Motion: Standing Order Amendment - Treaty Compatability

MOTION:

‘STANDING ORDER AMENDMENT ~ TREATY COMPATABILITY’.

Thursday, 2 April 2026.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:31):

I rise to speak on the motion which seeks to amend the Standing Orders to remove the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities from being the single statement of compatibility with future legislation and extend that into treaty principles as well.

This place should deal with matters in a way that is equal, that upholds equality. I do want to say from the outset that earlier the Attorney-General was in the Chamber, and these issues were raised at the beginning of this debate. The Leader of the Nationals spoke to that matter, and what he raised in his contribution was a concern that building a system whereby First People are consulted on proposed legislation before any Member of Parliament considers it, other than potentially the Minister themselves, by definition creates inequality. And the Attorney said, ‘That’s right. They’re the First People. They’re first.’ The Attorney of Victoria confirmed to us across the table that what the Government is proposing to do is by design. By design these changes are going to enable First People to consider legislation, before all other people. By definition that creates inequality. To hear the Attorney say that I think underlined our concerns. We think that legislation should be considered by all and by all Victorians, fair and reasonably, and that there should be an equal way in which we do that. The Attorney herself said, ‘No. That’s not the case. They’re first. They go first.’ Well, we do not agree with that, and so we will not be supporting the motion. We have not supported treaty, and we have committed to repeal it. We have been very clear about why that is.

I think it is also worth saying – this has not been raised in the debate yet – that the changes before the house are changes that will amend the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders, as most people in this Chamber should know – I am not sure if all do know, but all people should know – are the rules of the Chamber, effectively. That is a shorthand way of describing the rules of the Chamber. This motion before the House has not gone before the Standing Orders Committee, so we are currently considering a potential change to the Standing Orders that the House has not considered by way of whether it should occur, the implications of it occurring and what will happen. That is why we have a Standing Orders Committee: to consider potential changes to Standing Orders, reasonably. Any changes to the Standing Orders you would think would go before a Standing Orders Committee. This has not gone before a Standing Orders Committee. This has not gone through, as far as I understand, any process before the House and not before the Standing Orders Committee.

When you make a change, you would think that you would do so before it being brought into this Chamber. And why would that be? Perhaps there is some sense of time urgency, some immediate urgency. We have heard and we understand that the treaty received royal assent in November last year and was enacted in December last year. Well, we are now in May, some four months later, four months after Treaty was enacted. At any point in that time you would think that this Chamber could have considered what would happen if you made a change to the Standing Orders, just to ensure – even if you supported the change, even if there was universal agreement, which is clearly not the case here – that there were
no unforeseen consequences, not just in terms of making the change but even in the wording of the change, because wording matters, and the wording in this motion in and of itself has not been considered either. Could it be drafted better? Is it drafted poorly? Who would know? Because the Government did not take the motion through the Standing Orders Committee. But of course, they did not, despite having four months to do so.

No, what I think and what we are all saying is: why is this motion being done today? Australians and Victorians are crying out about the pain they are going through with cost of living. Why is this being done today? Why? The cost-ofliving pressure with things like fuel is crippling people. Why is it being done today? Because the Government wants to make an announcement on Budget day that this is the first Bill that has gone through that process. That is what this is about. This is being dealt with today because of the Government’s next media release. At any point over the last four months these standing order changes could have been made on any single Parliamentary day. But no, they are doing it today. Why? Because the Parliament is now rising until Budget day. The next Bill, the first Bill to go through this process, will be the Budget. It is all about the circus for the Premier. She wants to be able to stand up with the Treasurer and say, ‘Our Budget is the first Budget to ever have a statement of compatibility with First Nations people’ – probably because it is going to be a stinker of a Budget, I suspect. We know that last year the Government had so little to say about the budget they stopped their own Members from debating it in the Chamber. There were, on my last count, about 20, 25 Members who did not get to speak on their own Budget. So, it is very fair and reasonable on this motion to understand the timing – very fair and reasonable.

This is about the Treasurer, and I will be waiting on Budget day. I am very, very sure that in the Treasurer’s speech she will be saying this is the first Bill that has ever gone through a statement of compatibility with First Nations people. That is what this is about – the circus of this Government’s media announcement. We can call it out. If the Government cared about legislation being compatible with Treaty principles, do you know when they would have made this change? The minute after treaty was legislated and enacted. They would have done it on day one, because with all of the legislation we have considered this year, none of it has gone through treaty assessment. None. Why? The Government has had every opportunity to explain why they have not cared about all the legislation they have dealt with this year. Why haven’t they? Because it is all about the circus. We are the first –

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Frankston, you are not in your seat.

James NEWBURY: ‘We have to have,’ the Government will say, ‘the first Budget that has ever been delivered in this state that has Treaty principle compatibility.’

Seriously? Is that how low this Government has sunk? I would say Victorians who are going through a lot of pain at the moment are looking on right now and wondering, ‘Why the heck is this Government’s priority doing this?’ On Budget day, when I hear the Treasurer and the Premier say they have got nothing else to say other than, ‘We’ve got the first Budget that’s ever been Treaty compatible,’ I think Victorians are going to look on and yawn. They are going to yawn and say, ‘But what about helping us? What about helping our cost of living?’ It is all a total scam.

You can understand exactly what the Government is doing, can’t you? The whole year of legislation – they could have put through Treaty principle processes. They did not, because it is all about the media release. And we will see it on Budget day. I have just called it out. So when you hear the Treasurer and the Premier rely on that as some great big announcement, we know what it is – one great big circus from this Government.