For more than half a century, Victoria has proclaimed itself a multicultural society, a polity in which diverse tongues, faiths, and customs coexist within a common civic order. In the abundance of this pluralism, however, something essential has been missing: an acknowledgment of the ground beneath our feet. Multiculturalism has often been conceived as an architecture of coexistence suspended above an unspoken void, a harmony of human variety unanchored in the story of the land itself. The Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 addresses that omission. It gives legislative form to a truth that precedes all citizenship: that every culture which flourishes in Victoria does so by the enduring grace of the First Peoples whose custodianship of Country has never ceased.
The Treaty, introduced into Parliament in September 2025, establishes a structure of rare moral ambition. It creates Gellung Warl, an independent institution composed of three interrelated arms. The First Peoples’ Assembly becomes the deliberative voice of Aboriginal Victorians, empowered to engage the Parliament directly, to address it annually, and to require that each Bill be accompanied by a Treaty Compatibility Statement. The Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna continues the work of truth-telling, documenting the injustices upon which the modern state was built, while the Nginma Ngainga Wara serves as an outcomes and justice commission, monitoring the government’s performance against its undertakings and evaluating the condition of Indigenous wellbeing. Through these interlocking bodies, the Treaty enshrines dialogue, remembrance, and accountability as defining principles of public life.
The intention is commendable and long overdue. The Treaty represents an attempt to move beyond symbolic acknowledgment and to embed respect within the machinery of government. Yet good intention alone cannot guarantee success. If these new institutions are to realise their promise, they must avoid the fate of becoming bureaucratic structures that exist in form rather than in function. Their purpose must remain civic and relational, engaging communities in practice as well as in policy.
The significance of the Treaty extends far beyond Aboriginal affairs. It redefines the meaning of multiculturalism itself. For generations, that term has been used to describe the peaceful coexistence of difference. The Treaty makes explicit that such coexistence is only authentic when it arises from the consent and participation of those who first shaped the land. Multiculturalism without the inclusion of the First Peoples remains incomplete. By recognising Aboriginal custodianship, the Treaty transforms multiculturalism from a policy of management into a moral relationship founded on respect for Country.
This reorientation restores moral coherence to the present. For too long, the secular institutions of the modern state have treated land as resource and governance as abstraction. The Treaty requires the State to consider the ethical dimension of place and to understand that legitimacy derives not only from consent but from continuity with the moral order of Country. Through the mechanism of the Treaty Compatibility Statement, each legislative act must be weighed against that deeper principle. The success of this measure, however, will depend on its rigour. If the statement becomes a procedural box-ticking exercise, the ethical purpose will be lost. The challenge will be to ensure that compatibility is assessed in substance rather than in form.
For multicultural communities, the Treaty is both an invitation and a responsibility. Many of these communities originate from cultures in which land is venerated as ancestral presence and where belonging is measured by stewardship. The Treaty’s recognition of Country resonates strongly with such traditions. It invites each community to translate its own reverence for place into the context of this land and to recognise that cultural identity in Victoria must be relational rather than self-contained. In doing so, it transforms settlement into participation and belonging into shared custodianship.
It must also be acknowledged that within parts of our community there exists a degree of disquiet. Some fear that the creation of new treaty structures will divert resources from existing multicultural programs or diminish their role in civic representation. Such concerns, while understandable, are misplaced. The Treaty does not diminish multicultural recognition; it enlarges it by situating all cultural expression within a framework of ethical relationship to Country. The pursuit of justice for the First Peoples is not a rival claim upon the State’s attention but the condition that makes genuine multiculturalism possible. Far from competing for resources, the two projects are complementary: both aim to secure dignity through participation and equality through recognition.
The First Peoples’ Assembly, as established by the Bill, will represent Aboriginal Victorians to government, advise public institutions, and set standards for cultural safety. It will maintain its own electoral roll and engage directly with Ministers and departments. For multicultural organisations accustomed to consultation through advisory councils, the emergence of the Assembly presents both opportunity and challenge. The Treaty offers a framework through which collaboration can occur, but it remains to be seen how multicultural bodies will be integrated into this new governance model. Their involvement will be essential if the Treaty is to reflect the full civic reality of Victoria and to promote a cohesive approach to reconciliation.
The Nyerna Yoorrook Telkuna continues the truth-telling process begun by the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Its task is to preserve memory and to confront the legacy of dispossession that underpins modern prosperity. For multiculturalism to retain moral depth, it must participate in this process. The stories of migration, exile, and survival carried by many communities can find resonance in the experiences of the First Peoples. The question is whether the State will facilitate such dialogue or whether truth-telling will remain confined to official reports. For the Treaty to shape collective consciousness, its work must be made accessible through education, public commemoration, and civic conversation.
The Nginma Ngainga Wara will monitor the performance of the State against the standards of justice articulated in the Treaty. It will report on outcomes, assess compliance, and hold government accountable for progress. This represents a significant step toward structural responsibility. Yet there is always a risk that oversight mechanisms, once institutionalised, may prioritise procedure over purpose. The enduring effectiveness of this Commission will depend on its independence, its analytical rigour, and the willingness of government to engage meaningfully with its findings.
The Treaty also renews democratic legitimacy. By establishing formal partnership with the First Peoples, the Parliament acknowledges that sovereignty is strengthened, not diminished, by consent. This principle has particular resonance for multicultural citizens whose own inclusion in the civic sphere was the product of evolving democratic justice. The Treaty thus becomes a shared mirror of aspiration: an affirmation that recognition of one community’s dignity enlarges the moral horizon of all.
There is, moreover, an environmental dimension. The philosophy of custodianship embedded in the Treaty is inherently ecological. The principles that have guided Aboriginal relationship to land, care, reciprocity, and continuity, will likely influence future public policy. The Nginma Ngainga Wara is charged with monitoring outcomes in these areas, an acknowledgment that environmental degradation constitutes not merely economic loss but ethical failure. The effectiveness of this framework will depend on how deeply these values penetrate the planning and economic systems of government.
At a symbolic level, the Treaty redefines citizenship. Allegiance becomes not only to law and institution but also to the moral order that precedes them. Every citizenship ceremony becomes an act of acknowledgment, every new arrival a participant in the ongoing reconciliation between peoples and land. The government would do well to ensure that this understanding is embedded in civic education, for only through shared comprehension will the Treaty achieve permanence.
The Treaty also carries implications for social cohesion. In a time when identity politics can fragment public life, a shared foundation of acknowledgment provides unity of purpose. All communities, whether Indigenous, migrant, or long-settled, can trace their civic legitimacy to a single act of recognition: acceptance of the First Peoples’ enduring presence. For this unity to endure, however, the Treaty must remain open to continual renewal through participation, education, and accountability.
Some critics have expressed concern that the Treaty’s framework may become cumbersome or create parallel bureaucracies. The risk is real but not inevitable. The value of Gellung Warl will be determined by its capacity to foster practical collaboration rather than administrative complexity. If it becomes a space of genuine deliberation, remembrance, and oversight, its threefold purpose, it will stand as one of Victoria’s most significant legislative achievements.
The implications for multiculturalism are profound. The Treaty replaces the language of diversity with that of relationship. The multicultural institutions of Victoria, its councils, associations, and schools, will need to engage with Gellung Warl as partners in civic development. Their inclusion is not merely desirable but necessary if the Treaty is to reflect the lived complexity of modern Victoria.
The Treaty is a landmark in Victoria’s civic evolution. Its vision is principled, its purpose clear. If it is to endure however, it must remain a living compact sustained by participation, transparency, and shared responsibility. For in the end, the moral strength of any law lies not in its clauses but in the conscience of those who give it life. Our community can be proud of the fact that its thinkers, have been calling for such evolution for decades. It is incumbent upon us to lend it, our full support.
