The Victorian Government today delivered a historic apology to the state’s Indigenous peoples during a special parliamentary session, marking one of the first public actions following the formal signing and legislative enactment of the state-level treaty agreement last month.

The apology forms a central component of the treaty negotiations, aiming to acknowledge the systemic injustices inflicted on Indigenous communities by the state government through laws, policies, and institutional practices, including violence, land dispossession, exclusion, and discrimination. The First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria emphasized that the government must confront “the profound harms caused by colonialism and the state government, both past and present,” describing the moment as a significant step toward rebuilding relationships.

The treaty agreement notes that the apology is not intended to assign blame but to recognize the ongoing effects of historical injustices and to choose a path forward. The agreement, shaped through nearly a decade of consultation, positions Victoria at the forefront of national treaty and truth-seeking initiatives. The apology also implements recommendations from the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which, during its four-year truth investigation, received formal apologies from more than ten state officials and ministers.

However, the move has not secured cross-party support. The Victorian opposition criticized the inclusion of treaty language in the apology and reiterated that it would repeal the relevant legislation if in government. Opposition leader Jess Wilson, in a letter to the Premier, stressed that the disagreement lies in the policy methods for closing the gap rather than the goal itself, and expressed a willingness to seek mutually acceptable wording to gain bipartisan support.

Commentary:

Victoria’s historic apology represents not only a key component of the treaty agreement but also a pivotal moment for Indigenous justice and reconciliation in Australia. For Indigenous communities, the apology cannot erase historical pain, but it symbolizes the government’s willingness to assume responsibility, acknowledge systemic trauma, and lay the groundwork for rebuilding relationships—a necessary and long-overdue step for groups who have endured over two centuries of colonial oppression.

However, the opposition’s insistence on removing treaty references from the text highlights a deeper resistance to the treaty framework itself, rather than a mere dispute over wording. While the opposition frames the disagreement as one of policy approach rather than intent, this stance may impose significant political pressure on the future reconciliation process, potentially complicating efforts to achieve meaningful bipartisan support for ongoing treaty implementation.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defense Minister Richard Marles attended the annual Australia–U.S. Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks in Washington on Monday, meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to discuss strengthening bilateral defense cooperation following the latest review of the AUKUS agreement. While the U.S. confirmed the review report has been completed, neither side has disclosed its contents.

Marles stated after the meeting that the review focused on “how to make AUKUS work better,” but he refrained from revealing details out of respect for U.S.-led leadership of the review. He also did not confirm whether the U.S. had requested Australia to further increase its defense budget.

AUKUS consists of two main pillars: the first is submarine cooperation, which includes Australia purchasing at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the U.S. in the 2030s and subsequently building its own “AUKUS-class” submarines; the second covers advanced military technology collaboration, such as hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and intelligence sharing.

The U.S. Trump administration has recently taken a tougher stance, demanding allies increase defense spending. The White House’s latest national security strategy emphasizes maintaining “a firm expectation for higher defense expenditure” in dealings with Australia. Marles highlighted that Australia has implemented its largest peacetime defense budget increase and that the U.S. is “fully aware” of Australia’s position.

A joint statement following the talks showed that both sides agreed to expand the U.S. military presence in Australia. This includes upgrading air bases in Queensland and the Northern Territory to accommodate more rotating U.S. bombers and fighter jets, increasing reconnaissance and intelligence aircraft deployments, and pre-positioning substantial U.S. military assets, including MV-22 Osprey aircraft used by the Marine Corps. The two countries will also establish an “Oversight and Support Group” to coordinate U.S. troop activities in Australia.

Commentary:

The increased U.S. military presence in Australia raises the country’s strategic profile but also fuels domestic debate over sovereignty and long-term reliance. First, the U.S. expectation for allies to raise defense spending is increasingly explicit. While Australia has significantly boosted its defense budget, the high cost of nuclear submarines and domestic fiscal pressures may make it uncertain whether Australia can continuously meet U.S. expectations.

Second, while expanded deployments and base upgrades enhance Australia’s security in the Indo-Pacific for supporters, critics may question whether the country is moving toward a “quasi-host nation” role, tying its defense policy more closely to Washington’s strategy.

Nonetheless, from a geopolitical perspective, Australia has little leeway to ignore AUKUS. Rising Chinese influence and increasing tensions in the Indo-Pacific make the Australia-U.S. alliance increasingly crucial for Canberra.

Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells has come under fire for a series of trips funded by public money, the latest controversy involving a June visit to the Thredbo ski resort where nearly AUD 3,000 of taxpayer funds were used to cover travel for her husband and child.

Documents show that Wells stayed at local resort facilities during peak ski season and had the costs reimbursed under the guise of official business. Her office emphasized that the trip was part of ministerial duties, including meetings with sports industry representatives, local organizations, and policy discussions related to departmental work. However, several opposition MPs questioned whether the itinerary overlapped with recreational skiing and accused the Labor government of using public funds for an unnecessary “luxury getaway.”

The scrutiny also extended to Wells’ other expenses, including using entitlements to bring family members to the Melbourne F1 Grand Prix, attending a meeting in Adelaide coinciding with a friend’s birthday, and spending nearly AUD 100,000 on flights for herself and two staff members to New York.

In response, the Labor government defended Wells. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stressed that the trip “fully complied with the rules” and had been appropriately reported by the minister’s office, with no breach of reimbursement guidelines. The government also highlighted that the locations were recommended by relevant departments and represented important hubs for local sports and community activities. Wells’ official itinerary included meetings with sports organizations and discussions on winter sports policy.

Under the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) regulations, MPs may claim family travel expenses while performing official duties to help maintain family life, provided the primary purpose of the trip is ministerial business and aligns with the public interest.

Commentary:

Against the backdrop of rising living costs and growing pressure on the Labor Party, a minister using taxpayers’ money to take family members to a ski resort during peak season is inevitably seen as out of touch with ordinary citizens. Even if the trip complies with regulations, public perception may lean toward unfairness, particularly since skiing is a high-end leisure activity, making it more likely to provoke resentment. This scenario undoubtedly undermines Labor’s public image and trust, giving the opposition a long-term point of attack.

The episode also serves as a reminder to government officials that compliance with rules is not enough; transparency and sensitivity to public concerns are essential. Failing to address such perceptions can have a lasting impact on political credibility, emphasizing the need for careful management of taxpayer-funded activities to maintain public confidence.