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.