For the first time, Victoria has formalised a Treaty relationship with the First Peoples of Victoria, which will reshape how land is planned and managed.

In December 2025, Victoria took a historic step, signing Australia’s first statewide Treaty with the First Peoples’ Assembly. It marks a profound shift in how the State understands its relationship with First Peoples, grounded in self-determination, truth-telling and a commitment to structural change.

Dr Ed Wensing, SGS Associate and Special Adviser, has authored Treaty and Native Title Developments in Victoria: Implications for Land Planning and Management. This article draws out the key insights, focusing on their practical implications for local government and land use planning.

This is not simply symbolic. The Treaty is backed by legislation, new institutions, and procedural changes that will reshape how decisions are made, including in land use planning and management. For local government, the implications are immediate, practical and evolving.

At the same time, Treaty is unfolding alongside renewed momentum in native title, including active claims across Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat. Together, these developments are redefining how land is governed, who is involved in decision-making, and what “best practice” looks like.

For planners, the question is no longer whether this matters, but how to respond.

A new planning context: shared decision-making, not consultation

At the heart of the Treaty is a shift from consultation to participation in decision-making.

The Statewide Treaty Act establishes new advisory and relational processes between government and First Peoples, embedding their role in shaping laws, policies and programs. Departments are now required to engage with the First Peoples’ Assembly in structured ways, including briefings, consultations, and the development of formal guidelines for engagement [1].

This is intended to become standard practice, not an exception.

For land use planning, this signals a move away from late-stage consultation toward earlier, more meaningful involvement of First Peoples as native title holders, Traditional Owners and Registered Aboriginal Parties in shaping planning decisions.

What this means in practice for local government

While much of the legislation is directed at State agencies, its effects will flow directly to local government through planning systems, policy settings and expectations of good practice.

In practice, four shifts are already changing how things are done.

1. Engage earlier and more deliberately

Planning processes will increasingly need to involve Traditional Owners and relevant First Peoples at the earliest stages, particularly where policies, strategies or developments affect land, water or cultural values.

The distinction between consultation and engagement becomes critical. In the full paper, it is highlighted that meaningful engagement is built on trust, mutual respect and ongoing relationships, rather than one-off interactions.

For councils, this means:

• Engaging before options are fixed
• Allowing space for input to shape outcomes, not just respond to them
• Building long-term relationships, not project-by-project transactions.

2. Build internal capability and clear processes

The Act requires government bodies to develop guidelines for engagement with the First Peoples’ Assembly, including how consultation occurs during policy and legislative development.

A parallel expectation will emerge for local government.

In practice, this means councils should:

• Establish internal protocols for engaging with First Peoples as native title holders, Traditional Owners and/or Registered Aboriginal Parties
• Align planning processes with emerging Treaty principles
• Build cultural capability across planning, infrastructure and asset teams.

This is not just about compliance, but also about consistency and confidence in how engagement is carried out and respecting First Peoples’ human rights.

3. Plan for multiple government pathways

Treaty and native title are inter-related and are now operating together, not separately.

Traditional Owners may pursue a “dual track” approach, advancing native title claims while negotiating local treaties with the State and with local governments [2].

For planners, this introduces a more complex landscape:

• Different groups may have different forms of recognition (native title, RAP status, settlement agreements)
• Overlapping claims are common and reflect non-Western understandings of Country
• Outcomes may vary across locations and over time.

Local government will need to navigate this complexity carefully, ensuring the right parties are engaged and that processes are legally sound.

4. Manage risk while relationships evolve

Native title continues to carry legal implications for planning decisions.

Where native title exists or may exist, certain actions can trigger “future act” processes. If these are not followed correctly, decisions can be invalid or expose proponents to compensation claims [3].

At the same time, the courts are easing the burden of proving native title, which may increase the likelihood of successful claims in urban and peri-urban areas.

The paper is clear on one point: the most effective way to manage this risk is through respectful, proactive relationships with First Peoples, not reactive compliance.

A broader shift: from Western planning to shared knowledge systems

Beyond processes, the Treaty raises a deeper question about how land planning and management are approached.

The paper points to the need for greater parity between Aboriginal worldviews and Western planning systems.

This is not about replacing one with the other, but recognising that planning decisions can be stronger when they draw on:

• Cultural knowledge alongside technical analysis
• Long-term custodianship alongside statutory frameworks, and
• Relational approaches to land alongside regulatory ones.

For local government, this creates an opportunity to rethink how planning is done, not just who is involved.

Taking a precautionary approach

While many details are still evolving, the direction of travel is clear.

The Treaty establishes a new foundation for how land, policy and decision-making are approached in Victoria. Its full implications will unfold over time, particularly as local treaties are negotiated, and native title claims progress.

In this context, the paper recommends a precautionary approach.

For local government, that means:

• Acting early rather than waiting for formal requirements
• Strengthening relationships now, not later, and
• Embedding flexibility into planning processes to adapt as the framework evolves.

Where this leaves local government

Victoria’s Treaty represents a structural shift in governance, not a standalone reform.

For planners, it signals a move toward:

• Shared decision-making
• More deliberate and consistent engagement
• Greater legal and procedural complexity, and
• A broader understanding of land, place and Country.

The practical work is already underway. The challenge now is to translate this new framework into everyday planning practice in a way that is thoughtful, consistent and grounded in mutual respect and trust.