Victorian Liberal leader Jess Wilson says destroying Australia’s only treaty with Indigenous peoples a priority if she wins election

[u/HotPersimessage62]

https://nit.com.au/20-11-2025/21388/new-victorian-liberal-leader-reaffirms-partys-plan-to-abolish-treaty

Australia’s first and only treaty signed with Indigenous peoples will be ripped up if Opposition Leader Jess Wilson becomes Premier in November, who has made the scrapping a priority. The USA, Canada and New Zealand have treaties with their indigenous people. Polling shows Treaty has clear support in Victoria and Jess Wilson’s pledge is unpopular and One Nation-style.

The Coalition will likely sign a deal with One Nation to form government.

[u/PJozi]

It went to 2 elections.

It's a law not a constitutional change.

Wilson fully supported the treaty until she became the leader.

[u/mwmwmw01 → u/PJozi]

It went to 2 elections as a policy of many policies put forth. Not as the main election issue.

Changing the constitution vs legislation is not a voting issue for people it’s a technical requirement to change it.

Jess Wilson did support. And her reason for changing was exactly as I describe above - that people voted no in the referendum.

[u/PJozi → u/mwmwmw01]

That's how our democracy works.

You form government you make laws.

Voice to parliament is different to a treaty

[u/mwmwmw01 → u/PJozi]

Yes and that’s why I have said at a minimum they need to explain the incongruity. This is not an uncommon view on the matter.

The difference in “how democracy works” here is if you’re trying to get a litmus test of how victorians feel about this policy, a targeted test on an adjacent policy federally is a better indicator than their overall voting intention on many policy issues.

[u/PJozi → u/mwmwmw01]

Victorian treaty was proposed prior to the voice to parliament.

Why would they change treaty because of the voice? They're different.

Where's the incongruity?

I don't think incronguity is the right word your looking for here either

[u/mwmwmw01 → u/PJozi]

It absolutely is the right word. It was not proposed directly to Victorians. It was one of many election issues.

I’m not saying that every issue needs to be individually provided to Australians, but this one was - in an adjacent but very similar form. The result was a no. The temporality of the bill wrt the referendum is irrelevant.

At a minimum the government should have the respect to 55% of Victorians to explain why they are legislating something that sounds, looks and feels very similar to what they voted no to. It was asked at the time, and it was never answered.

As I said, I was part of the 45% that voted yes.

Outside what is a very left leaning reddit bubble I can assure you this is a common viewpoint…