After years of advocacy, Victoria’s first statewide treaty has created a new relationship between First Peoples and government. For Gunditjmara man Rueben Berg, its most consequential change is practical: First Peoples now hold decision-making powers that once remained with ministers.
A member of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, Berg shared lessons from the treaty process at Voices from the Bush 2026 in Mparntwe (Alice Springs). His address explored how sustained work towards achievable goals led to the treaty that commenced in December 2025, and what it could mean for water governance.
“We were able to turn a government commitment from about 10 years ago into the first treaty, across those 10 years, and a key part of being able to do that was small little achievements along the way,” Berg said.
Berg said the Assembly understood it had a limited opportunity to secure an agreement. Rather than trying to settle every issue in one negotiation, it pursued a first statewide treaty that could establish an enduring relationship and allow further agreements to follow.
That approach was supported by earlier steps, including the election of Assembly representatives and the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s truth-telling process. Each helped build the structures and public understanding needed for treaty negotiations.
Berg said Victoria’s treaty process also has two paths. The Assembly negotiated the first statewide treaty, while Traditional Owner groups can lead treaty negotiations relating to their own Country.
“State-wide treaty led by the Assembly, Traditional Owner treaties led by Traditional Owners themselves,” Berg said.
Those local negotiations may take up matters including land, water, cultural heritage and language. Berg stressed that Traditional Owners would determine their own priorities and processes.
Berg said governments had often expressed goodwill towards self-determination while retaining the final say on decisions, with administrative rules and ministerial responsibilities placing limits on how much authority could be shared.
“Government still had to make the final decision because of risk factors, because of the Financial Management Act, because of all sorts of these bureaucratic strings,” he said.
The treaty has established Gellung Warl as an independent First Peoples-led body with powers of its own. For Berg, that changes what self-determination can mean in practice.
“We don't have to make decisions and then put it off to the minister for that final tick off. We are the final decision-maker on things we have the authority to make decisions on,” he said.
“And that's a really powerful shift within that Victorian landscape.”
The treaty also creates ways for the Assembly to make representations to government, including opportunities to address Parliament and meet with Cabinet.
Berg said Victorian government departments must work with the Assembly on guidelines for consulting First Peoples, beginning early in the development of policies rather than after proposals have taken shape.
Berg described further parts of the treaty structure designed to continue truth-telling and scrutinise government action. He said an independent First Peoples-led accountability mechanism would monitor commitments, including progress on Closing the Gap and responses to the Yoorrook Justice Commission.
The aim, he said, was to ensure that community testimony and government promises continued to have an effect after the initial treaty was signed.
Berg also distinguished between the treaty agreement and the legislation enacted to give parts of it effect. Future parliaments may change legislation, he said, but the agreement itself requires both parties to return to the table.
“It's really important to recognise those two different components of what we've achieved,” he said.
That distinction matters to the longer journey. Berg described the first statewide treaty as a foundation for future statewide negotiations, alongside treaties led by Traditional Owner groups.
Water was a focus of Berg’s address because the treaty had not itself transferred water rights to Traditional Owners. It had, however, created a power to design how water rights held by one Traditional Owner group could be shared with another.
Berg said such arrangements need not follow the usual model of buying and selling water. Groups could determine exchanges that reflected ceremony, cultural practices and reciprocal relationships.
“We can create a system whereby we can exchange water between Traditional Owner groups for ceremonial practices, for exchange of possum skins, for ochre, or for reciprocal rights around water,” he said.
“We can design and create that system ourselves.”
He also wants First Peoples to have a greater role in choosing who represents them in government-appointed positions, including roles connected to water. In his view, the question is who holds the authority to identify the people with the right knowledge.
Berg did not present Victoria’s process as a model to copy unchanged. He said each jurisdiction has its own circumstances, and Traditional Owner groups must lead decisions about their own Country. But the treaty shows how a long-held commitment can be built into institutions, powers and processes that continue beyond a single government decision.
Its lesson for the water sector is direct: lasting participation depends on First Peoples having authority to shape decisions, not only being invited to respond to them.
Interested in learning more about Voices from the Bush 2026? Take a look here.