society differently to another. I acknowledge the atrocities and failures of the past and the continuing disadvantage faced by the Aboriginal community, but I am also proud of Australia, of its responsiveness to disadvantage and of its support for all those in the Indigenous community.

I respect all the views of those speaking passionately today, but we can do all of what has been suggested without a treaty, and we can do more. I cannot support something which I fundamentally do not believe in. It is wrong in principle, and it will not work in practice.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:45): I rise to speak on the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022, and I want to begin by reflecting on the definition of ‘treaty’. In order to do that I went and had a good look at a number of definitions of the word ‘treaty’. There were some slight differences between each, but every single one of them had something in common. Each definition made the point that a treaty is an agreement between two states or nations—two states or nations.

Mr Melhem: It’s true.

Mr FINN: That is true, exactly right. Aboriginal Australians are just that—they are Australians. They are Australian citizens. How can any government, federal or state, have a treaty with its own people? I mean, it is just ridiculous.

Ms Patten: New Zealand has managed. Canada has managed.

Mr FINN: It does not matter what they do. They do some extraordinary things over there. But I have to say to you that the prospect that we are declaring Aboriginal Australians as being non-Australians in order to have a treaty I think is disgraceful. Think of all the work that went into the passing of the 1967 referendum. Up until then Aboriginal Australians were not regarded as full Australians, but of course that referendum was passed—thank God, as it should have been—and Aboriginal people have been regarded as full Australians since, as they should be. As Mrs McArthur referred to, Senator Jacinta Price said recently, ‘All we want to be regarded as is Australian citizens’. I do not think that is a big ask. She does not want a treaty. She does not want an extra voice. She just wants to be treated as an Australian citizen, as indeed a good number of Aboriginal Australians do, and I think it is only fair.

We have a Minister for Equality in this place. Where is she now? Where is she today in this debate? What I am doing standing here today is calling for equality for us all. Many of you will wonder why I do not stand during the acknowledgement of country every morning—

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr FINN: No. Fair dinkum, you are going to make me say something. In fact, Deputy President, I ask Ms Terpstra to withdraw that comment that she just made.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have not indicated as to why.

Mr FINN: The comment that she made across the chamber I found deeply offensive, and I ask her to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, the member has indicated that he is offended by your comment and has asked you to withdraw, so I ask you to withdraw the comment.

Ms Terpstra: What comment did I make?

Mr FINN: As—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Finn, there is actually no need for you to repeat the comment.

Mr FINN: I was just going to say, given that Ms Terpstra only made one comment, even she should be aware of what she said. I am aware she is easily confused, but even she should be aware of what she said.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr FINN: ‘I don’t recall’. She has got the Dan Andrews—‘I don’t recall’.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, you did make a comment, and I ask you to withdraw it, please.

Ms Terpstra: I don’t know what to say. I don’t know what to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All you have to say is ‘I withdraw’.

Ms Terpstra: What did I say?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You know what you said.

Ms Terpstra: No, you are making an assumption that I have said—

Mr FINN: I heard you.

Ms Terpstra: What was it?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, I heard you make the comment. I am asking you to withdraw it now.

Ms Terpstra: What did I say?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not going to repeat the comment. It was offensive, and I am asking you to withdraw.

Ms Terpstra: Well, no-one else heard it.

Mr FINN: I did. I heard it. The Deputy President heard it. Turf her out.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, I have asked you to withdraw. You are obliged by the standing orders to comply with that and to withdraw, or I will have to use the discretion to remove you from the house.

Ms Terpstra: I withdraw.

Mr FINN: Thank you, Deputy President. As I was saying, Aboriginal Australians are just that. They are Australians. They have the same rights and they have the same obligations as everybody else, and it is about time we allowed them to develop and we allowed them to have the self-esteem that other Australians have and not treat them as some sort of substandard Australians, because they are not.

This unfortunately is an attitude that has taken hold over the last 50 years in this country. I remember being at a luncheon up in Sydney just before the pandemic hit, where Tony Dillon—Anthony Dillon—a noted Aboriginal academic, was speaking. He explained why the Aboriginal people are in the situation they are in now, and he said that prior to 1972 the Aboriginal people were going very well. They worked the land. They had their jobs. They did all these sorts of things, and then along came Whitlam, and he said, ‘You can sit on your bum all day, do nothing and you’ll still get paid’. That is when the real problems for the Aboriginal people began. If that is what you want to go into, we can go into that a little bit further.

But to go back to what Senator Price said, I think it is a very fair and reasonable thing. All she wants, all her people in the Territory want, is to be treated as Australian citizens, and I think that is a fair and reasonable thing. They are not asking for anything special. They are not asking for anything which is beyond the realms of possibility. They are just asking to be treated as Australians, and I think that is what we should do in this house, because legislating on the basis of race—and that is what this legislation is—is by definition racist. That is what this legislation is. And it has to be said: those who put up this legislation, whether they like it or not, they too are racist, because—

Members interjecting.

Mr FINN: Members opposite might not like that, but if you support legislation which separates people on the basis of race, that is racist. There is no other way of describing it. It is racist. It is every bit as racist as what they had in South Africa or any other country, where legislation was based on race, where people were treated differently because of the colour of their skin. They were treated differently because of where they came from, where they—

Ms Patten interjected.

Mr FINN: I am not sure what Ms Patten is saying, because she has got her mask on and she is mumbling a bit. But I am deeply concerned that this legislation will enshrine racism in Victorian law, and that is something that I will not wear and I will not support. I will never support racism. You have got to remember the DLP was the first party to call for the abolition of the White Australia policy. That was back in the 1960s. I am not going to stand here 50 or 60 years later and vote for a piece of legislation which is just as racist as the White Australia policy. I am just not going to do that, and I certainly will not be doing that today.

We heard from some earlier today that this legislation will right the wrongs of the past. You cannot rewrite history. Nobody can rewrite history. Yes, some dreadful things were done in the past. We all know that. But that was 100, 150, maybe 200 years ago. Everybody involved in that—either the perpetrators or the victims—is no longer with us, God rest their souls. They are no longer with us. To try to have some sort of payback now for what happened 100 or 150 years ago is quite ludicrous. It will keep a situation going which is not necessary and is divisive in the extreme.

I say to the government and I say to the house that we should be bringing people together. We should all be as one. It does not matter what our background is. I think we need to bring Australians together. We do not need to separate Australians on the basis of their race, on the basis of their nationality, on the basis of their skin colour or anything else. We need to bring Australians together so that we are all Australians as one. That should be what we are dealing with, and we should all have respect. I will repeat what I was saying before I was interrupted by Ms Terpstra earlier: I do not stand for the acknowledgement of country because I refuse to stand for one group of Australians over another.

Ms Patten: You stand for the Lord’s Prayer.

Mr FINN: That is God. You are not even in the chamber. Ms Patten is not even in the chamber for the Lord’s Prayer. She would not know whether I was doing somersaults during the Lord’s Prayer or not; she is never here. But the fact of the matter is I am not going to stand for one group of Australians over another. I would not stand for Greek Australians or Irish Australians. Irish Australians—there is a story in that which we can avoid until another day. But I am not going to stand for one group of Australians over another. That flies in the face of equality, it flies in the face of fairness and, in my view, it flies in the face of decency, and I will not do it. I just will not do it.

I have absolute respect for Aboriginal Australians, as I have respect for most Australians—not based on their race but because they are good people, living good lives and doing honourable and decent things. That is why I respect people, not because of their race or where they come from and not because their family might have been here 20 000 or 30 000 years or their family has been here 10 minutes. It does not matter. Every Australian should be—must be—equal. If we are fair dinkum about equality, that must be the way. Somebody whose family has been here a very, very long time is no better an Australian necessarily than somebody whose family has been here five, 10 or 20 years, whatever.

This bill is a flawed bill. It is a flawed concept. It is a flawed principle. It is something that, certainly where I come from, is totally unacceptable. To be treating people differently on the basis of their race is wrong. To add to the racism, it is extraordinary that there are people in this house and there are people in the community that think that every Aboriginal Australian agrees with each other, that they all have the same view. They say, ‘Oh, Aboriginal Australia tells us this’. Well, they do not, because they all have a different view. They are like the rest of us. Aboriginal Australia is like the rest of Australia. They have different views. They should not be regarded as some homogenous group thrown in together and all thinking the same. They are human beings who have the right to think differently, and indeed do. You do not have to go very far to find that out.

I think it is regrettable that we are going down this path. The money that Mrs McArthur spoke about, the huge sums of money that we are going to be spending on this, would be better going into health—perhaps Aboriginal health and the wellbeing of children and so forth—because there is a huge domestic violence problem in many Aboriginal communities. Instead of putting the money into areas where it could actually help people, we are going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars—I reckon it will end up being hundreds of millions—on a process which quite probably is not going to lead anywhere because of the various disagreements that I have spoken of.

Whichever way you look at it, this is a piece of legislation that is not going to help anybody except a very, very small group who are already making a fortune out of the Aboriginal industry and who are not helping those who need it most. I mean, I do not understand how we as Australian taxpayers can be pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the Aboriginal industry and still see what we see, where educational standards are Third World, housing standards are Third World and health standards are Third World. How can that happen when hundreds of billions of dollars—perhaps thousands of billions—have been spent over the last 50 years? We would have been better off—we would have gotten better value for money—if we had given every Aboriginal Australian a million dollars and told them to look after themselves. That would have been far more effective in getting the results that we want.

I will not be supporting this legislation. In fact I will be opposing this legislation. I think it is very bad legislation. I think it is sending us down a very, very bad path. It is sending us down a path of discrimination. It is sending us down a path of racism. It is sending us down a path of not accepting people for who they are but judging them on what they are. I think that is something that we should never be allowed to accept. That is something I do not accept, the DLP does not accept and I know for a fact many, many Australians do not accept. If you do not believe me, put it to the pub test and just ask people. Ask people outside of the inner-city bubble how they feel about this and you will get a very, very different response to what you get at the cocktail parties or the dinner parties in Armadale or North Fitzroy. Go and talk to real people and you will get a very, very different answer to the one you get from those that clearly you have been talking to at this point in time.

I will be opposing this legislation. I look forward to the day when we do have true equality for everybody in this country, and that includes people from Aboriginal Australia. They are as Australian as anybody else, and we should always, always recognise that.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to this bill, the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022, and it is with mixed views that I make this contribution. I understand fully the intent of this bill and where this bill seeks to head. I do think our Indigenous community have had a very, very rough way forward and there is a need to support them on a broad front. Certainly that has always been my view and the party’s broad view, that there should be significant support and assistance for Indigenous Australians—and Indigenous Victorians, I should say, in the context of this bill in particular.

It is worth putting on the record what this bill does. The bill relates directly to the 2018 bill which laid out a series of steps for treaty and other arrangements. This bill in a sense adds to the machinery and some of the details about the Treaty Authority and other elements of the process. In one sense it is a derivative bill. In another sense what it does is in effect set up a talk shop; it sets up an opportunity to have discussions to deal with matters, and to deal with matters hopefully in a constructive way.

There is I think at the heart of it a tension that liberals—and I do not mean Liberal Party people, I mean people who are liberal in the broad sense of the word—feel. On one hand they want to provide additional support and assistance to Indigenous communities, to Aboriginal Victorians; on the other there is a genuine tension with treating people as individuals versus treating people as members of groups, and that tension is always there. I think it is a legitimate point. Liberalism has been founded on the idea of individuals and treating people on the merits of that person, the strengths of that person and the legitimacy of that person’s position and character. The famous Martin Luther King Jr statement is perhaps the simplest way to express that. Notwithstanding that, it is important to recognise that there are problems that are faced by Indigenous Victorians as a community and as a group, and there does need to be some sensible response to that.

I also put on record that I am always uneasy at the creation of new and expensive government authorities with not clear, with not sharp, riding instructions. It might be argued that that is legitimate in this circumstance, but it does in effect create another quango. It does create a body that is being allocated $66 million over four years—just over $66 million over four years, I think, is the correct number. These are significant allocations. What I want to see is that money as closely as possible applied to assist Indigenous Victorians rather than talking about matters now. I understand what is trying to be achieved here, but I think there are legitimate concerns. In a sense today my purpose is not to oppose the bill—because we are not opposing the bill—but to make the point that there are legitimate concerns that we would want to ask about.

As a former health minister I have examined many of the aspects of Indigenous health closely. I had certain briefings and close discussions with a number of key Indigenous groups. I am not going to name a long list of people, but it is true, and I did look at these matters extremely closely and ensured additional financial allocations—not trivial allocations but very significant additional allocations—to assist in targeted areas of need to assist with health care. I was keen to see as far as possible that that be through Indigenous-controlled organisations, because more often than not that is a better way to proceed. It is not invariably the case, but more often than not that is the better way to proceed.

Notwithstanding that history, as I say, I have legitimate cautions and concerns about how this will operate. It does carry the risk of increased division, and I think that the way these things are discussed is important. I should put on record my caution too that the Treaty Authority will begin a process of discussion of reparations and payments and taxes and levies and charges and the machinery and mechanisms of implementing those. I think that would carry a significant risk of Victorians losing support for what are the genuine intentions, I think, of most in this field. I think most people are intending and want to see better Indigenous education outcomes, Indigenous health outcomes and better outcomes for Indigenous families more broadly. I think most people in this area want to see greater self-sufficiency for Indigenous communities, as they do for the rest of the Victorian community, and those objectives are highly legitimate.

I think it is also legitimate to look into the past and to see what happened here as a settler society. I am not one who supports a black armband view. I think by and large the story of Victoria is early contact, unsuccessful settlement in 1803 by British settlers, attempts in the 1820s but ultimately successful settlements in 1834 and 1835 and fast growth. Let us be clear, dispossession is actually what did occur. I am not afraid to be clear about the truth of matters, but there were views at the time, and I think it is very wrong to judge historical periods by the attitudes and views of Australia and Victoria today. I think that there are legitimate points in examining the historical legacy closely and understanding it, but that ought to not be an entirely negative view. I understand from the Indigenous—the Koori—position that it is seen as overwhelmingly a negative view, but I think actually that is not the view of all Indigenous Victorians, and I know that because I have discussed it with many.

The truth, I think, is that we do need to recognise the history on one side but recognise that there is a positive settlement story on the other. Victoria has by and large been a successful community and a successful society. That period between 1835 and 1851 and when Victoria got separation from New South Wales on 1 July 1851, Victoria Day, was a period of tremendous growth, and then in the surge of the gold rush and the period after that there was significant population growth and ultimately Federation in 1901. Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Victorians were not as much a part of that history as they should have been, and I think that there are ways to recognise and rectify that to the extent possible. I do not believe in forcing on people a collective guilt. I do not believe that that is the right way to go, but at the same time I do not think we can be blind to what actually did occur. There are many things that I think do not bear close examination without some recoil by people, so I think we have got to be fair, honest and balanced in the way we look at these matters.

I do not believe it is right to overly target former Victorians and contributors to our state. I think we have got to be very careful in reviewing our history in a way that diminishes the genuine contributions, while imperfect in many respects, and the contributions that have been made by people that would not meet some modern standards. I think that it is right to recognise those issues, but I just do think we have got to be extremely careful. European Australians, British-background Australians, have a legitimate history too, and our history has been largely successful. That is my background—partly Scottish, partly English, a bit of German and a bit of this and a bit of that—and that is the story of so many Victorians. But we have a history too, and that history needs to be incorporated in a way that is also generous, not grossly negative or a black armband view. We need to be fair about how this operates. I put on record my caution and concern about the Treaty Authority investing time in focusing on compensation and reparations and levies and taxes and charges levied on the broad Victorian community and Victorian families. I think that that will lead to a negative outcome if that is where the Treaty Authority overly focuses, and as I say, I would caution that that is not the right way to go.

In terms of the machinery of the bill itself, I have some legitimate concerns about the lack of transparency with some of these matters and the lack of clarity about how this will work, and I think that they are the sorts of questions I would ask on any bill of this type. I would want to see public money acquitted well and transparently. I am not sure that that is the case with this bill. But I do go back to my starting point and note that there is a generous spirit overall in the Victorian community, which wants to see a better outcome for Indigenous Victorians and wants to see better and more harmonious relations between most of our peoples, whatever their background.

We will see how this progresses. This bill undoubtedly will pass today, and the community will observe over the forthcoming years exactly how it delivers for Victorians. I wonder how the views of people of British background and non-British background, of European and other backgrounds—more recent migrants to our country, perhaps from an Asian background or perhaps from a range of other backgrounds—are to be incorporated and engaged with. It is not clear to me. Everything I hear talks about an Indigenous view, and that is understandable, but there is another side, and we need to balance these points if we are to reach a greater harmony, a greater outcome. That will require listening. I return to that other caution I put forward, which is that a focus on compensation, recompense, reparations and taxes will, I think, lead to a negative outcome.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (15:18): Before starting, I want to acknowledge that I am a visitor on this land from Wadawurrung country, that this land was, is and always shall be the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I acknowledge that this land was never ceded; it was stolen. I pay my respects to the First Nations people of not only this land here but to all First Nations peoples across this country—because the same injustice, the original injustice of terra nullius, was enacted against them all. I pay my respects to elders who have passed, to those that guide the renewal of country today and those who are emerging as the future leaders, including all who are with us in the chamber today and who are watching these proceedings online.

I also want to acknowledge the incredible work of Aunty Jill Gallagher, all members of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and Aunty Geraldine Atkinson—giants, all of you. Your work and the work to follow is without doubt an example of how our federal counterparts need to go about a national discussion and national treaty.

I want to thank my colleague Christine Couzens MP in the other place. Her advice and continuous commitment are immeasurable. I also thank my friend here in this place Sheena Watt MP. You have been a wonderful influence on me, my friend.

It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this most important of bills, because it should not be my voice being heard. It should be the voice of one who is living the consequences of the invasion of this country. To them I say: I hope that what I have to say does some semblance of justice to this occasion. I apologise in advance for any shortcomings in my contribution as they come from my perspectives only. It is not, and never shall be, my place to speak on your behalf.

It is indeed a momentous occasion. Today we debate and vote on a bill to establish a new authority, one that will have independence and will guide the process of treaty in Victoria. On that subject, all Victorians should be proud that we have led the way on this important issue. Other states have sat back as we have blazed the trail, and I commend the Andrews government for having the courage to forge ahead with what many around the world have seen as a severe failing of our country. The fact our new federal government is pushing ahead with a referendum on a constitutional voice is testimony to the value of Victoria’s work.

Our state—our country—is ready to move ahead with these conversations and the legislative and constitutional changes needed to rectify the fundamental wrongs on which our current society is based, and it is vitally important for us to hear all the terrible history that colonisation has wrought upon the oldest continuous culture on this planet. Some of it we know. It is well publicised and often spoken about and rightly brings a sense of shame that we all agree is the foundation now of making change. But a great many people are completely unaware of the vile practices that have occurred right where they live—local acts of hatred, of genocide, of theft, of rape, murder and infanticide, not to mention the rape of country and water.

We all know of the pain of the stolen generations—not ancient history, recent history of this country—and of the intergenerational trauma that that inflicted and continues to inflict today. But we may not be aware of some of the localised heinous activities that were undertaken and the effect they had on local people that had lived here for at least 65 000 years. Investigations currently underway may reveal that to have been for far, far longer. I apologise again because I am going to list just a few of these moments of anguish and pain because it is important that they are committed to Hansard to be part of the broader public record.

I will begin with Governor Lachlan Macquarie, who ordered a massacre of men, women and children at Appin in the New South Wales highlands, to which he said:

… they are … to surrender themselves to you as Prisoners of War. If they refuse to do so, make the least show of resistance, or attempt to run away from you, you will fire upon and compel them to surrender, breaking and destroying the spears, clubs, and waddies of all those you take Prisoners.

Such Natives as happen to be killed … are to be hanged up on trees in conspicuous situations, to strike the Survivors with the greater terror.

In Western Australia and Queensland it was possible in recent history to obtain a permit to poison Aboriginal people to clear them from land wanted by whitefellas or that they refused to leave.

Where I live the area is a minefield of a history of racism and exploitation, ranging from why the Geelong suburb Bell Post Hill has that name and across the whole region, including the massacres in the dunes around Warrnambool—too many to list here; too much history of bloodshed, of poisoning, of evil; too heartbreakingly long a list to tell in this place and in such little time.

I once had the honour to meet Uncle Jack Charles. I do not expect that he would remember meeting and chatting with me, but I certainly remember that conversation and me most likely annoying him with my persistent questions—wanting to know—when he most likely just wanted to go about his day. That chance meeting took place on the Princes Bridge, right near Flinders Street station and looking down and across to Birrarung Marr. During our discussion he pointed there and told me that it was a meeting place for all of the Kulin nations. Ideas were exchanged, celebrations had, food and goods exchanged and lore discussed. It was a complex, well-established society of human beings, one that enacted trade and negotiations, one that enacted politics—not a new invention of our history but one invented by them and practised on a daily basis long before we did.

It is significant then that just a short walk from such a significant historic place we are gathered in much the same way—different opinions, different attitudes, but today capable of passing a bill that makes another significant step towards a truly unified society where we can together move forward. But first truth must be heard. It must be acknowledged. It must be recognised. And we must be willing to stand aside and wait for this new authority to form the framework of treaty in Victoria. We must accept without hesitation and without alteration their decisions. I look forward to the day when we see what comes from their work.

Lastly, I acknowledge all First Nations people who have come into my life—all the individuals, all the bodies and NGOs. My life is all the better for having met you. I also recognise that my understanding has only just begun, but it is a journey I am willing and able to make. It is the journey of a lifetime—it is never over—of being informed every day, of learning and of being part of a society that seeks to be not just better but best. I hope that all others here and across Victoria and Australia can too. Treaty for Victoria. Treaty for Australia.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:28): I rise to speak on the Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022. I am proud to come from Shepparton, the home of the largest Aboriginal population outside of metropolitan Melbourne. I am proud of the history that exists in my area—the history of our Indigenous people, both the Yorta Yorta and the Bangerang—and I am proud to say that people like William Cooper, who took up the fight for rights for Aboriginal people in the 1800s, came from my community. William Cooper was an extraordinary man. He not only fought for Aboriginal rights in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but he also took up the fight on behalf of other people. He was the one who stood up to the German consulate here in Melbourne against the atrocities the Germans were raging against the Jewish people during World War II. Pastor Sir Doug Nicholls is one of our past elders who has done extraordinary things. We have had people like Uncle Sandy, Uncle Kev and Uncle Rex Atkinson, who were extraordinary leaders in our community. Today we have people like Paul Briggs, who is an extraordinary person in our community, and we are very fortunate to have someone who I am very proud to call my friend, Aunty Geri Atkinson, who has taken up the leadership on the treaty process.

The Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022 continues the advancement of Victoria’s treaty process by facilitating the establishment of elements necessary to support future treaty negotiations between Aboriginal Victorians and the state of Victoria. The bill recognises the establishment of the Treaty Authority under the Treaty Authority Agreement and facilitates its operations by giving legal force to its activities. Secondly, the bill makes minor amendments to the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 in relation to the treaty negotiation framework and self-determination fund to support the establishment of those elements by agreement between the state and the Aboriginal representative body.

As Mr Davis said, this is just a machinery bill. There is nothing to be feared from this bill today. This bill just progresses the discussions about treaty, and I have been disappointed to hear speeches today that have pre-empted outcomes of a treaty and speeches that ignore the need for reconciliation and self-determination for our Indigenous Victorians. This bill is about our shared future, and we should all embrace our shared future. This bill is not something that should be dividing Victorians, it is something that should be uniting us and mapping out a way for us for our shared future.

For everybody, treaty will mean a different thing. There will be some very personal meanings to treaty. My personal aspiration for treaty is to actually progress with closing of the gap. I grew up in Shepparton. I went to school with many Indigenous people. It still offends me to this day that someone who I sat next to in school has an expected outcome in life that is 20 years less than my own life span simply because they are Indigenous. We must close that gap. We must ensure that everyone in Victoria has the same expected outcomes in life. As I said, I grew up in the same community, I went to the same schools with friends in the Indigenous community; I expect that they should have the same opportunities for outcomes in life, particularly when it comes to health and access to education.

I was very fortunate as a young person while working in the family newsagency to be exposed to some of the great leaders in our community. Uncle Sandy was a great friend of my father, and I spent a lot of time talking with him about our Indigenous heritage. I have a file that is probably about, I would say, almost 30 centimetres high of documents that Uncle Sandy has given me that I will never throw away. It stays in my office, and even when I am no longer a member of Parliament that file will stay with me, because those documents are precious to me because they came from Uncle Sandy. One of the greatest honours that I have ever been given in life was to be asked by Aunty Gwen to speak at Uncle Sandy’s funeral, and he is someone who had an enormous impact on me.

But someone else who had an enormous impact on me was his sister-in-law and Aunty Geri Atkinson’s sister, Aunty Mary Atkinson, who was one of the leaders in actually advancing education for young Aboriginal people. We have a great facility in Shepparton called Lulla’s place, an early childhood facility, that is named after Aunty Mary’s mother. This is because the Atkinson family have put so much time into actually recognising that if we are to close the gap, the first thing that we need to do is provide more access to education for our Indigenous students.

Aunty Mary used to get in my ear from the time I was about 15 working in the family business. I think she probably had great intuition and recognised that one day I might be in a position to actually change things for some of our Aboriginal community. She used to pull me aside and talk to me about investing in education for the young Aboriginal members of our community. When I became the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development, the outcome in this state for four-year-old kindergarten was that nearly 95 per cent of non-Indigenous children attended kindergarten, but only 57 per cent of Aboriginal children were attending four-year-old kindergarten. I made it my mission to bring that up to 95 per cent. And we did—we brought it up so that we closed that gap in early childhood to make sure that Indigenous children had the same access to early childhood education. In fact we started free three-year-old kindergarten for Indigenous children, because we knew that investment in the early years is an investment in that child for life. It was a very personal quest of mine to honour Aunty Mary’s memory by doing that.

The Liberals and The Nationals have publicly committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians to advance the treaty process in a way that supports self-determination and reconciliation while strengthening community and connection to country. The Treaty Authority is part of the treaty process. Having publicly committed to advancing the treaty process, the Liberals and The Nationals have committed to a treaty authority as a necessary element of that process, as outlined in part 4 of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018. This legislation reflects the Treaty Authority Agreement. The bill accurately enables the Treaty Authority Agreement that is referred to in part 4 of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 that was signed by the First Peoples’ Assembly and the state on Monday, 6 June 2022, and published on Friday, 10 June 2022. No-one has anything to fear from this bill. This bill sets up the machinery to advance the treaty process, and I support this bill.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (15:37): This bill about treaty is certainly the most important legislation to come before us this week and possibly the most important legislation to come before this Parliament, because this is another step along the road that must be taken. This and the Voice to Parliament indicate the direction we are going, and it is a welcome direction because if we do not take these steps, we will live as a backward country.

I also acknowledge the Indigenous forebears, the original inhabitants and owners of this land, the Wurundjeri people, and pay respect to their elders past, present and future. Everyone says this now at the beginning of speeches, or nearly everyone. But we have got to go further than just paying respects and acknowledging—we have got to really take on board the spirit of our Indigenous community and recognise it and incorporate it in our way of life, because this is so important. We talk about Australians. The Indigenous people of Australia are the true Australians. We are all migrants, or our forebears were migrants, unless we have got Aboriginal blood flowing through our veins. My ancestors came here five generations ago. For half of Australia’s population, their ancestors came here a mere generation ago.

The Aboriginal people go back hundreds of generations before that—we do not know how far back, but a long way back—and they have cared for and nurtured this land for all that time. We have only come here recently, and the settlers have become the power here. There were wars fought. Mr Meddick read out the attitude of an early Governor that this was war, and it was conducted in a bloodthirsty manner.

All this is part of our history. It is a history we must acknowledge, and we must teach this history. We must acknowledge Aboriginal history and teach that. I take very much on board what Dr Bach was pointing out in his opening remarks on this bill: the importance of teaching this history—history post 1788, when the colonisers came here, and also the history before that, the Dreamtime and all of that. That is extremely important for us to understand and incorporate into our life because it is Australian history and it goes back a long way. This is the way to understand and respect Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal knowledge, which is so important. We should be teaching Aboriginal language at schools, because if kids learn the language, they learn the culture too. It is most important.

We are just scratching the service in making progress here. Really the runs are not on the board, as Dr Ratnam and Dr Bach were talking about earlier. We have still got Aboriginal children being removed from their homes at a high rate. Although Indigenous people only make up 3 per cent of the current population, they make up 25 per cent of the prisoners in jail. There is something wrong with our social and legal systems: they are not working. Let us hope that incorporating Aboriginal ideas and Aboriginal issues into our daily discourse through this process really starts to bring about change.

I had the privilege of, and I learned a hell of a lot from, being on the Environment and Planning Committee, especially in the habitat destruction and species extinction inquiry that we did. We heard from many Aboriginal groups in that inquiry. The one thing that came through when hearing from Aboriginal people is that what they put first and foremost is care of this land and love of the land.

My party is this Sustainable Australia Party, and we talk about preserving the Australian land for future generations. This is what we want to do, and we hear that is what Aboriginal people have been doing and that is how they have lived upon this land. Yet when we came as colonisers we came with an extractive and exploitative attitude to the land, like we were coming here to take as much wealth out of the land as we could and go back to where we came from. Well, we are not going back to where we came from. This is our land. We have got to take care of it too. The only people that came forward with reasonable, practical ways of managing or looking to manage the land into the future were the Indigenous people. They talked about ways of land management and water management that would work into the future, and this really did not come from the submitters that were representing other interests. The submitters that were coming from the group of people that were descendants of the colonisers were talking of the Aboriginal ideas that they had picked up in land management in Australia. It is just so important for us to take on board Aboriginal ways of land management, and to do that we have got to understand the culture and the history. All of that is so important.

I look forward because of the great promise of the treaty that we are trying to set up. This is really just the beginning of that. We have got a lot to learn from the Indigenous people of our country. I would like to see that become incorporated into our ways of going about our business and our relationships in Australia, especially our relationship to the land and how we can care for it.

The great myth of terra nullius, we all know now, was nonsense—that they were not here, or if they were here they did not do anything to look after the land so we could come in and teach them how to farm it and how to mine it. It is absolutely ridiculously arrogant, but we talk about the golden age of the 1800s in Australia—Australia Felix. I come from a farming family. My grandfather made a good living out of this land as a sheep farmer here, but we were living off the back of what the Aboriginal people had done. They had nurtured the grasslands, they had built up the topsoil, they had looked after the water and they had managed the forestry so it was not a dense bushy undergrowth the way it is now. All this had been done, and we benefited from it. But pretty soon we started running it down, and we see the damage all over the place.

We have to change our practices. I look forward to a lot of that coming out of this. We have already heard a lot in our inquiries that we need to do a hell of a lot more in the way of looking after our Indigenous species that are in decline. We have to pay close attention to climate change and how we manage the landscape and water. All of this we talk about at a high level, but we do not do enough practically. We have got to really take that Aboriginal knowledge on board at the lower levels and get that knowledge incorporated into how we go about things—not just say, ‘Okay, you fellas, thanks for turning up. You sit to one side while we do it our way’. I have great hopes for this.

This is probably the most important bill to come before us in this session. It comes in front of my wake-up-to-climate-change bill, which is also very important to our country. I will leave it there.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:47): I am just so pleased to rise to speak to this bill. This is a really significant occasion, but it is one that is long overdue—hundreds and hundreds of years overdue. The action of this Parliament today truly does mark respect for the traditional owners of this land. As I said in my address-in-reply to the Governor’s speech at the start of this term, in acknowledging the Wurundjeri people and the Woiwurrung people of the Kulin nation, during the 59th Parliament I hoped that we would pay the ultimate respect of a fair and fulsome treaty process. Almost four years on, I am glad that we are here truly paying respect to the traditional owners of this land by changing the Victorian law in this way. And I pay my respects to the elders that have given so much to get us to this point, to those present here today and to those emerging and to those that will follow. I would also like to particularly acknowledge and thank the First Peoples’ Assembly and their co-chairs, Aunty Geri Atkinson and Marcus Stewart, for their work and their briefings to me and to my office. Such an important precursor to this bill the First Peoples’ Assembly was.

This bill, as many others have said, is as important a bill as we have ever seen before this Parliament. This is not just about words, it is about action—action in partnership with the Victorian Aboriginal community. It is an opportunity to address the heartache of the past, to acknowledge a long and incredible Indigenous culture and to work together for a shared future. First Nations people know what is right for their communities and making the decisions that matter and that make a difference. They know. This is about that connection to country and community. I would like to quote Marcus Stewart right now:

There’s overwhelming evidence that shows when First Peoples are in charge of the programs, and policies that affect us and our lives … They succeed.

As the chair of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, when we have looked at spent convictions, when most recently we have looked at the impact of parental incarceration on children, when we have looked at the criminal justice system and when we have looked at drug law reform it is the voices of the Aboriginal communities that have really shone a light on the way forward—I think none more powerfully than when we were investigating spent convictions.

I put up a bill in this chamber, a private members bill, to address how historical convictions could become life sentences and how we could move on from that. Unbeknownst to me there was this terrific program, the Woor-Dungin project, which was run out of RMIT. This was a program that was run with Indigenous communities around our state. I had an idea about what spent convictions should look like, and I had put a private members bill up to say just that, but after hearing from the Woor-Dungin project and after listening to our First Nations people—who are exponentially affected by our criminal justice system and by what we call out-of-home care, but I am not sure there is much care in it—I completely changed my mind on what the spent convictions would look like, and the report reflected that. I am pleased to say that the government’s response to that report and the subsequent bill that came before this chamber, which was successful, reflected the work of the Woor-Dungin project. There were First Nations people showing us the way, and this is what this process, what treaty, will go on to do.

This bill will allow the Treaty Authority to be established as a truly independent umpire, and this is what Aboriginal communities are saying needs to happen. The creation of the Treaty Authority is a key part of the architecture that will enable treaty-making between First Peoples and the state by acting as an independent umpire for treaty negotiations. The bill will enable the Treaty Authority to operate as a legal entity by conferring on it legal powers and capacities. I actually get a little bit of a shiver when we are saying these words because of what this means and the hundreds of years late that we are in coming to the table for this to happen. Ultimately this will enable traditional owners and First Peoples of Victoria to negotiate future treaties with the Victorian government, with the Victorian people, on a wide range of matters.

Many of us have visited New Zealand—probably less so over the last few years, but I have certainly been fortunate in the last couple of years to travel to New Zealand. I have always been struck by the relationship between the Māori community and the New Zealand government and how different it is to here in Australia and in Victoria. Like in New Zealand, these treaties that this is the beginning of will cover matters like recognition of historic wrongs and injustices, which we have heard about here today; recognition of self-determination and self-government; rights to access and manage land and resources, health, education and economic development; and rights to practise and revitalise culture, language and heritage. I for one am really looking forward to that—to learning more about the culture of this land that has the oldest living culture in the world.

I am proud to be here today, and I am proud that this state can make this commitment to treaty today. I do not want to finish without quoting the wonderful Aunty Geri Atkinson. She put this out on Twitter maybe even today. She said:

I’m delighted that our communities have crafted the Treaty umpire in a way that respects our way of doing things and will draw on the wisdom of the oldest living culture in the world.

I commend this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:55): The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were here for many thousands of years prior to colonisation. We also acknowledge that colonisation was harmful to them. It was inherently violent and coercive. It dispossessed people of land and resources, promoted extensive and oppressive government and warfare, and infringed upon the principle of consent. As libertarians we condemn these acts. They violate the most fundamental aspects of our philosophy: human liberty, non-aggression and non-intervention in international affairs. The Liberal Democrats agree that colonial Australia has a shameful history of relations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and we are strongly supportive of their communities.

As those in this place would know, I received public condemnation for attending the Black Lives Matter rally in June 2020 to hear and listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. If I had just listened to the media instead of going and listening with my own ears, I could have been fooled into thinking that this protest was simply some imported distraction from the United States. However, what I actually heard was many people from many backgrounds raising issues that I sympathise with, such as incarceration for victimless crimes. I also defended this community’s right to freedom of assembly despite the pandemic restrictions and was upset by the way that the protests were deliberately misrepresented, particularly by the conservative media—similar to how more recent protests were manipulated by media outlets also.

The Liberal Democrats have also joined with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to support and advocate for positions on important legislation that impacts these communities, such as removing public drunkenness laws, issues relating to raising the age of criminal responsibility and the reformation of drug laws which result in people with substance abuse issues being unnecessarily criminalised.

Whilst we will continue to support the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and engage meaningfully on all legislation—and I thank the representatives from the First Peoples’ Assembly for their engagement with us—we do not support this particular bill. At the outset we commend the parties for what appears to be a fresh and constructive model to oversee a treaty. However, we have concerns about the legislation in its entirety. Firstly, there is no limit or particular end on funding. I note that this legislation is modelled on a similar organisation in another jurisdiction, the British Columbia Treaty Commission. Alarmingly that process started in 1993, almost 30 years ago. I have serious concerns about our state embarking on a process that would seemingly never end. There is no particular trigger that would signal the end of this process.

Secondly, whilst the Liberal Democrats believe strongly in providing safety nets for those in need, we do not believe in identity politics. During my first speech I said, and I quote:

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

We are also concerned about the conditions under which Australian citizens may become party to or responsible for any future treaty. Who will eventually bear responsibility for treaty outcomes? Will it be future generations? Is it right or ethical that a recent immigrant to Australia incurs liabilities for crimes committed hundreds of years ago or for recent policies such as the NT intervention that they or their ancestors had nothing to do with? Indeed many of the original colonists of this nation did not choose to come here, they were forced into deportation as convicts. We are concerned that this approach, which assigns the powers of a body corporate, could become the extension of paternalistic colonial structures to Indigenous Australians who choose not to take part in the process. We also have concerns about the compatibility with any potential national treaty or treaties. We also have concerns about the idea of having parallel legal systems, which violates the concept of equality under law. And importantly, a treaty is normally an agreement between nations or international organisations, so we have concerns about enforceability in the event of an unsympathetic future government that assumes power.

The federal and state governments claim billions of dollars are spent in Australia to combat Indigenous disadvantage every year; however, we commonly hear from First Nations people that they do not see any of this. We also see little or no progress in closing the gap in a number of areas. So where does the money go? Much of that money is absorbed by an urban bureaucracy. More government-sanctioned bureaucracy did not serve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people well during colonisation, and it is not serving them well now. For a free people, more government means more restrictions. More than anything the Liberal Democrats respect all people as individuals. We support more freedom for people to do more things on their land. We defend human rights and support more understanding approaches by law enforcement for all people. We want a Victoria that truly respects the rights of the individual, including First Nations people.

Sitting suspended 4.00 pm until 4.18 pm.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:18): I will be brief. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of many of the symbolic acts of acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians that we have adopted over recent years. I sometimes roll my eyes at the ceremonies that have become de facto compulsory for almost everyone in public life who wants to signal their virtue on Indigenous issues—symbolism that by and large has no real value. I am sceptical of a lot of these symbolic things, but I am not an enemy of reconciliation. Unlike the usual virtue signalling, this bill is potentially about something more than symbolic: a Treaty Authority that will ultimately sign a treaty with the Victorian government.

But I have concerns. Treaties can only be signed between sovereign powers. To be blunt, I am not sure that either Indigenous groups or the Victorian government have the necessary sovereignty to enter into such a treaty. Victoria passed much of its sovereignty on to the federal government in 1901. It is unlikely that it really has the power by itself to treat with a separate sovereign power. On the Indigenous side we often hear that sovereignty was never ceded, so Indigenous Victorian groups claim a residual power to treat. However, the ultimate end of such a treaty will be to cede this residual authority to the Victorian government or it will result in the creation of separate territories outside the power of the Victorian state.

Much of what the Victorian government has put in place, supposedly for the benefit of Indigenous Victorians, is largely a sham. Title is given over areas of Crown land but not really. Instead of freehold land belonging to the people where they are free to choose how to use it, it is some kind of symbolic title where the government retains control, directs use and mismanages it into destruction. I have often stood in this place and advocated for the creation of a separate state for the regional parts of Victoria, free from the hegemony of Melbourne and the urban voters, but I struggle to see how we can create separate sovereign Indigenous territories from the remnants of Crown land in the regions in this state. At best we would produce South African apartheid-style homelands, economically dependent client states, and keep Indigenous people begging governments for funding. As a representative from regional Victoria I have said before that regional communities bear most of the costs of the city’s reconciliation program. The inner city gets the warm fuzzy feelings and regional people get excluded from land and have their lifestyles and their events shut down.

To be clear, I am not opposed to reaching a settlement with Indigenous Victorians. I am willing to entertain many things towards this end, even radical things—changing dates of holidays, handing over freehold title to areas of Crown land, arriving at a final dollar sum of compensation or establishing an Indigenous electoral roll as they have in New Zealand. All those things would be on the table as part of the process for creating a new state of Murray if that ever goes ahead. But I am not prepared to sell out regional Victorians for the feelings of inner-city Melbourne—to have non-Indigenous regional Victorians excluded from the land and their lifestyles to push a city-based reconciliation process. It is city-based Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who would benefit, not regional Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. I am happy to hand over freehold title to Lake Tyrrell to Indigenous ownership, including revenue streams from tourism and salt extraction, provided the rights of local non-Indigenous groups are respected—the right to their rally three days a year.

But all agreements we make must be with the consent of the people of regional Victoria. I am not prepared to participate in an ongoing, open-ended series of concessions where each time ground is conceded the goalposts move further. There remains an open sore around the settlement of Indigenous issues in Victoria and Australia, and it needs to be closed, but the solutions need to be for all Victorians and all Australians. We need a deadline to finalise discussion, we need clear limits on what is on the table, we need costs for not arriving at a settlement and we need to really establish who has the sovereignty to negotiate, all of which could be achieved through a treaty authority but will not be achieved through this authority or through this bill.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:23): With deep personal respect I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this Parliament stands, the Wurundjeri people. I pay my respects to their elders and ancestors past, present and future, elders from all Victorian First Peoples, members of the First Peoples’ Assembly and any Aboriginal people who are here with us today. For thousands of years—the oldest continuous culture in the world—these people have practised their laws, customs and languages and nurtured country through their spiritual, material and economic connections to land, water and resources. Victoria’s First Peoples maintain that their sovereignty has never been ceded.

Historically, on 23 June 2022 the landmark Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Bill 2022 passed the Legislative Assembly. There are very few days that deserve to be lauded as historic, but this was one of them. The Legislative Assembly broke with their usual practice, their usual way of doing things, to support the members of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, Victoria’s first independent and democratically elected body, to represent traditional owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on their journey to treaty. On that day many of us participated in the smoking ceremony on the front steps of Parliament and sat in the other chamber whilst co-chairs Marcus Stewart and Aunty Geraldine Atkinson delivered a powerful call to action to all members of Parliament.

I would like to take the opportunity to recall Aunty Geri’s words, because they hold for us in this chamber today. She asked MPs to ‘walk with us on this journey’:

You each have a part to play here in ensuring that this can happen … I ask that you give the … Bill … your blessings … Do not look back on this moment in years to come to see yourself on the wrong side of history. Instead step into this moment and have the courage to help create change …

Members of the Legislative Assembly took Aunty Geri’s words to heart that day and passed the bill unanimously—bar one. Government, the opposition and crossbenchers came together in agreement that treaty and truth are the way forward for all Victorians. It was an important moment of bipartisan support that I hope to see replicated here today.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank most of those who have made a contribution to this bill. It is disappointing that a minority have used the debate to reprosecute their opposition to treaty—some expressly, some not so expressly but a little bit indirectly perhaps. I do not believe this was the day to do that in the Parliament. We have already dealt with that issue, and for those that are not on board, I think the words of the First Peoples’ Assembly’s co-chair will ring true: you will look back in years to come and see yourself on the wrong side of history.

I am proud to say that the majority of MPs, the majority of Victorians, overwhelmingly support treaty; support the opportunity for our state to recognise and celebrate the unique status, rights, cultures and history of Aboriginal Victorians; and support reconciliation and the healing of the wounds of the past. A treaty will tangibly improve the lives of Aboriginal Victorians and the lives of future generations.

This bill is quite straightforward. It is really a piece of architecture to deliver treaty. I do not intend to use my contribution to go through the content of the bill, because other speakers have certainly done that on my behalf. However, there are a few issues that I will front foot and answer a few questions that I know have been put. Some have asked why the Treaty Authority has not been established as a tribunal or inquisitorial body with coercive powers. This was a deliberate choice by the assembly in recognition that when taken internationally or in Victoria, these quasi-judicial approaches often fail when relationship building is at the heart of an outcome. They often lead to long-running litigation and, rather than resolving disputes, cause them to take root. Treaty asks something different of us. In recognition that treaties must be forged freely, with the consent of all parties, it is not appropriate for the Treaty Authority to constrain the ability for parties to freely determine their participation in the treaty process.

The assembly put forward a unique Treaty Authority model with a novel legal form: an independent, unincorporated body. This form entrenches the independence of the Treaty Authority, as Parliament originally intended through the 2018 treaty act, and ensures the authority is not subject to the direction or control of the government or any minister. This signals to all Victorians that the Treaty Authority will be free from government influence and will be able to do things differently.

As a critical treaty element delivering a public good through the treaty process and without its own revenue-raising capabilities, it is fitting that this state resource the Treaty Authority. The bill proposes a capped special appropriation to fund the operations of the Treaty Authority. A special appropriation is a secure, ongoing stream of funding that insulates the Treaty Authority from the flux of annual budget cycles. This puts the Treaty Authority’s ability to operate into the future beyond doubt and maximises its independence from government. Failing to resource the Treaty Authority in this way would prove fatal to the success of the treaty process. The Treaty Authority sits at the heart of the bid to remake the relationship between the state and First Peoples. It will also lead the way in cultural revival as it upholds Aboriginal lore, law and cultural authority for traditional owners across the state. The level of funding outlined in the bill is commensurate with the significance of this undertaking, and any reduction in the special appropriation would pre-emptively limit what can collectively be achieved through treaty before negotiations have begun in earnest. This is an investment in the returns that all Victorians stand to reap from a fair and just treaty process.

Importantly, the Treaty Authority will be publicly accountable to all Victorians. Accountability is acquitted through oversight by Victoria’s transparency and accountability bodies and rigorous annual public reporting requirements. The Treaty Authority will be subject to robust financial management safeguards under existing legislative frameworks. The bill makes provisions for section 53A of the Financial Management Act 1994 to apply to the Treaty Authority. The Treaty Authority will be required to submit its annual report and audited financial statements to the minister each financial year, who will then present the report to Parliament. The Treaty Authority will seek charity status, meaning that it will also have financial record keeping obligations under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 commonwealth law.

The Treaty Authority is entrusted to build the integrity of the treaty process for all Victorians. The Treaty Authority must therefore be, and must be seen to be, independent and impartial. The state and assembly will convene an independent panel to select the Treaty Authority members in line with best practice appointments. The panel will select Treaty Authority members on the basis of candidates’ notable skills, high moral character, cultural standing, integrity, technical expertise, understanding of First Peoples’ culture and the workings of government. All candidates must demonstrate that they are free from any external influence which may undermine their ability to be impartial and objective and must understand that impartiality builds trust in their ability to make decisions and take action. Candidates will be required to declare any private interests and, where relevant, put in place a plan for managing conflicts of interest. The panel will also develop standards of conduct around conflict of interest to guide Treaty Authority members in good-faith exercise of their powers.

Those are just some of the issues that will hopefully pre-empt some of the questions in committee, although no doubt we will have a bit of a conversation about some of those topics and other topics at members’ discretion. I will end my contribution by saying that this is a historic bill. I am very proud that Victoria is leading the nation. The state and the assembly have taken significant steps on the path to treaty in their partnership in establishing the Treaty Authority, and today we as a chamber are asked to take another step. Passing the bill will honour Victoria’s commitment to treaty making and pave the way for genuinely fair and bicultural treaty processes that can deliver for every Victorian. As a member of this chamber and as the Leader of the Government, it is an honour to commend the bill to the house.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:39)

Mr DAVIS: With the leave of the committee, I might just ask a couple of general questions at this purposes clause time, noting the preamble and noting the purposes are:

(a) to make provision in relation to the Treaty Authority …

(i) recognising the Treaty Authority’s establishment under the Treaty Authority Agreement …

(ii) facilitating the operation of the Treaty Authority by giving legal force to its activities; and

(b) to amend the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 in relation to the treaty negotiation framework and the administration of the self-determination fund.

I just want to ask the minister whether it is the government’s intention that this body would be negotiating or discussing—all those words that are used in the bill—matters around financial compensation, reparations or payments to Aboriginal Victorians.

Ms SYMES: I might have to ask you to be a bit more specific, Mr Davis. As you might be aware, the Victorian government has commenced its stolen generations reparations scheme. I am proud to say it has started and is receiving applications. But in relation to this body, I might ask you to be a bit more specific about what you are asking in the question that you have posed. The bill is pretty clear in the purposes clause in what it has set out to do, but it is not prescriptive in relation to limitations. The references that you made in a general sense are possible, but you made a very general claim. So I guess the answer is it is possible.

Mr DAVIS: I thank you for your answer, and that is precisely the point: this is not prescriptive, it is very open. It might be that that is legitimate in certain respects. My simple question is: is it the government’s intention that the body discuss reparations, compensation or other aspects as part of a treaty? Is it the government’s intention that there be some fundraising mechanism discussed to pay those fees?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, you are jumping ahead in relation to hypotheticals of what a future body might do. Why we need a Treaty Authority is to advance the treaty process, which has been agreed to by the Parliament as something that is important to Victoria. Before formal treaty negotiations can begin, we need to set up the authority to facilitate that. That is the purpose of this bill. It is the architecture to create a nation-leading treaty in the state of Victoria.

Mr DAVIS: I thank the minister, and I understand that is the point. I think what you are saying to me here is that there is no restriction on that and it could well undertake those steps that I have outlined. It could well look at compensation, it could well look at reparations and it could well look at some tax mechanism or levy mechanism to support those payments.

Ms SYMES: Apologies, Mr Davis, I have version control. On some of the issues that you have raised in relation to compensation, what I would say is that the Treaty Authority is an independent umpire for the treaty process, as I have explained. It is the architecture. There is no express provision in the Treaty Authority bill or agreement for the Treaty Authority to establish mechanisms to deliver reparations or compensation.

The treaty process is not yet at the stage where we are negotiating specific proposals. We want to get started with treaty, we want to achieve treaty, and that is the goal and the intention of this legislation. It is the goal of the First Peoples’ Assembly. It is the goal of the state government and, hopefully, of this chamber. By its very definition treaty calls for parties to come together in good faith and broker agreement, and to speculate about what treaty would achieve, I believe, verges on misrepresenting the earnest negotiations that are to come.

Mr DAVIS: I appreciate the Attorney’s points and I appreciate the spirit in which they are provided. My reading of the earlier legislation in conjunction with this legislation is that it is wide open to the Treaty Authority to deal with exactly the matters I have outlined. It might be that the minister does not want to say that, but I am content, if I can put it this way, that in fact it is open to the Treaty Authority to look at compensation, recompense, reparations and the mechanisms of funding those, which could be levies, new taxes or other arrangements. I just make the point that the Andrews Labor government—and I make this point as the Shadow Treasurer—has increased tax very substantially across its eight years in—

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: No, it is actually quite important to know. I think people have a right to know exactly where the government believes this will—

Ms SYMES: I have just told you. It is setting up the treaty.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Attorney, Mr Davis has the call.

Mr DAVIS: It is, but I will just leave with the simple point that it is open and there is no protection here for the Victorian taxpayer.

Ms SYMES: I will take that as a comment, but I will take it as an offensive comment. Mr Davis asserting a future thing that I am not in a position to rule out does not make it a fact, does not make it true and in fact undermines the spirit in which this bill is being debated today. This is about setting up the architecture to advance treaty. The comments Mr Davis has made today undermine that, and I think he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr DAVIS: You will note that we are not opposing this bill. We are not actually not supporting it, but we are entitled to ask questions on behalf of Victorians, on behalf of Victorian taxpayers. If there is an intention that there are new charges or new levies, I think Victorians are entitled to know that and they are entitled to be aware of that. That might on one level be uncomfortable, but the fact is that the truth of the matter is actually sometimes important too.

Ms SYMES: The only things that are uncomfortable in the chamber right now are your comments, Mr Davis. You are the master of backhanded comments. You are the master of saying, ‘Oh, we support it, but’. This is about treaty; this is not about taxes.

Mr DAVIS: But with respect, Minister, what you have actually told us today—

Ms SYMES: No, you are not being respectful at all.

Mr DAVIS: I am actually being respectful. What I have said respectfully is that what we have learned is that in fact the two may well be connected.

Ms SYMES: I will leave it there, but, Mr Davis, just saying things might happen does not mean they will.

Ms MAXWELL: Attorney, if you wouldn’t mind just indulging me for a moment. In clause 1 I am wondering if you could elaborate on self-determination for me. We know that the fund will provide flexibility. Does it have specific guidelines and a framework?

Ms SYMES: So two questions?

Ms MAXWELL: Two questions there, Attorney—one on more of a specific definition of ‘self-determination’, and does the fund already have guidelines and a specific framework?

Ms SYMES: I will go with your latter question first, in relation to the fund. So this is, as I indicated in my response to Mr Davis, the architecture to establish the authority. Matters such as the details of the fund will be subject to negotiations and agreement, and that is part of what the authority’s work will be. In relation to self-determination, the normal meaning is given to self-determination, which is well understood in relation to matters of Aboriginal affairs and policy in relation to Aboriginal-led outcomes, Aboriginal-led processes, to get much better outcomes for Aboriginal people.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Attorney. I think it was just important to have that specific definition on the record. Attorney, how will the Treaty Authority balance any conflicts of interest when overseeing negotiations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties?

Ms SYMES: That is a pretty broad question. In relation to what types of conflict of interest are you referring? Are you talking about dispute resolution between two people that disagree or personal conflicts of interest? It is a little bit difficult for me to determine what you mean by your question.

Ms MAXWELL: I think any dispute resolution, whether it be a conflict of interest as opposed to a personal conflict.

Ms SYMES: Look, in terms of treaties, they must be forged freely and with the consent of all parties, and the Treaty Authority is vital to the successful negotiation of any treaty and ensuring discussions proceed in good faith and on a more equal footing. As I indicated in my summing up, there is good reason that the authority is not set up as a judicial-type body. It is set up in the spirit of negotiation, and that is the aim: to ensure that we get the best outcomes.

Mr LIMBRICK: I have a few questions, and if it suits the Attorney I will acquit them all in clause 1 if that is okay. In our discussions with the government we were advised not just that part of the job of the Treaty Authority is to negotiate with the government but also that the government hopes that it will act as some sort of dispute resolution mechanism between Indigenous groups that might have disputes with each other, so that they can sort those out before negotiating with the government. I note that there are no coercive powers of this authority, so does that mean that there is no requirement for First Nations people to participate in this dispute resolution process as a first resort? There are multiple dispute resolution pathways. They could go through the courts, through VCAT or through these other things. Is there any requirement for an aggrieved party to use the Treaty Authority before it goes to VCAT or the courts?

Ms SYMES: It will be set out in the treaty framework and is still to be negotiated. But one of the benefits in having dispute resolution from a Treaty Authority will be to avoid that type of disputation in the courts, for example. So a different way of doing things hopefully produces better outcomes and saves money for everyone, frankly, in relation to avoiding drawn-out litigation and the like. So that would be the ambition, I hope, of the authority to resolve as many disputes as possible within their own framework.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. Actually this is one of the parts of the bill that I really liked, the streamlining of dispute resolution, but I suppose the point that I am trying to get at is that it is an option for parties to engage in this process. My understanding is, and please clarify if I am wrong, there is no requirement for any aggrieved party to use the authority as its first resort. They could just go straight to the courts if they wanted to bypass the authority. Is that correct?

Ms SYMES: As I answered in my first response, these are matters to be negotiated and determined. But perhaps a somewhat similar situation would be when matters are taken to the Fair Work Commission. Quite often they will say, ‘Hey, have you followed the dispute resolution processes that you agreed to in relation to an enterprise bargaining agreement?’, for example, and then they would flick it back, saying, ‘Hey, come back after you’ve done that’. I am not in a position to pre-empt what the framework would look like but am merely pointing out that there are other models that would encourage people to go through the appropriate steps before ending up in the courts.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying that. Another subject that some people talked about in the chamber today was this idea of decolonisation. The Treaty Authority itself is set up similar to a body corporate. Does the Attorney believe that this body corporate structure could be considered another colonial structure by people that choose not to participate or cannot participate?

Ms SYMES: Mr Limbrick, you are inviting me to give an opinion, and I am not going to bite on that one. But coming back, this is the architecture that will facilitate the establishment of such matters that you have somewhat indicated. There are ways for people to look at these issues. But the body will be set up through negotiation and through agreement, and I will not respond to your invitation to me to give my views in relation to that matter.

Mr LIMBRICK: Thank you for clarifying your position there.

Ms SYMES: I kind of didn’t. That was the point.

Mr LIMBRICK: You kind of didn’t, yes. That is your position, so that is fine. One of the other issues raised is exactly what a treaty is, in terms of the ability of a government to make an agreement with its own citizens. Is part of the scope of the Treaty Authority to figure out what that legal framework actually looks like and how it would be enforceable in the future? Is that part of its role?

Ms SYMES: Mr Limbrick, the Treaty Authority is more like the independent umpire to help determine issues between parties. It is not a determining body in its own right in the way you have articulated it.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. The next question is on the issue of funding—the initial appropriation amounts that are outlined in the bill. How were these figures arrived at? Presumably there must have been some sort of draft budget of how many staff and what sort of equipment they might need. How were these figures actually arrived at?

Ms SYMES: As you have identified, Mr Limbrick, the operating funding for the Treaty Authority has been set out. It is proposing a special appropriation with a yearly cap to fund the operations of the Treaty Authority, including member and staff matters and the like. It is very important, as I outlined in my contribution, that ongoing sustainable funding is available to enable the Treaty Authority’s independence from government and to enable it to perform its functions effectively.

The costings were developed in consultation with the assembly in consideration of its novel functions and its unique structure. They were assessed against comparable organisations like the British Columbia Treaty Commission and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to project the scale and activities of the Treaty Authority, and they then went on to model the Treaty Authority’s potential organisational structure. It is important to point out that the funding has been agreed with the assembly.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer there. With regard to independence, were any of these funds envisaged to set up some sort of capital reserve for this organisation? What I am getting at is: the only lever that the government has, because they are an independent body, is through funding. If the organisation was able to reserve some of this money, was part of the thinking in this budget that they will have some sort of reserve fund, or is it not envisaged that they will hold reserves?

Ms SYMES: Like many entities in government, it is my understanding that unspent moneys would be returned to consolidated revenue.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. For example, just to clarify for my understanding here, if they do not spend it, it will be handed back to the government, effectively. Is that what you are saying? So they will not be able to build a reserve.

Ms SYMES: That is correct.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. How many employees were modelled in these estimates that were drawn up for the budget, and in particular what is the ratio of employees to executives? How many executives and how many employees are we envisaging that the authority will end up employing?

Ms SYMES: I am not sure that that is completely finalised, Mr Limbrick. The modelling would have made assumptions. In relation to the establishment, I will just seek some advice as to whether I can give you any more details, but I do not think that is set.

Everything I said is right.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney, but weren’t we just saying that there was some modelling but we do not know how many people we are assuming will be employed here under that modelling? I am sort of not clear. If there was modelling, surely it would have assumptions of how many people would be employed.

Ms SYMES: What I am not in a position to do is outline the specific roles of every individual and their specific levels, but it was modelled on approximately 60 full-time equivalent.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer there. One of the major concerns that we have and that was expressed to us by a number of people is around the scope of the authority and at what point it would complete its work. My understanding is that there would be some point at which the authority would no longer exist. Has the government given any thought to what that actually looks like? My concern here is that we have got in British Columbia the example that was given of their authority there, and that has been going for 30 years and will continue going. I am sort of concerned: how will we know when they have done their job?

Ms SYMES: Mr Limbrick, the Treaty Authority will run indefinitely or until resolved by agreement of the state and the assembly, as the Aboriginal representative body, and it can only be done if they are satisfied that the Treaty Authority has no further functions or duties to perform under the agreement, under the treaty negotiation framework or under treaties made under the treaty negotiation framework or is unable to perform its functions or duties under the agreement. It is expected that the treaty process and therefore the Treaty Authority will be operational for some time. As you have indicated, the British Columbia model commenced in 1993 and it is still ongoing. In this time seven treaties have been finalised, while a further 31 First Nations are in the process of finalising negotiations or actively negotiating. So as I have indicated, there is no set time, but we anticipate it will be around for some time.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer there. If it is determined by the authority that they do not have enough funds to do the work that they think they will need to do—I presume that they will need a lot of legal advice—or there are management issues, like maybe they spend all of the money, is there scope for the minister to award more money to prop up the organisation, or is that not something that is possible?

Ms SYMES: Yes, it is possible.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying that. So what sort of mechanism does the government envisage will be there to show accountability for the spending of this money so that taxpayers that are concerned about how their money is being spent can see that it is being spent effectively? For example, will there be financial reports tabled in Parliament? How will this actually work?

Ms SYMES: I tried to front foot this one. You did not hear my contribution, did you? The Treaty Authority will be subject to robust financial management safeguards under existing legislative frameworks. The bill makes provision for section 53A of the Financial Management Act 1994 to apply to the Treaty Authority. The Treaty Authority will be required to submit its annual report and audited financial statements to the minister each financial year, who will present a report to Parliament. The Treaty Authority will seek charity status, which means it will also be covered by the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Act 2012. The Treaty Authority will be entrusted to build the integrity of the treaty process for all Victorians and therefore must be seen to be independent and impartial, but that does not mean free of oversight.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. With the part of your answer where you spoke about how they effectively can be treated as a charity, does that imply that they may seek funding from alternate sources to government—through, for example, charitable donations?

Ms SYMES: My advice from the box is no.

Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. So what is the reason for it being classified as a charity in that case? Is it for taxation purposes or something?

Ms SYMES: Pretty much.

Dr RATNAM: I just have a few questions. Firstly, Attorney, I want to commend the government for advancing this bill to this stage in this chamber. It is indeed a relief and really positive that we are here and about to pass this bill into law very, very soon. I have just a couple of questions, if I can acquit them in clause 1. Firstly, as I mentioned during my second-reading contribution, many of the details of the Treaty Authority, including its establishment and the tenets by which it will operate, are included in the Treaty Authority Agreement but not in the legislation. Can you speak as to why that model was chosen—to not include it in the legislation but just keep it in the agreement?

Ms SYMES: I thank Dr Ratnam for her comments, absolutely, and her contribution was exemplary. Thank you for your question. For clarity, the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 does not require that the Treaty Authority be established by legislation, only that it be established by agreement. As we know, the underpinning success of this is around agreement between the state and the assembly. Accordingly the Treaty Authority Agreement was executed by the state and the assembly on Monday, 6 June 2020, therefore establishing the Treaty Authority. The focus of the bill is to give legal force to the activities of the Treaty Authority established by agreement between the state and the assembly, including, as you would be aware, conferring on it the powers and the legal capacity of a body corporate, protecting members and employees from personal liability and appropriating funds from the consolidated revenue for the Treaty Authority’s operations, so there is much work to be done after the bill passes today.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you very much, Attorney. I appreciate that clarification. Just further on that point, given that it is not in the legislation, what protections and checks and balances will be there to ensure that those operating principles are adhered to? For example, are there legal avenues the community will have if they believe the Treaty Authority is not abiding by the Treaty Authority Agreement?

Ms SYMES: The agreement will be legally binding, so that resolves that issue.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you very much, Attorney. Much appreciated. I have questions on clauses 6 and 21, but I will acquit them now if that is okay. This speaks to the panel composition. Can I ask what the rationale is behind the agreement, including two out of five to seven members being the minimum for a functioning of the Treaty Authority? For example, in panels adjudicating things of similar importance there are often three experts as a minimum or a quorum of at least the majority of members. There is some concern about two members and whether this is an appropriate level for essentially the minimal number or the quorum, given there are five to seven members on the authority, and the ability to maintain confidence if that quorum number is small. Can you speak to what the thinking was behind that?

Ms SYMES: I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. As she has identified, at full capacity the Treaty Authority will be made up of five to seven members. However, as is the case quite often, member vacancies may arise over the course of the Treaty Authority’s operations. The agreement therefore provides for the Treaty Authority’s continued operation where there is any variability in the amount of members. It is certainly not anticipated to be a regular or an ongoing occurrence that there are two members at any one point. But should this occur, rather than halt, the Treaty Authority may continue to perform its functions and exercise its powers consistent with any practices and procedures made under the agreement.

Clause 14.2 requires the Treaty Authority to establish practices and procedures governing its day-to-day operations, including any limits on how the Treaty Authority may operate if the numbers fall below five but are greater than two. Newer acting members will be appointed to ensure there are at least five members as soon as possible, and we expect that that would be something that all relevant people and people that have an interest in this would be seeking to advance. In any unlikely situation where people leave at the same time, for example, for a variety of reasons, we believe that steps would be taken to remedy that as soon as possible. Where the number of Treaty Authority members falls beneath two, the Treaty Authority must cease to perform its functions. That is to preserve the state and assembly’s intention for the entity to engage in collective rather than individual decision-making, for example.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Attorney. I really appreciate that clarification. My next set of questions are regarding the self-determination fund. In relation to that, the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 requires that traditional owners will have equal standing with the state in negotiations, and I talked about this in my second-reading contribution. We are talking here about the state with permanent staffing, lawyers and many more funds, and traditional owners, some of whom have none of these privileges and some who have basic staffing and funds but certainly nothing close to what would be considered equal. My question is, particularly to get it on the record so that the community has confidence as well: how does the government interpret what ‘equal standing’ is?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Ratnam. A really important question, and I am very happy to put it on the record in relation to this matter. Equal standing in treaty negotiations is explicitly provided under the treaty act through the operation of the self-determination fund, which is a further element to be agreed and established between the state and the assembly. The self-determination fund has the following purposes: firstly, to support traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians to have equal standing with the state in treaty negotiations, and secondly, to provide a financial resource independent from the state. That empowers traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians to build capacity, wealth and prosperity. This provision for equal financial standing in negotiations seeks to bridge the power imbalance between the state and negotiating parties, ensuring the treaty process is fundamentally fair, and fair from the outset.

Critically, the treaty act requires the assembly, as the Aboriginal representative body, to administer the self-determination fund as a financial resource independent from the state. And the assembly, as a self-determining body, will therefore oversee the disbursement to First Peoples engaging in treaty negotiations to support equal standing with the state in those negotiations. As you know, the state and the assembly are currently in negotiations to finalise this fund, which is intended to be operational before the treaty negotiations begin.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Attorney. My final set of questions: how will the government ensure that each and every traditional owner group is provided with sufficient funds and upskilling to be on an equal footing with the state?

Ms SYMES: Dr Ratnam, as you have identified, self-determination is something that we are very committed to. We have got the self-determination fund, which is all about ensuring that there is equal standing for all parties to be able to engage in this process, and the state and the assembly are currently in negotiations to finalise that fund. Critically, the treaty act requires the assembly to administer the fund as a financial resource so that it can ensure that it is a self-determining body. They will be overseeing that the disbursements to traditional owner groups are consistent with the fund’s legislative purpose. So it will pick up those bodies by virtue of the group being in a position to provide that funding for people to come to the table and have those negotiations.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Attorney. Will there be measures in the self-determination fund that ensure the funding is provided fairly to all nations and traditional owner groups for the purposes laid out in the treaty act of empowering traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians to build capacity, wealth and prosperity?

Ms SYMES: It is certainly something that I think will feature heavily in the negotiations. It is still to be determined, but it is obviously an important, relevant factor that I am sure will be resolved.

Mrs McARTHUR: Attorney, I just want to go to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) report. Well, actually, there is not one as yet in relation to this. The committee wrote to the minister seeking further information as to:

… whether or not the Treaty Authority is a public authority under the Charter; and whether or not any relief or remedy is available for a breach of clause 12.3 of the Treaty Authority Agreement.

The SARC digest was published this week, and despite that letter being from June and the matter being before the Parliament now, there has not been a response. Can you tell us why?

Ms SYMES: Coming to your point in relation to the charter, Mrs McArthur, the Treaty Authority is a necessary element, as we know, of the treaty process, as required under the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act, before formal treaty negotiations can begin. Clause 12.3 of the Treaty Authority Agreement requires that the Treaty Authority must not act incompatibly with human rights. It must give proper consideration to relevant human rights when making decisions, as if it were a public authority within the meaning of section 4(1)(b) of the charter.

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. But why haven’t the questions from SARC been responded to? The question is: why haven’t they been answered?

Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, as I have responded on the record in relation to the authority being subject to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, what I say is endorsed by the minister. In relation to any further responses to SARC, I understand that the minister is progressing those matters, but if you have got any specific questions you would like to put to me, then I am happy to provide my best endeavours to get you an answer today.

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. So, Minister, is the Treaty Authority to be considered a public authority with respect to the protection that designation would give Victorians under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities? Specifically, can they seek relief or remedy against its decisions even though it is not established by statutory authority and may not be exercising its functions on behalf of the state or a public authority?

Ms SYMES: As I have indicated in relation to my response on the charter, the authority agreement requires that they must not act incompatibly with human rights and there must be proper consideration of human rights when making decisions as if it were a public authority. So in relation to your question, the expectation is that it will.

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. You have referenced 12.3 from the Treaty Authority Agreement. Does the charter not provide protection for those disadvantaged by ‘unlawfulness arising’ from this charter? How does breaching 12.3, which is not part of the charter, enliven this protection?

Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, as I have confirmed, the expectation is that the charter would apply as I have outlined. In relation to the way you have framed your question in terms of any other action, that would be separate to a charter assessment. So putting it the way you have is confusing the charter and a potential other action.

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. On another matter, can you explain the interaction of Aboriginal lore—L-O-R-E—and law within this treaty and movement?

Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, it is not for me to explain treaty in relation to the passage of this bill. This bill is about setting up the architecture, setting up the authority that is going to advance the negotiations to treaty, and it is not within my remit to pre-empt what that will look like, because I am not one of the members that will be having the conversation about where that ends up. I am really excited about where that will end up, but that is not a role for me, and I am certainly not in a position to pre-empt what treaty will look like, apart from being very excited about the benefits that it is going to bring to Aboriginal communities now and into the future.

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. It was just that I heard you reference the two definitions in your speech earlier—this morning, was it, or this afternoon; I cannot remember—and I just wonder if you would perhaps define them more clearly.

Ms SYMES: It is not relevant to this bill, Mrs McArthur.

Mrs McARTHUR: But you have referred to them.

Ms SYMES: If you would like to bring me to a particular clause in the bill that asks me to look at L-O-R-E versus L-A-W, then I will happily look at that.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to; preamble agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:26): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:26): I would like to thank the contributors to the bill today. This is a historic day. I would like to acknowledge the people in the gallery who have been following this bill and this process for some time. I thank them for their tireless advocacy and thank them for the work ahead. Congratulations. This bill is for many of the people up there and the communities that they represent. I am proud to move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.