Charles Pakana: With the Treaty act of 2025’s passage through Parliament in October 2025, for many people there’s a belief that it’s all done and dusted with regard to Treaty in Victoria. In reality, that’s far from the truth. Joining me on the program today to discuss this is the CEO of the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations, Taungurung woman, Kaley Nicholson. Kaley, welcome back to the program.

Kaley Nicholson: Thank you. Good to be back.

Charles: Kaley, let’s talk about local Treaties and the fact that that’s going to be a fairly broad ranging initiative right across the state and for quite a long time, even though we’ve discussed it on this program a number of times. If you can just give us a bit of an overview of what local Treaties are.

Kaley: I think it’s an important question and one that community I think are really still grappling with. Statewide Treaty is about sort of the broader structural institutional mechanisms at play that influence and shape the life outcomes of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that live in Victoria. So it’s pretty broad and the local Traditional Owner Treaties will be much more honed and focused and we’ll talk about things like land justice, caring for country, embedding self determination in local decision making mechanisms and priorities, and the unique sets of circumstances that each of the different Traditional Owner groups navigate across country, across this state.

Charles: What’s particularly interesting about the local Treaties that I’ve seen, especially in the Treaty negotiation framework is where you would typically think that by default it would be local governments and the Traditional Owners negotiating a Treaty, or agreements, it’s actually still restricted to the local Traditional Owners and the state government. They’re the primary negotiating parties. Are you aware of any rationale to that, and why local governments weren’t specifically mentioned in the framework? 

Kaley: In terms of being able to give, like on the ground insight as to how that decision making came about? I wasn’t in the room for those decisions and the debate that happened around them. But I think essentially it just comes down to that this is a state government commitment and, and the state didn’t want to sign up other arms of government without their, I think, express consent. There are mechanisms, though, within the Treaty making framework that allow for Traditional Owner groups to invite local governments into negotiations.

Charles: And this is the additional negotiating parties.

Kaley: Yeah, yep, exactly. So, whilst state government didn’t sign up local governments, I think there is very much still a real role for local governments within local Treaty making and it’ll be up to the different Traditional Owner groups to decide if that’s something that they would like to progress.

Charles: And what’s the Federation’s role in all this? I know that you work closely and in collaboration with Traditional Owners across the state, but once again, you are not mentioned in the Treaty negotiation framework. You weren’t involved in the negotiation of the statewide Treaty, but what do you see as the Federation’s involvement in supporting Traditional Owners and indeed government, if need be, in this next stage?

Kaley: I think it’s a really important question. The Federation’s role is pretty unique within this political landscape. You know, we’re wholly solely owned, operated and driven by the Traditional Owner corporations. And so our sole mandate is to act in their best interests and to pursue their agenda and priorities. What that could be could be any number of things. When I look at the Treaty landscape, it’ll be about convening information that creates, I guess, a flaw for Traditional Owners to be able to have a collective set of information that they can utilise and negotiate and leverage to inform their own negotiations and the things that they might prioritise within their own Treaty making. I think that’s probably in terms of, like a strategic priority area, that’s a huge one. 

We also, I think, act as a bit of a conduit still in this new post-Treaty landscape around government’s ability to negotiate with Traditional Owner groups and understand their collective standpoints that Traditional Owner groups have. There is a huge array of diversity across the different Traditional Owner groups in terms of their priorities, the natural resources that they have access to, the needs and priorities of their local communities and all of those sorts of things. But there are some real shared challenges and shared priorities. And so the federation’s role at the direction of the Traditional Owner corporations is to identify those and drive towards achieving outcomes around those. So there are still things like core funding for Traditional Owner groups and the Traditional Owner corporations and how chronically underfunded they are. So addressing that in the lead up to Treaty is one of real strategic importance because essentially, if you’re not on equal footing, you’re on the back foot and it means that Traditional Owner groups are not going to be able to negotiate as free and frankly, I think, as they need to be.

Charles: You mentioned core funding for Traditional Owner groups. And we’ll just leave Treaty aside for a second but we will come back to that because I would like to delve into some of the benefits to the broader communities, not just the Aboriginal communities as a result of local Treaties, but in a roadmap developed by the Federation of Victorian Traditional Corporations. It shows that a $300 million investment in Traditional Owner corporations over a 10 year period would bring $1 billion in benefits to the broader Victorian community. Let me give you an open question: expand on that.

Kaley: Okay. Again, very important question and a good opportunity for us to talk about the role that Traditional Owner corporations and communities play in rural and regional Victoria. We recently commissioned a piece of work by KordaMentha that looked at how chronically underfunded Traditional Owner corporations are. And it’s found that there’s about $76 million in underfunding currently at play across the state.

Charles: But how do you measure that? How do you measure the base figure?

Kaley: The base figure looks at the statutory functions of Traditional Owner corporations. And we all know that Traditional Owner corporations do much, much more than just their statutory functions.

Charles: Yeah.

Kaley: It’s pretty much a very small part of the work that they do locally, but it does give a good baseline. And so from there it identified ways that Traditional Owner corporations are essentially absorbing the costs of government and industry in things like cultural heritage, land management, renewables developments taking place across country, you know, big housing builds, all those sorts of things. Place burden, I think is probably the best word in this case on Traditional Owner corporations to be able to respond to and ensure proper decision making is in place to enable those things to take place. Now, with the underfunding that’s been identified, it’s essentially, like I said, it’s Traditional Owners through volunteerism and load onto community members and people that work in those corporations that pick up the slack, that enable these corporations to still remain functioning and to deliver for the broader community. So if I were to take the example of, as you said, the Victorian Traditional Owner Economic Roadmap, and that’s a piece of research that we again commissioned to be able to inform Treaty making and the types of things that Traditional Owners might be looking at negotiating for, there is a $300 million investment that could lead to a $1 billion impact across the state at that broader level. Now, if I’m to look at the current situation and just how underfunded Traditional Owner corporations are, and I look at the economic impact that we have locally, for example, you know, many of the corporations are some of the biggest employers in rural and regional areas and they employ much more than just Aboriginal people and Traditional Owners. We create opportunities for the broader community. That’s probably a really good example of how that benefit filters out another recent example: The fires up around the central highlands of Victoria.

 Charles: Devastating, yeah. 

Kaley: Yeah, Very, very devastating. We had members at Taungurung Land and Waters Council – obviously I’m the Chair[person] over there – that lost their homes. The broader community were impacted really significantly. And not just community, but country as well. And our caring for country, our big environmental teams were actually on the ground caring for community, going around putting out spot fires, checking in on people, doing the work of Aboriginal community in the broader community setting.

Charles: So what you’re saying then is that equitable investment of that $300 million would contribute to employment for the broader community, not just First Nations people. Land management and protecting of assets which are private and state as well. What are the key areas? Would we see that return on investment?

Kaley: Yeah, tourism is a huge area of opportunity. And I know a lot of the different Traditional Owner groups, if I think about, you know, what’s happening around Budj Bim, what’s happening with the Wawa Biik Tours on country, Taungurung country, Gunaikurnai and their tourism ventures and opportunities that they’ve got underway. Again, huge areas where people will learn more about our local environment. They will have opportunities at a local level for broader and more diverse employment. And then also there are things like the TONFAB strategies Traditional Owner native bush foods and botanicals.

Charles: Yeah, it’s a growing trend, isn’t it?

Kaley: Yeah. You know, if we can create an enabling environment through certification, say, for indigenous owned and operated ICIP and the uses and potential uses for native bushfoods and botanicals as a foundation, Traditional Owner corporations have already started to set up their own native nurseries where they will grow and cultivate these plants. But there’s all sorts of integration that can happen in terms of, you know, not just growing them, but extracting the chemical compounds of those plants and supporting Western scientific models to integrate those into pharmaceuticals. For example, there are, you know, many, many native bush foods and botanicals that are classified as superfoods that have off the charts amounts of vitamins and nutrients in them. And so through the ICIP of Traditional Owner groups, you might be able to harness those and, again, create new medicinal products.

Charles: And just for our audience, ICIP is indigenous cultural intellectual property. And we will talk about that in a later interview with Kaley because we’ll be catching up with her every couple of months here at the Federation. Kaley, I’d really like to touch on the political football of Treaty if you’re up for that.

Kaley: Yeah, sure.

Charles: Because it has been a political football regardless of the fact that when the 2018 act came into power, or came into being, it was actually with bipartisan support from the conservatives and from Labor as well. We all know since 2023 that’s gone by the by, but what’s your perspective, and the Federation’s perspective, on that political football that is Treaty?

Kaley: I think it’s unfortunately not an uncommon story when we talk about Aboriginal or Indigenous issues. You know, it’s quite easy for these types of things to become politicised. I think one of the real concerns that we have at the Federation is that Treaty, and Treaty making, has been conflated with the Labor Party and it’s really important for us to call out that, Treaty is something that Traditional Owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community have been calling for in this country literally for decades.

Charles: Yeah.

Kaley: You know, it is through our advocacy and our ingenuity as a peoples that we’ve been able to get government to commit to this, and then in connection with that, it has become a really important policy commitment from Labor. But this doesn’t start and finish with the Labor Party of Victoria. And as you rightly call out, the opposition, or the Liberal Party, were initially in support of this, I think because they understand that this is a grassroots, community driven, policy that we’ve been fighting for for generations. It is disappointing when it becomes a political football and it is conflated as a Labor Party priority because it will remain a priority for Traditional Owners and for the broader Indigenous community regardless of if Labor are re-elected or if the opposition get into government.

Charles: Let’s now talk to the community itself, the broader Victorian community. We’ve seen from recent research there’s actually an increase in support across Victoria. We’ve spoken recently about that on this particular program that there is that increase in support for Treaty. But what would you say to the broader community listening to this right now in a way to lend their support for Treaty and Traditional Owners?

Kaley: Mmm. I think it’s really important to highlight the fact that the majority of people care about making a difference in the lives of Aboriginal people and communities. I think the debate really comes in when it gets to the nitty gritty of how that happens. But, you know, if I talk to the average Victorian, and I have a lot of conversations around the state about the need for Treaty and about the need to close the gap and about the need to get some equity for Aboriginal community, I think there is no doubt in my mind that the average Victorian wants to see something change and in a meaningful way. Treaty, particularly at the statewide level, looks at those big picture, departmental wide goals. So, you know, when we talk about closing the gap, it is things around educational attainment, vaccination levels, numeracy and literacy, all sorts of different- 

Charles: And of course the justice system, incarceration.

Kaley: Yeah, yeah, exactly. And you know, the things that need to be in place to drive those down. Now it’s really great that the way the statewide Treaty is geared is to enable better outcomes in those spaces. I think the Productivity Commission in particular has been pretty scathing of the lack of return on investment for government decision making and outcomes around closing the gap. I think you would speak to anybody and they would say it’s because government doesn’t do a very good job of listening to Aboriginal community about how to get outcomes in those spaces. And so, the best thing we can do is ensure that self determination is in place and that we are in the driver’s seat in terms of, you know, what we want to see and how we think these things need to be addressed. Now that’s important, again, when I talk about closing the gap, but if you take a… I guess a deeper dive into things, you’re gonna understand that, as is the Aboriginal worldview; we’re connected with country and we can’t be healthy without healthy country. And I think, again, this is something that the broader Victorian community understand and know full well. We protect our pristine, beautiful natural environments and we stand shoulder to shoulder with the broader Victorian community around, you know, what that needs to look like. And, I think there’s a growing awareness of the cultural land management practices of Traditional Owners and that knowledge through deep time and how we’ve been able to manage and care for and govern these lands for, you know, well over 65,000 years. And we see the risk to property and life with things like flood, with things like fire and, you know, back in the day prior to colonisation, those things were… I guess, a part of the natural ebbs and flows of the land. And so decision making about where homes were and how land was managed was probably a little bit different. But we had really rigorous fuel reduction, we had really rigorous land management practices, we had so many interconnected processes for caring for country and place that it meant that country was really healthy and safe. And so anything that we can do, and this is, I think, the areas where local Treaty making will really come to shine and come to the forefront; It will be giving primacy to those traditional land management practices and the decision making of Traditional Owner groups and nations within those spaces.

Charles: What would you like to see individual communities, and groups within communities, do to support their local Traditional Owners? We’ll talk about Taungurung, for example; We know that up on Taungurung country there’s a healthy reconciliation movement, there’s Rotary, there’s all sorts of other organisations. Do you think it’s time for those organisations and for likes and for similar orgs to come together and actually express their support for the Traditional Owners and to voice that concern and support up through the political channels with which they’re affiliated?

Kaley: Mmm, I think it’d be a really positive thing if those sorts of groups could come together and put forward a statement. You know, one of the really disappointing things that we’ve seen recently is the rise in local media that’s particularly hostile towards Traditional Owner groups and local Treaty making. And again, it’s that conflation between the Labor Party and Treaty making that I think is driving it. I don’t actually think it is a genuine opposition to Treaty or Traditional Owner groups, but it is that tendency, I think, to utilise Aboriginal issues as a political football that drives things. So what is the reason why that happens? It’s because politicians think that that gets traction in rural and regional areas and if the grassroots community in those areas can say, actually it doesn’t get traction and we see the value of Traditional Owner groups and their contribution to our local economies and our local communities and our local culture, and we value that, then it makes that target, I think, a lot smaller and it gives aspiring political actors a good steer in the right direction, that you’re going to be wasting your time and energy if this is where you’re going to focus your efforts.

Charles: Are we entering into a new era, similar to 2023, of misinformation, but this time focused on Treaty in Victoria?

Kaley: Yes, I think it is.

Charles: Nice, short, sharp answer.

 Kaley: Yeah, definitely. You know, it’s social media – it gives people a platform to promote and disseminate mis- and disinformation and it is a real risk. So I would encourage people to do their own research, to speak with Aboriginal people, to get in touch with their local Traditional Owner group, whether it be signing up for their newsletter or even the Federation’s newsletter. You’ll get a much more sound understanding of the work that we do and our priorities and our positions on certain matters. If you do that, rather than whatever is circulating in a local paper or online .

Charles: And obviously get to understand the benefits of local Treaties to the broader community, rather than the negativity you might be hearing out there in community. Kayleigh Nicholson, I want to thank you so much indeed for coming back onto the program. We’ll speak again soon.

Kaley: Thanks for having me.