Shannon Deery: Treaty risks dividing Victorians, instead of uniting us
St Vincent’s Hospital’s decision to fast-track Indigenous patients through its emergency department might sound like closing the gap, but to some it looks like a new kind of discrimination based on ancestry, not need.
The Allan government’s historic statewide Treaty bill will pass parliament this week.
It will be a landmark moment not just for Victoria, but the country, marking the first formal Treaty with Indigenous Australians since British settlement. It took 237 years and decades of talk, royal commissions, and reconciliatory gestures.
While it is without question a moment of profound historic importance, the real work now lies ahead. Because, if handled poorly, this Treaty risks dividing Victorians rather than uniting us.
Will the long-held aspirations for justice, recognition and self-determination for Indigenous Australians translate into real power and real change? And will this come at the cost of fairness?
Today, the Herald Sun reveals that Melbourne’s St Vincent’s Hospital has, for more than a year, been fast-tracking Indigenous patients through its emergency department.
The hospital has vehemently defended this policy as crucial because Indigenous Victorians were, on average, waiting longer to be seen compared to non-Indigenous patients.
It might sound like closing the gap, but to some it looks like a new kind of discrimination based on ancestry, not need.
We know the Treaty will include embedding Indigenous “truth-telling” and a new curriculum into schools.
It will also establish a new naming authority for geographical features, and create a powerful Indigenous council, Gellung Warl, with oversight over government departments and agencies.
And it also mandates government departments consult on programs and policies affecting Indigenous people and requires new legislation to be assessed for treaty compatibility.
These are entire policies written with one group in mind. This in a state that has spent generations fighting for equality for women, migrants and other minority groups, so that they are treated the same under the law.
Now, we face the risk of throwing that principle out the window in the name of symbolism.
If a Treaty gives one group special treatment, be it in justice, in health, or in general decision-making, it risks bringing division disguised as progress.
This is not to say the Treaty shouldn’t go ahead. Done properly, it has the potential to create a framework for genuine collaboration between Indigenous communities and government. It should lead to better health, education and employment outcomes for Indigenous Victorians, and strengthens the state as a whole.
But it comes with risks, both in real terms and politically.
Proponents of a Treaty often look to Canada as a model state for how treaties can improve outcomes for Indigenous communities.
But analysis by the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think-tank, shows Indigenous people continue to experience worse life outcomes than the general population.
That includes the rate of incarcerated Indigenous Canadians steadily increasing as a percentage of the total prison population over the past 20 years.
In British Columbia, where treaties have been facilitated for more than 30 years, average life expectancy for Indigenous Canadians fell by six years on average between 2017-2021.
Here in Australia, the national Closing the Gap strategy has largely failed to meet its targets in health, education, employment, and life expectancy after more than a decade.
Indigenous Australians still die earlier than non-Indigenous Australians. Rates of unemployment remain high and income gaps persist. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, kidney disease and heart disease remain far higher among Indigenous communities. And Indigenous Australians are over-represented in the criminal justice system, with incarceration rates continuing to rise.
Closing the Gap has seen some incremental wins, but on most indicators, Indigenous Australians remain behind by a wide margin.
Real progress is widely acknowledged to require greater self-determination, long-term investment and systemic reform. Which is exactly what Jacinta Allan has argued is driving Victoria’s Treaty. But it carries inherent political risk.
The latest polling shows the Treaty remains a hugely divisive issue, with just 37 per cent of Victorians supporting it. Opposition to Treaty spans nearly every demographic, with only those holding postgraduate university degrees showing favourability. Even Labor voters were divided, with just 37 per cent backing the initiative and 39 per cent opposed.
The Treaty bill is expected to sail through the upper house this week with significant crossbench support.
This will be the moment of greatest risk for the Premier, when good intentions meet the grind of bureaucracies, budgets, institutional inertia and political shifts. And the moment a Treaty starts tipping the scales, it stops being fair and starts being dangerous.
Shannon Deery is state politics editor
I’m a Liberal, I’m a mum, and I’m proudly team Anika
