Peter O’Brien’s ‘Document 15’

 

31 Jul

Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. This month the Prime Minister told Ben Fordham that the Voice ‘is not about a treaty’. But in May the Prime Minister said that treaty and truth telling are very much a part of the next phase, if you like. And one of the things that a Voice to Parliament would be able to do is to talk about Makarrata—the need for agreement making and coming together after a conflict.

Why did this tricky Prime Minister say one thing to one group of Australians and completely the opposite to another?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:07): I thank the member for her question and I thank whoever it was who interjected about my T-shirt because, yes, Ben Fordham has exposed the fact that at a Midnight Oil concert I wore a Midnight Oil T-shirt. I know! Hold the front page! At the Oil’s last ever concert I wore an Oils T-shirt. What I said on Ben Fordham was that the referendum isn’t about a treaty and isn’t about truth. It’s about one thing. It is about voice. It’s about recognition and it’s about listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that we get better results. That’s what it’s about. But the opponents of the Voice—you wonder why. The member who asked the question said this on Insiders on 23 July: firstly, ‘I want to see constitutional recognition of our First Australians.’ Well, we’re all agreed then. So tick, tick.

The deputy leader will be heard in silence for her point of order.

Ms Ley: It’s a point of order on relevance. There was no T-shirt in the question. There was no quote from me in the question. There were your own words, Prime Minister, in the question and your own contradiction about treaty or no treaty.

The SPEAKER: You may resume your seat. The Prime Minister is referring to comments he made on the radio station. I would suggest interjections are highly disorderly, so do not interject. The Prime Minister won’t respond to the interjections.

Mr ALBANESE: I’m speaking about what this referendum is about. It strikes me that the opponents of the referendum—those who are advocating a ‘no’ vote—want to talk about everything but what the question is about: recognition and listening in order to get better results. That is what it is about. But the deputy leader went on to say this about the Voice, because she was asked:

The voice is important in the way that it may close the gap and the way it may improve the lives of Indigenous people.

Well, we agree with that, too. So, then you wonder why it is that they’re not supporting it. And they come up with the idea that it’s legislation, and they say this: ‘All legislation requires exposure drafts.’ That’s what she said, and ‘It requires conversations, it requires debate; I mean, it will include all the things that actually produce good legislation at the end of the process, and that’s what I want to see.’

Well, a yes result in the referendum will see the Voice being legislated before this parliament as a result of that good process. That’s the whole point here. Those opposite are so desperate to make a political point at the expense of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that they want to talk about everything but what is in the referendum in the last quarter of this year.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. If Australians vote for the Voice, the makarrata commission will be established. Can the minister inform the House of how the makarrata commission will work?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:14): Can I thank the member for his question. The referendum later this year is about constitutional recognition through a voice. It’s not about anything else. Later this year, we will all be asked a simple question, and it will go like this: do you support a change to the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice? The referendum is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a voice. Those opposite are trying to muddy the waters. The role of the Voice will be to provide advice on how best to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—advice on things like health, education, jobs and housing. It’s about constitutional recognition that gets concrete results.

Uluru Statement From The Heart

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:26):  My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. At the Garma Festival last year she said, ‘The Uluru statement talks about an enshrined voice in the Constitution but it also talks about the establishment of a makarrata commission.’ She also said, ‘The Prime Minister was very clear that we will embrace and implement the Uluru statement in full.’ So I ask the minister again: how will the makarrata commission work?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:28): The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a simple and generous request, a request that was made by over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates at the Uluru convention in 2017 after dialogues, with the community, right across the country.

The first thing that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people asked for at Uluru was constitutional recognition through a voice. This is an idea that came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not from politicians.

The Australian people will have the opportunity later this year to make the Voice a reality. This referendum is about recognition, listening and better results. It’s about making a practical difference in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in areas like health, education, jobs and employment.

1 Aug

Uluru Statement from the Heart

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. At the opening of parliament last year the Prime Minister declared, ‘The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents an opportunity that must be seized and voice, truth, treaty is the result.’ On 19 July the Prime Minister told 2GB’s Ben Fordham that it was ‘not natural’ to assume treaty would follow the Voice, and stated, ‘This is not about treaty.’ He said that four times. Was the Prime Minister being truthful at the opening of parliament or on 2GB?

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Last year, the government announced $5.8 million for an independent makarrata commission. Does the government still support this commission, and exactly what will it do?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:10): The 2023 referendum is about constitutional recognition through a voice. Australians will be asked a simple question: do you support a change to the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Let’s be clear about what the Voice is. The Voice will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to the parliament and the government on issues that affect their communities.

The SPEAKER: The minister will pause. Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking a point of order? She has the call.

Ms Ley: On relevance: this was a very tight question. It went to one issue and one issue only. Respectfully, to you and to the minister, I ask that you bring the minister back to the question.

The SPEAKER: I’ll make that determination. The minister has had a preamble. The question was about the makarrata commission and funding from her government, whether the government still supports the commission and what it will do. I invite her to return to the question.

Ms BURNEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their local areas and serve for a fixed period. It is about recognition and it is about listening. In the words of NRL legend Johnathan Thurston, from North Queensland:

Our young people deserve the chance to be their best … I’ve seen the obstacles they face. Nobody understands that better than their local community. Giving them a say will mean more of our kids reach their potential. That’s what the Voice is about.

So I say to Australians: vote ‘yes’ for unity, for hope and to make a positive difference.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Ms PRICE (Durack—Opposition Whip) (14:29): My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. At the Garma Festival last year, the minister said the Uluru Statement talks about three things: the Voice; treaty and agreement-making; and truth-telling. Will the Voice. Treaty. Truth. process involve any financial payment by the Commonwealth?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:30): I have repeatedly stood up here and explained the need for the Voice and the need for constitutional recognition, and I have spoken extensively about the Uluru statement. I refer you back to all of those statements.

2 Aug

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Last month, the minister said: ‘The Makarrata Commission would have two jobs. First, the national process of truth-telling and national agreement making, which is really code for treaty without saying it.’ Would the minister explain this statement to the House?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:01): Can I thank the member for Farrer for her question and say that my visit to your electorate was incredibly successful. The word makarrata is a word from the language of the Yolngu people from Arnhem Land. It means coming together after a struggle, facing the facts of wrongs, living together in peace. That word was gifted to the Uluru statement by the late Yunupingu, the great Gumatj leader from north-east Arnhem Land. This weekend at Garma we will gather again and we will remember his legacy and all that he did for his people over so many years. More than anything, he wanted to see constitutional recognition through a voice made reality. Later this year we have the chance to do that—recognition, listening and better results.

Makarrata Commission

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:06): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. On 15 November 2021 the now Prime Minister said: The Makarrata Commission will be independent and have responsibility for truth telling and treaty making. It will work with a Voice to Parliament when it is established. When will Australians know the details about the government’s Makarrata Commission?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:06): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. The government of this country supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the Uluru statement has three elements. The first request is for a Voice to Parliament, which is what the referendum will be about this year. It then refers to a makarrata for truth telling and agreement making. Progress on makarrata will not occur until after the referendum. Our priority is constitutional recognition through a Voice. Our priority is recognition, listening and getting better results. The 2023 referendum is an opportunity to advance reconciliation and move Australia forward for everyone.

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I refer to her previous answer. The minister said, ‘Progress of Makarrata will not occur until after the referendum.’ Minister, the government has already spent $900,000 of $5.8 million on this commission. What was this money spent on?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:27): I thank the member opposite for her question. I would like to quote from the Uluru statement and what it says about makarrata. It says:

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking a point of order?

Ms Ley: Mr Speaker, Is it your ruling that questions can be asked to the minister and completely unrelated statements can be made and that she is not being brought back to answer the question which was specifically with respect to the timing?

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. You are asking me a question. We’re going to move to the next question because that was not a point of order.

3 Aug

Makarrata Commission

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. At Garma this weekend, will the Prime Minister tell participants that, despite last year giving them ‘a solemn promise to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full’ through Makarrata treaty-making and truth-telling, his position is now, as he told ABC radio yesterday—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will pause. Minister for the Environment and Water, I’ve been crystal clear about hearing questions in silence. There will be no interjections, out of respect. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again.

Mr DUTTON: At Garma this weekend, will the Prime Minister tell participants that, despite last year giving them ‘a solemn promise to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full ‘ through Makarrata treaty-making and truth-telling, his position is now, as he told ABC radio yesterday, that he has no plans and sees no need for a national treaty? Is the Prime Minister’s problem one of competency, or does he just say whatever he thinks people want to hear?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I once again invite him to go to Garma, to actually talk with Indigenous Australians and to move away from his dirt unit and sit in the red dirt there in Arnhem Land. There he can explain his position on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Let’s be very clear: both sides of parliament are saying they support constitutional recognition, and both sides of parliament are saying they support a legislated voice. The only difference between the two positions is that we are putting forward the position of constitutional recognition in the form that has been requested by Indigenous Australians themselves over a period of two decades. That will be what will be before the Australian people in the last quarter of this year.

Those opposite’s commitment to legislate a voice completely undermines every argument that they make against it. They clearly acknowledge it is needed. Otherwise, why would they legislate it? Clearly, they recognise it will make a positive difference. Otherwise, why do they say, ‘Legislate it’? Clearly, they don’t see it as divisive or radical. Otherwise, why would they legislate it? This confected outrage by those opposite with regard to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is just that—confected—and they are seeking political advantage by undermining the most disadvantaged group in Australia, who happen to be First Nations people. They are prepared to advance their political interests by undermining the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

When it comes to treaty, David Crisafulli said this in the Queensland parliament—the leader of the LNP:

I rise to support the Path to Treaty Bill 2023 … Path to Treaty is a genuine opportunity for our state to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. I support the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the first part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a Voice, as requested, constitutionally enshrined so that it can’t be gotten rid of with the stroke of a pen.

Indigenous Australians

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Yesterday when the Prime Minister was asked whether he supported treaty he said, ‘That’s like asking if you support the sun coming up.’ Does the Minister for Indigenous Australians support a treaty with financial compensation paid by the Commonwealth?

Government members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting.

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:09): I thank the member for Farrer for her question. I have been asked again by the member for Farrer about the elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Australian government supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart. You’re aware of that. The Uluru statement has three elements. The first request is for a Voice to parliament, which is what the referendum will be about later this year. Then it refers to makarrata, for truth-telling and agreement-making. As I have said, progress on makarrata will not occur until after the referendum. Our priority is Constitutional recognition through a Voice.

Our priority is recognition, listening, and getting better results. The Prime Minister has issued an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to come to Garma this weekend, and I now issue an invitation to you, Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition, to come to Garma this weekend.

Not only am I inviting the deputy leader to come to Garma but I’ll even make sure there’s some bug spray available for you.

Makarrata Commission

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. In October, the Treasurer provided $5.8 million for an independent makarrata commission for national treaty making. Nine hundred thousand dollars has already been spent. Can the Treasurer inform the House what this has delivered?

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:23): Unlike the shadow Treasurer, I believe there’s an important role for the federal government and the federal budget in seeking and delivering better outcomes for First Nations people.

I stand by the funding that we’ve provided, over two budgets now, towards that objective. As I said earlier in the week, one of the reasons the shadow Treasurer and his colleagues don’t want to ask us what this referendum is about is that they know. They don’t want to ask us what it’s about; they want to ask us what it’s not about. This referendum is not about makarrata. This referendum is not about the other issues that they’re asking about. This referendum is about a Voice to Parliament. A Voice to Parliament is about recognition, listening and better outcomes, and I’m surprised that he doesn’t want to see those better outcomes.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will pause. The member for Moreton—not two days in a row. The member for Hume on a point of order.

Mr Taylor: This is a very specific and very polite question. What has the $900,000 allocated for making treaties delivered?

The SPEAKER: The question was about a makarrata commission for the treaty-making and money allocations. I’m just going to bring the Treasurer back to that part of the question.

Dr CHALMERS: The money in the budget in October, the money in the budget in May and the money in future budgets towards getting better outcomes for First Nations people is all about trying to close the gap in outcomes. Once again, one of the reasons that they want to ask us these sorts of questions is that they can’t argue against the fundamental reason for a voice to parliament, and that’s better outcomes for people.

Mr Taylor: What’s the money doing?

The SPEAKER: The member for Hume will cease interjecting.

Dr CHALMERS: It’s about recognition and listening and better outcomes. I think it’s disappointing but not especially surprising to hear that the guy who wants to be the Treasurer of this country is not interested in better outcomes for our First Nations brothers and sisters. That’s what the referendum is about.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the question.

Dr CHALMERS: And that’s what the funding in the budget is about.

Prime Minister

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes the Prime Minister is dividing the nation with his divisive voice proposal by deliberately refusing to provide detail to the Australian people;

(2) further notes the Prime Minister promised on 34 occasions to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which includes the Makarrata Commission’s national treaty-making process, but has since continually denied there will be a treaty;

(3) notes the Minister for Indigenous Australians said work on a treaty was to start within weeks but the Prime Minister is now walking that back and in two train wreck media interviews, the Prime Minister is telling different audiences different things on the treaty;

(4) further notes that despite the Prime Minister being shifty on whether a treaty is being worked on, he has already allocated $5.8 million for the Makarrata Commission national treaty-making process but refuses to explain how $900,000 of this money has already been spent;

(5) notes that the Government’s Minister for Indigenous Australians has treated this House with contempt by repeatedly and consistently failing to answer direct questions in Question Time; and

(6) condemns the Prime Minister for his complete inability to be upfront and honest with the Australian people and calls on the Prime Minister to explain today in plain language what:

(a) The Voice will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate;

(b) the Makarrata Commission will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate;

(c) the money for the Makarrata Commission is being spent on; and

(d) the treaty making process will be, how long it will take, and what the financial implications for the Commonwealth and for taxpayers will be.

Leave not granted.

Mr DUTTON: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the motion.

The reality is that this Prime Minister stood up at Garma and said to the Australian people, with great passion and with much emotion, that he proposed words that hadn’t been consulted on, that hadn’t been properly researched and that were, ultimately, against advice by the Government Solicitor, who had advised against the breadth of words that now are being proposed by way of referendum to the Australian people.

Every Australian wants a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. Every Australian wants to see a better outcome in Alice Springs. Every Australian wants to see better outcomes for children on school attendance, health outcomes and life expectancy. We want to see better housing options. But the Voice is not going to deliver that practical support on the ground, because it is a Canberra voice and a voice for the elite of this country.

Mr Speaker, ask yourself this. Why, on the current information available to us, do we have a situation where 29 per cent of Labor voters in this country are not supporting the Voice? If the Prime Minister had any coherent explanation for the Australian public as to how the Voice will work, what outcomes it will deliver, its breadth, what the interpretation will be in the High Court and how it will change our system of government then perhaps there would be some chance of convincing those 29 per cent of Labor voters. But the Prime Minister is deliberately and willingly withholding that information from Labor voters and from the Australian public.

That is why this situation goes from bad to worse—because the Australian Prime Minister is seeking to divide his nation. That’s what’s happening here. The best-case scenario on this incompetent Prime Minister’s approach to the Voice is that you might get a 51-49 ‘yes’ outcome, bearing in mind that you need a double majority. That splits our country straight down the middle. No Prime Minister in good conscience would decide on such a process unless he was seeking political advantage or unless he was out of his depth.

Australian families at the moment are paying more for their electricity bills, more at the grocery checkout, more for their insurance and more for their mortgages because of this incompetent government. The incompetence is not just demonstrated in terms of the Prime Minister’s management around the Voice but in every aspect of government delivery at the moment. That’s what the Australian public is experiencing. Mr Speaker, when you walk the streets, when you talk to people across the country, that is why they are saying they are not better off today than when Labor was elected.

The Australian public know that this Prime Minister is taking us down a cul-de-sac. This Prime Minister is dividing the country unnecessarily, because there is a bipartisan position in this country at the moment that would see a question on recognition in the Constitution for our first occupants of this country. It would receive 80 per cent support across the nation. It can be put to the people in October this year. It would not divide but unite the country.

Yet our Prime Minister knowingly rejects that proposition. Why? Why would he reject a proposition to unite our country? Why would he cast that aside and instead go down the path of pitching one Australian against another? Why would it be that one in three Labor voters has called this Prime Minister out as a fake and a phony? We know this Prime Minister. We know more and more about him every day. His great idol Kevin Rudd: we see more of Kevin Rudd in this Prime Minister as every day goes by. We knew of Kevin Rudd that he turned out to be somebody very different to what the public believed him to be. This Prime Minister will say one thing to one audience and tell the next audience what they want to hear. The problem is that people match up what he’s saying.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Social Services is warned.

Mr DUTTON: When you turn up to a Midnight Oil concert and you’re wearing a T-shirt that says that you’re in favour of ‘yes’ and you’re in favour of treaty and you’re in favour of truth-telling, do know what that says, Mr Speaker? It doesn’t say, as the Prime Minister wants us to believe, that he turned up not adequately attired for a Midnight Oil concert and that somehow, in a snap moment of choice, he found himself clothed in a Midnight Oil T-shirt. It’s sort of like a Deirdre Chambers moment. It does have a ring of that to it: ‘How did this T-shirt find itself on my body?’ That’s what he’s arguing, and it shows you how insincere this man is.

Prime Minister, you have the opportunity to unite the Australian people. You have the opportunity to cut through the waste that is taking place in the money that’s administered to help Indigenous Australians.

Mr DUTTON: You have the opportunity to work with us to make sure that we listen to Indigenous Australians and get the outcomes that they deserve. But you are not going to do it through a treaty process that you have embarrassingly walked away from, and when you’ve talked in a duplicitous way to the Australian public on this topic. There’s a makarrata commission that’s being funded but is operating in secrecy, which you will not speak anything about. The Prime Minister has the opportunity to step up and unite the Australian public. He is not doing that. When a Prime Minister makes a deliberate decision to harm our national interest, I’ll tell you who is watching—the entire Australian public, because they are disappointed in this Prime Minister. He has the chance to do good and he’s choosing not to do so.

When he goes up to Garma, he can be sincere this time. At the last Garma conference, he provided detail of thewords but has provided no detail every day since that point. That’s the problem here. The problem is not with the Australian public, as those opposite want us to believe. The Australian public are not hard-hearted. People aren’t saying they’re voting no because they don’t want to support Indigenous Australians. They will vote no because they know this Prime Minister is wilfully withholding detail from them.

That is unconscionable, and it’s something the Prime Minister should apologise for. It’s something that he should be upfront about with the Australian public so they can be properly informed when they cast their vote. But every day—bearing in mind we’re less than three months from this referendum vote—the Prime Minister makes a decision not to look Australians in the eye and answer the questions that they appropriately are putting to him. And when an Australian Prime Minister breaks that trust with the Australian people, who voted for him only 15 months ago, they work out that this bloke is a phony and a fraud and is running an incompetent government.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (14:50): I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I second the motion because this Prime Minister and government have taken our nation to a pivotal moment in its history. While that’s their prerogative, the onus of their responsibility is to lead our country and build trust, with honesty and transparency, about their proposition to the Australian people. It’s an important decision about their Constitution. They should be brought along on that journey every step of the way. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is one about voice, truth and treaty. That journey should be explained in entirety, not in part.

This is an important moment for our nation’s history, for our nation to make a determination. The proper procedures and processes should be taken from the outset. Because the Prime Minister has failed to trust the Australian people, to bring the Australian people on this journey with him, we have seen the erosion of support for this first element, the Voice, from over 60 per cent in December last year to now less than 50 per cent today. That’s a direct result of the government failing to create an environment for the Australian people to have faith and trust in their government in the proposition they put before them. They failed to create an environment where they went through due process, of a constitutional convention. Australians were denied that due process.

Instead, they deferred to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, where only one cohort of Australians got to make a determination about our constitutional future. That’s not leadership. That’s not about bringing the Australian people on a journey. That is creating division. That erodes the opportunity for every Australian to have a say in their document, a document that is important to them, that governs them and will define our nation into the future. They have misled the Australian people in saying that the Voice is a new concept. It’s not. We are repeating the mistakes of the past. We had a representative body before. It was called ATSIC.

It’s for that premise that the National Party, some nine months ago, made a principled position that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We’re not doing something new. We represent the people who are the most disadvantaged. We bear the scars from the mistakes of the past and the ones that we will repeat. We need an intervention in 2023. That intervention needs to be in bureaucracy. It needs to be about reshaping the bureaucracy and empowering local elders in local communities—not regionally, but in the local community—empowering those local elders, because we’re repeating the mistakes of the past and they will not shift the dial.

We have the data. We have the understanding, of where the gap needs to be closed. This is about making sure Canberra goes to them, not have them come to Canberra. Don’t allow bureaucracy to repeat the mistakes of generalising the feedback into national programs. You need local programs to close the gap. You need to be able to understand what they are in bespoke models, in bespoke communities. This is a government-top operation saying to the people out there, ‘We know best,’ instead of empowering those local elders.

This isn’t about tangible outcomes. Because if this was about what we all want, which is Constitutional recognition, we made it very clear that if we didn’t conflate the two, if we wanted to unify our nation in a meaningful way, to take opportunity, to take that hand on both sides—a moment of political leadership where this nation could actually achieve what the Prime Minister set out to in Constitutional recognition—that would be a unifying moment.

But it has been lost, not just in how this Voice has been devised but in the processes that flow beyond it. It’s about the processes of treaty, and the consequences and the reach of that, so that Australians understand. If the Prime Minister wants Australians to come on this journey with him, he should be prepared not only to put the legislation for the Voice to parliament to demonstrate he runs the business in this parliament, and be open and transparent to the Australian people about what it is, but also to be open and transparent to the Australian people about what a treaty is, how far-reaching it is and what it means for every Australian. This could be a unifying moment but, unfortunately, this Prime Minister has missed it.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:56): In the lead-up to this parliamentary sitting week we were told that it was going to be about the cost of living. But they’ve given up on the cost of living and they have decided to stick with dividing. They have decided to stick with division.

This is someone who we thought could not be more divisive than the former prime minister, whom he replaced as the leader of the Liberal Party, but of course the Leader of the Opposition is managing it. He is the same person who, as he mentioned, when the former prime minister Kevin Rudd stood at this despatch box and gave the apology to stolen generations—it was a proud moment to be in this parliament. The then leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, had the courage of his conviction to do the right thing and stand at this despatch box as well to make sure that it was a matter of national unity. Around the country, schoolchildren gathered in front of television screens to celebrate that moment to advance reconciliation, that moment to lift up our nation. And the Leader of the Opposition not only opposed it but also threatened to resign from the frontbench over it and walked out on that event. So terrible was it that in that moment of national unity there were only a few people who were so determined to sow division that they just couldn’t cop the concept of saying sorry for the wrong thing being done, for children being stolen from mothers, fathers, grandparents, families and communities. They could not stomach it.

We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition a range of comments, most of which were not about what is before the Australian people. He spoke about my speech to Garma last year, and I’m proud of it. I’ll be proud of the speech that I give at Garma this weekend. There was a time when the leaders of both parties went to Garma, and those opposite now have a situation whereby not a single frontbench member from the coalition is attending this event. Today, on his weekly tough interrogation from Ray Hadley on 2GB, he went on to say that he wasn’t going to attend because it was all about a ‘left fest’. Well, the Yothu Yindi Foundation hosts that event, and the Leader of the Opposition was happy to go to the funeral of Yunupingu and to state the important work that that great Australian contributed to this nation.

Also in that interview today, he said, ‘I want to see constitutional recognition.’ Ray Hadley said, ‘If this gets beaten it won’t be revisited in my lifetime.’ The response of the Leader of the Opposition was to say that the referendum will change the whole system of government, that it will cost billions of dollars—that it will change the whole system. We heard that again today.

Well, I say this to those opposite. You can’t say that it will change the entire system of government and then say you will legislate for the Voice. That is what you are saying. You can’t say it will promote racial division and then say you will legislate for the Voice. You can’t say it will make a positive difference but then say you will legislate for the Voice. Clearly they don’t see it as radical or divisive, or any of the other noise of confusion that they are seeking to inject into the referendum. Otherwise, why would they legislate for it?

Let’s be very clear. Both sides say they support constitutional recognition. Both sides say they support legislating for the Voice. The third provision that is being put forward makes it very clear:

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its the composition, functions, powers and procedures.

And they ask, ‘Where’s that legislation?’ They actually had nine years. To be very clear, when the Leader of the National Party actually spoke about process, they opposed it before they even knew what the question was. Then the Liberal leader, after they lost the Aston by-election, in a once-in-a-century event, didn’t even bother to tell his shadow minister for Indigenous affairs or shadow Attorney-General that he was abandoning the process even before the parliamentary committee had met.

And they speak about dividing. They’re managing to divide themselves. They had someone who was one of the architects of the wording, the member for Berowra, now sitting up the back. Andrew Gee is sitting up the back as well. Julian Leeser is someone who has more honour in his little finger than the frontbench combined. The truth is that the process that occurred began in the lead-up to the 2007 election, under John Howard, who promised to advance constitutional recognition. Then in 2012 Tony Abbott established a process to take forward what the form of constitutional recognition would be. That process led to the constitutional convention of First Nations people held at Uluru in 2017, where Indigenous Australians said they wanted something that wasn’t just symbolic; they wanted something that would make a difference.

The way you make a difference is by engaging people directly, by listening to those people who are impacted by decisions. That is why a Voice to Canberra is so different from what has happened over the previous 122 years—which is that, with the best of intentions, it has been a voice from Canberra. And I pay tribute to the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ken Wyatt. He says that with the best of intentions we need to listen to First Nations people and we need a Voice to Parliament and to government. That is how you get better outcomes. We know that is the case. If we look at the programs that are working the best—Indigenous rangers, community health programs and justice reinvestment programs—they all have something in common. They have all come from Indigenous people.

They are all programs of which Indigenous Australians have been the architects.

But those opposite, particularly this Leader of the Opposition, seek political advantage rather than trying to come together. ‘Makarrata’ means a coming together after struggle. It’s as simple as that. It’s a process bringing people forward in the nature of reconciliation. The fact is that he is not prepared to front up at the Garma Festival this weekend in order to explain his position. He would be received politely if he attended. He would be. One of the things about the Yothu Yindi Foundation and that event is that it’s about respect. It’s about bringing people together—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. This is an opportunity to do just that.

That’s why Australians will vote ‘yes’ for the referendum when it’s held in the last quarter of this year. They will vote ‘yes’, and they will advance reconciliation. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:10]

(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

Ayes…………………..52

Noes…………………..90

Majority ……………..38

 

7 Aug

Indigenous Australians

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, $900,000 has already been spent on an independent makarrata commission for national treaty-making. Last week the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Treasurer refused to answer questions on how this money was spent. On Insiders yesterday the Prime Minister failed to explain the expenditure three times. Prime Minister, what has this money delivered?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:09): I thank the member for his question. He was a member of a government that had $19 billion going to businesses that were increasing their profits and didn’t see a problem with any of that: ‘Nothing to see here’—about $19 billion going to businesses that were increasing their profits.

Now, ‘makarrata’ is a Yolngu word coming from Arnhem Land, from the traditional owners, that speaks about a coming together after conflict. That is simply what it means. ‘Makarrata’ is about promoting reconciliation. That is what it means. We make no apologies for saying that. The idea of a makarrata that has been requested is, of course, a positive one and, yes, we had measures in the budget for it.

We saw over the weekend, as well, some commentary from people who aren’t normally a cheer squad for the Labor Party speaking about the tactics of those opposite. They said this:

We are talking about a government putting a referendum to the people to enact a reform designed to unify the nation and eradicate discrimination, a reform devised by Indigenous representatives, constitutional experts and politicians of all stripes across two decades of consultation—

Mr Taylor: A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker: $900,000 has been spent on treaty making. What has it delivered?

The SPEAKER: I’m listening carefully to the Prime Minister. He’s talking about the makarrata process and commission. I’m listening to what he says.

Mr ALBANESE: I was asked about makarrata, which is a part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This is what this commentator, Chris Kenny, had to say—

An opposition member interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is being relevant to the topic.

Mr ALBANESE: He went on to say:

… of all stripes across two decades of consultation—

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr Dutton: This was a very tight question in relation to the $900,000. Is it your ruling that the Prime Minister is in order and is relevant to the question that was asked of him?

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on the point of order.

Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, the point of order on relevance can only be taken once, and I should add that when it was taken previously by the shadow Treasurer he took the point of order, when he was claiming relevance, using a word that hadn’t even been in the question.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has 54 seconds. He needs to remain relevant to the topic of the question.

I’m listening to what he says, but he is being interrupted while he is answering the question. I’ll make sure that he is being relevant to the topic of the question, as the standing order provides for.

Mr ALBANESE: There you go. Chris Kenny went on to say:

Yet now the Coalition scare campaign seeks to decry this as a secretive plot to rend asunder the nation.

Mr ALBANESE: He went on to say this:

It is not a plausible critique and it should not be taken seriously by media or political commentators. It insults the public.

… … …

The people running these scares know full well they are talking about nothing more than an advisory body.

He went on to say:

This truly is an attempt to turn Australians against each other.

That was Chris Kenny over the weekend.

If any of the frontbenchers opposite could have been bothered going to Garma on the weekend, they would have seen the unity from First Nations Australians asking to move forward together in the spirit of— (Time expired)

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Nine hundred thousand dollars has already been spent on an independent Makarrata Commission for national treaty making. What has this money been spent on?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:25): Before coming to that question, I recognise Auntie Robyn Reid and her family, who are in the gallery today—the family of Doctor Gordon Reid, the member for Robertson. You are very welcome and it is wonderful to see you.

I thank the member for Farrer for her question. I have been asked about the elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The government has allocated—

Ms Ley: A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker: the minister has not been asked about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The minister has been asked a specific question about a specific allocation of funding for a specific purpose, and it’s not the first time she has been asked that question. I think the member from the point of order.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order, and I will hear from the leader of the House.

Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, that was potentially the most absurd point of order I have ever heard. The last words that the minister said were ‘the government has allocated’. It was at the moment of saying ‘the government has allocated’ that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in a prepared point of order, stood up simply to interrupt. It is an attempt simply to interrupt the minister, not to raise a point of order, because the exact words that were being used could not have been more relevant.

The SPEAKER: The question contained a question around funding and budget allocations. As I heard correctly, the minister was using the words, ‘The funding allocated,’ which I think was entirely relevant. I am going to make sure that she is being relevant, and she has the call.

Ms BURNEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the government has allocated funding for a Makarrata in line with the commitment that we took to the last election. The funding has been allocated for the NIAA

resourcing to progress our commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, but we are not establishing a Makarrata before the referendum. Our priority is Constitutional recognition through a Voice.

Julie Bishop said at the Press Club:

… I believe that it is a step in the right direction … it’s not a question of money, it’s not a question of politicians coming up with policies, it’s a question of giving Indigenous people the franchise to make decisions to implement policies that will work. We got to give it a chance.

I agree with Julie Bishop.

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Can the minister confirm that, if the referendum is unsuccessful, all work on a makarrata commission and treaty would be ceased by the government?

The SPEAKER: I’ll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Burke: The way that question was framed is in breach of standing order 100(d)(vii), on a hypothetical matter.

Mr Fletcher: Clearly, it is a question about policy in the area that the minister squarely has responsibility for.

The SPEAKER: I would be more comfortable if the deputy leader, moving forward, could rephrase it around funding allocations at the moment, particularly around that which the minister has responsibility for now, not potentially in the future.

Ms LEY: My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and I refer to the $5.8 million of funding within her portfolio budget allocation towards a makarrata commission. Can the minister confirm that, if the referendum is unsuccessful, all work on a makarrata commission and treaty will be ceased by the government?

The SPEAKER: The question is in standing orders, barely, but I will allow the minister to respond.

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:40): We intend to get a successful vote.

Makarrata Commission

Ms WARE (Hughes) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Would the minister outline where $900,000 has been spent on the Makarrata Commission process?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:51): I thank the member for her question. What the question relates to is investing in a better future for Indigenous Australians. The money that has been spent so far has been for NIAA resourcing, to progress our commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, looking for ways to come together, to bring people together, to move forward as a nation.

We are getting on with the job of delivering for Indigenous Australians. We are delivering $100 million to improve housing and infrastructure in the Northern Territory; 30 new four-chair dialysis units and training for 500 new health workers; birthing on country in Nowra; making childhood education more accessible by increasing the number of subsidised hours to 36 hours per fortnight. This is an investment in the future of Indigenous Australians.

Garma Festival

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. In his speech at the Garma Festival last year the Prime Minister made multiple mentions of the Makarrata commission and treaty. In his speech at Garma this year the Prime Minister didn’t mention Makarrata or treaty. Prime Minister, what has changed?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:04): I sincerely welcome that question, which goes to the Garma Festival. If it was somewhere where there were issues and problems, then the Leader of the Opposition would have been first there. But because it was a celebration of what’s positive, a coming together of Indigenous Australians, he was nowhere near it. So accustomed is he is to acting in bad faith that he assumes everyone else is too. Those opposite should have attended the Garma Festival.

I’ll tell you what is different between last year and this year. Last year the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians and shadow Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, was at the Garma Festival and made a constructive contribution to it. I think that gave the people at the Garma Festival a great deal of hope that there was an opportunity to actually lift up this nation by responding positively to the generous ask that is represented by the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is a generous ask that arose after many years of process and consultation—including by Tony Abbott, who established a process when he was Prime Minister—on the form of constitutional recognition it should take, not whether it should take but what form. Tony Abbott hoped 2017, with the 50^th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, would represent the year in which the coalition government would take a referendum forward and give Australians a chance to say yes. Instead, we have seen between last year’s Garma Festival and this year’s a walking away from the process in which Julian Leeser had been involved since at least 2012. The Leader of the Opposition thought that saying ‘sorry’ would be the end of the world; now he thinks listening to people will be the end of democracy. That’s what he thinks. The conspiracy theories are colliding with one another. He’s struggling to get his scares straight.

A Liberal MP belled the cat to Phil Coorey last week. He said:

We can’t win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly, ie we need to defeat it to get to the election starting line. All about the politics, not about the needs of Indigenous Australians.

8 Aug

Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister only releasing Voice legislation after Australians have voted? Why does the Prime Minister continue to be deceptive and not provide the information that millions of Australians are asking for?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

Mr Dutton: A straight answer would be good.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.

Mr ALBANESE: Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition confirms that those opposite have walked completely away from even pretending they’re concerned about cost-of-living issues. As Chris Kenny so eloquently said when speaking about the legislation to do with the Voice—he pointed this out, as I have—’the coalition attack is undermined by its own commitment to legislate a voice.’ Undermined—that is their commitment to legislate a voice.

They were in government for three terms, and for most of that term they were talking about a voice. Indeed, Ken Wyatt, the former Minister for Indigenous Australians—

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr Dutton: On relevance, we’re being respectful to the Prime Minister, but, instead of hearing about what everybody else has to say, can the Australian public hear a straight answer from their Prime Minister as to what he thinks—

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. On the point of order, the question was about legislation, but it ended with a ‘why is’ and an allegation about the Prime Minister being deceptive. The Prime Minister is answering that part of the question, but I’m listening carefully to his answer.

Mr ALBANESE: They need to coordinate their discussions about this, maybe in their tactics committee, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, just a very short period of time ago, on the 23 July, said this about legislation: ‘All legislation requires exposure drafts. It requires conversations. It requires debate. It will include all the things that actually produce good legislation at the end of the process, and that’s what I want to see.’ That’s what his deputy said not last year but last month—just a fortnight ago. That’s what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say. They are simply not being fair dinkum. The conspiracy theories are colliding with each other.

If they think the Voice is a bad idea, why are they going to legislate it? If they think they have the right idea for the structure of the Voice, why aren’t they tabling their legislation—or why didn’t they—over all that period? Of course, Ken Wyatt, the former minister for Indigenous Australians and, indeed, the former member of the Liberal Party, had this to say. He said that he took the Calma-Langton work to the cabinet, which the Leader of the Opposition was in, not once but twice, but nothing happened. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition thought that saying sorry would be the end of the world. Now he thinks listening to the people will be the end of democracy.

This is an opportunity to lift the country up, and I urge Australians to vote ‘yes’ in the last quarter of this year.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Mr BOYCE (Flynn) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Uluru Statement from the Heart literally fits on one A4 page. Is the Prime Minister aware the statement, as released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency in response to a freedom-of-information request, is actually 26 pages long and pages 23 to 26 call for a makarrata commission to be given all necessary powers to sit above the parliament and executive as an umpire in treaty negotiations?

Mr Albanese: I ask that leave be given for the member for Flynn to complete all of his question on whatever time it takes, because I do want to answer this.

The SPEAKER: The member for Flynn’s time ran out before he asked the question. The member for Flynn is as relatively new member. I remind all members: it does cut both ways, but the question has to be in before the 30- second mark. Did the Prime Minister hear the full question?

Mr Albanese: I will give leave for the member to ask the question.

The SPEAKER: The member for Flynn can just make sure the question was within the 30 seconds.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order. There will be silence.

Mr BOYCE: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Uluru Statement from the Heart literally fits on one A4 page. Is the Prime Minister aware the statement, as released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency in response to a freedom-of-information request, is actually 26 pages long and pages 23 to 26 call for a makarrata commission? Why does the Prime Minister continue to be deceptive and not provide information millions of Australians are asking for?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:12): I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I do say that, as a new member, he should be wary if no-one up the front will ask a question. That is a conspiracy in search of a theory. It is something that has been out there, like a whole lot of the QAnon theories. We have all sorts of conspiracy stuff out there, but this is a ripper. That is the Uluru Statement from the Heart on an A4 bit of paper.

That is it. The first sentence in it is:

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

The last sentence, or the last para is:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

Nothing exposes the falseness of the arguments being put by the ‘no’ campaign than this conspiracy theory and nonsense. They put in an FOI, and what they got were a whole lot of minutes from meetings with a whole lot of verbal statements from whoever to whoever at meetings that were held right around the country. There were over a thousand meetings held around the country, big and small, through a dialogue leading up to the constitutional convention—something that should have been respected. And it came up with what is an eloquent statement from the heart, not only one that fits on an A4 page but one that was signed by the delegates to the constitutional convention, signed by the leaders who were there at Uluru.

What we have here are conspiracy theories colliding with each other. They’re struggling to get their scares straight. I mean, what role did Marcia Langton play in the faking of the moon landing? What was the role of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in that? This is absolutely nonsense. There’s a whole lot of projection going on here—more projection than at a film festival—and it’s coming from those opposite, who do not want to debate the facts and take what is in the Uluru statement, an eloquent request from Indigenous Australians to come together as a nation. This is something where after the statement occurred, they established committees to look at the detail. This is absolute nonsense and conspiracy.

Makarrata Commission

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Internal talking points produced by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that $21.9 million has been provisioned in the contingency reserve for the Makarrata Commission. Why has the government allocated $21.9 million in funding in contingency reserve for the Makarrata Commission?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:25): I thank the member for Hume for his question. I’m very pleased you’ve raised the issue of money. As I have said, funding has been committed to a makarrata in line with the policy that we took to the last election. You might have noticed that. But our priority is Constitutional recognition through a Voice. That’s what the referendum is about, because not all governments in the past have listened to the needs of Indigenous Australians.

On the weekend, I was in Arnhem Land and I sat down and listened to locals. They told me that under the last government the community at Nhulunbuy missed out on funding for CCTV and safety lighting despite being deemed the 26th most worthy project out of 2,011—a program administered by the now Leader of the Opposition. I think The Age summed it up: ‘Dutton bypassed Indigenous community safety for grants in coalition seats.’

Makarrata Commission

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The minister has previously said that the makarrata commission’s work is ‘really code for treaty without saying it’. Can the minister explain this statement?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:31): I thank the member for Farrer for her question. What I have to say is difficult to listen to. We support the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We support constitutional recognition through a voice. We support makarrata, and funding has been allocated in line with our election commitment. The reason that we need a voice is that for far too long governments have made policy for Indigenous Australians not with Indigenous Australians, and the Voice can change that. We need a voice because there is a life expectancy gap of eight years between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

Ms Ley: On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question didn’t mention the Voice. The question asked you, with respect, to explain your previous statement that the makarrata commission is really code for treaty. So, with respect, theanswer needs—

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. On the point of order, Chief Government Whip?

Ms Ryan: Could the Speaker remind the member to address her questions through you.

The SPEAKER: I remind all that standing orders are not to reflect on the chair. The minister was asked a question to explain her comments and her statements. It’s up to her to answer that way if she sees fit. I’m listening carefully to her. She has mentioned makarrata. I’ll give her the call, but I will listen carefully to make sure her answer is relevant.

Ms BURNEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have certainly mentioned makarrata and funding allocated to makarrata. I was speaking about life expectancy. We need a voice because the suicide rate for our people is twice as high. We need the Voice for people like Kaya, Betty and Adele Sandy, who lived at Doomadgee in north-west Queensland. All three women had been diagnosed and lived with rheumatic heart disease four years. Tragically, all three women died from complications of rheumatic heart disease in 2019 and 2020. It is a disease that has all but disappeared from non-Indigenous communities. Ms Sandy was 37 and the mother of four children. I know their loss is still felt in Doomadgee, and I extend my sympathies to their families and the entire community.

The SPEAKER: I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

Ms Ley: I seek leave for the minister to table the document from which she was reading. It can’t be confidential, Mr Speaker, because she read from it word for word.

Mr Burke: For reasons I don’t understand, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition framed that as seeking leave, so, therefore, leave is denied.

Makarrata Commission

Ms PRICE (Durack—Opposition Whip) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. In August 2021, thenow Prime Minister promised that Labor in government would, as a matter of priority, establish a makarrata commission to develop a framework for federal treaty-making because ‘the Uluru statement called for a national process of treaty’ and that ‘there can be no reconciliation without treaty’. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:38): I thank the member for her question. The issue of treatymaking is something that has been around for a long period of time—since the Barunga Statement, which was one of the things that was mentioned on the weekend at Garma—and, of course, Bob Hawke gave a commitment to advance treaty-making. Since then, there have been various issues done. One of those, of course, is in Western   Australia. Probably the most significant one is the agreement that was done between Premier Barnett and the Noongar people that covered south-western Western Australia. At the moment in Queensland there’s a process with the LNP and the ALP government. To quote the leader of the Queensland LNP, ‘I rise to support the Path to Treaty Bill 2023,’ which passed the parliament there in May. In Victoria there is also a process. There the leader of the Victorian National Party, Peter Walsh, said, ‘The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria’.

In Tasmania there’s a process. Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier, said, ‘I am also deeply committed to delivering a pathway to Treaty and Truth-Telling’. People outside the process as well—Warren Mundine, a former Liberal candidate—

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr Dutton: The question couldn’t have been any clearer. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to answer just one question with a straight answer? Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Can you answer a question honestly?

The SPEAKER: Under the standing orders, the answer must be relevant to the question. The Prime Minister, as I am listening, is talking about treaty process.

Mr Dutton interjecting—

The SPEAKER: I hadn’t finished what I was about to say, but I will listen to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I seek clarification from you as to whether your ruling is that the Prime Minister is inorder and that his answer is relevant to the question asked.

The SPEAKER: As I was explaining to the Leader of the Opposition before he took another point of order, thePrime Minister was asked about makarrata and whether he remains committed to treaty as called for in the Uluru

statement. Under the standing orders, he is talking about treaty. He may be talking about another form of treaty—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Let me finish. I’m going to listen to his answer to make sure he is being relevant to the question. He’s halfway through his answer. I will ask him to return to the question to make sure he is being relevant.

Mr ALBANESE: I am, absolutely. We know that we have the great privilege of sharing this vast island continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth. There 400 Indigenous nations around this country. What we have seen is that things work the best when people come together. The concept of makarrata is coming together. It’s a Yolngu word for coming together after conflict. That is precisely what has occurred with native title. It’s what has occurred with the Mabo decision. It’s what has occurred with all of that—

Ms Ley: How can this be in order?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not interject.

Mr ALBANESE: Indeed, Warren Mundine—

The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I ask that you rule on whether the Prime Minister is in order and whether he is relevant to the question asked. The question is: does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Not some other treaty; the national treaty. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to it? I ask that you rule in this matter.

The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Burke: To the point of order, in the first instance, points of order on relevance can only be raised once. If the earlier point of order was on anything else, it was out of order because that’s clearly the issue that was being raised. Secondly, the standing orders require that the answer is relevant to those terms in the question, and all the terms the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to are being referred to in the answer—all of them.

The SPEAKER: I want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. The standing orders clearly state that answers have to be directly relevant. That is not the same as a direct answer. That is not in the standing orders. I know that may be frustrating for members opposite, but that is the standing orders. If you wish to change that, the standing orders will have to change. As they stand now, the Prime Minister is talking about the subject matter, so he is being relevant. He has the call.

Mr ALBANESE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In May 2017 Warren Mundine said this about the government of which this member opposite was a member:

I’ve always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. I’ve proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas.

That was Warren Mundine talking about the advice he gave to the former coalition government.

The SPEAKER: I’ll hear from the member for Page, who is seeking leave.

Mr Hogan: I thank the Prime Minister for earlier tabling page 1 of the document, Uluru Statement from the Heart. I seek leave to table the full 26-page document, Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr Burke: Leave is not granted.

The SPEAKER: The member for Page will put away his prop.

Uluru Statement from the Heart

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:56): Well, the scare campaign is running out of steam. It’s like a deflated whoopee cushion! It has made a loud noise and it’s a bit uncomfortable, but then they’ve just moved on and on from one thing to the other. We’ve had a range of them. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Voice will re-racialise our nation. He’s seemingly unaware of the racial provisions that are in the current Constitution—seemingly unaware.

The former Deputy Prime Minister went one further, and said this—

This is what he said: ‘The Voice will be a delineation of people and their rights. The Civil Service Act of Germany in 1933—Ms Catherine King: Who exactly are we—

Mr ALBANESE: That was the member for New England—

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for New England is also seeking the call, but I’ll hear from the member for Wannon first of all.

Mr Joyce: Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Member for New England, I’ll just do one at a time.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right.

Mr Tehan: Thanks, Speaker. The question was very clear. It was about a national treaty: do you stand by your commitment for a national treaty or not?

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat, you haven’t stated what the point of order is.

Mr Tehan: It’s relevance—

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. We got there in the end! Is the member for New England still—

Mr Joyce: Speaker, I’ll do it after question time.

The SPEAKER: The question was about the Prime Minister’s commitment to a national treaty, called for in the Uluru statement. As I reminded members in the last question, the Prime Minister needs to make his remarks directly relevant.

Mr ALBANESE: The Uluru statement, on the one page, says:

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

Well, we’re in the post-truth world over there. Indeed, Senator Cash tried to up the Barnaby Joyce comment and said, ‘if we put the voice into the Constitution … we’re effectively announcing an apartheid type state’. That is what they have had to say. The deputy leader said that the Voice can take a view on everything, from submarines to parking tickets.

The Leader of the Opposition—this might go to why he’s objecting here—said this to justify his opposition: ‘It’s not just the Voice. It’s about truth-telling.’ That got them worried over there. Senator Hanson said that it would turn the Northern Territory into an Aboriginal black state.

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, my question is to you, as to whether you will rule this particular contribution out of order. It is clearly out of order, Mr Speaker, and it is defying your earlier remarks. I haven’t finished—

The SPEAKER: The leader will pause.

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, for the benefit of the House, the question was this: Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? It was  

this Prime Minister answer a question honestly or not? Mr Speaker, can you please provide a ruling as to whether he is in order or not?

Mr ALBANESE: Thanks, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition in his statement made reference to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was in the question. The member for New England actually said in May that this might be the last budget we have if this craziness got up; there are not going to be any budgets. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might want to think about this statement:

… the Prime Minister’s obsession with the Voice means that he’s taken his eye off the ball when it comes to economic policy

There are no economic questions in here. We know who’s obsessed—just them.

Uluru Statement from the Heart

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (17:15): I rise to add to an answer that I gave earlier today.

During question time, I said:

Senator Cash tried to up the Barnaby Joyce comment and said, ‘if we put the voice into the Constitution … we’re effectively announcing an apartheid type state’.

Those words were said by another, and Senator Cash agreed with them, but the order of the conversation was as follows.

Senator Cash was a guest on the Sky News Bernardi program, hosted by former Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, on 30 April 2023, where Mr Bernardi said:

… if we put the voice into the Constitution … we’re effectively announcing an apartheid type state …

In response to the monologue in which Mr Bernardi made that statement, Senator Cash said, amongst other comments:

Cory you summed it up in one, Mr Albanese is asking the Australian people to put in place a constitutional right to make representations for a very small group of people in Australia, less than 4% of the population, to make representations to the Parliament and to the executive on any matter that concerns them. And this is a right that no other Australian will have.

She went on to say, later, in the interview:

… what is more offensive is asking Australians to divide each other on the basis of race.

9 Aug

Uluru Statement from The Heart

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Professor Megan Davis, a key member of the Prime Minister’s referendum working group, has said:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn’t just the first one-page statement; it’s actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages.

Does the Prime Minister agree?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:22): I thank the deputy leader for continuing to ask questions about this conspiracy that’s been out there for a long period of time. Megan Davis said: ‘There’s been a lot of news this week that the Uluru statement is 26 pages long, but it’s one page. That’s the statement. That is what we issued to the Australian people.’ Indeed, this conspiracy has been around for a while. There was an ABC News Fact Check article headed—and I wonder who they got this off: ‘Pauline Hanson claims list of Indigenous “demands” found via FOI shows “dangers” of a Voice to Parliament. What’s actually in the documents?’ I table the RMIT ABC Fact Check from 21 April 2023 that found that it was a nonsense. I table the AAP FactCheck article headed ‘Email misleads with “secret voice documents” claim’ from 21 April 2023. But here, in August, they reheat a conspiracy theory based on absolute nonsense. This is what one of their friends has had to say:

The very documents Credlin has been highlighting, has been claiming are secret, have been public all along … Not new, not hidden, not a secret statement. They are not proof of some bizarre—

Ms Ley: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document, the ‘Henry Parkes oration 2018’, and page 8, where Professor Davis states, ‘The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a very lengthy document of 18 to 20 pages.’

The SPEAKER: During an answer is not the time. You’re welcome to do it when the Prime Minister concludes his answer.

Mr ALBANESE: Thanks, Mr Speaker. As Chris Kenny told Sky News last night, six years ago the Council took these background papers and published them in a report. Who was in government six years ago? Who was in government? Who set up the Referendum Council? So this is a conspiracy. Tony Abbott establishes a referendum council, it does the work leading up to 2017, they publish a report online and give it to the government that was in office in 2017.

It’s been available online ever since 2017, but we’ve covered it up! For goodness’s sake. You couldn’t make this up. As Chris Kenny said, no-one needed an FOI to get this stuff; that’s how uncontroversial it is.

Then Scott Morrison was Prime Minister for four years. Did Scott Morrison, too, just pretend that the Uluru statement was one page long and conspire to hide the full Uluru statement? This is absolute conspiracy and nonsense that shows they have become a fringe political party. They’re making One Nation look like a mainstream political party with this nonsense.

Mark Leibler made it clear last night: ‘I was at Uluru for the national convention and witnessed the adoption of the statement. It was one page.’

Ms Ley: I seek leave to table the document and refer members to page 8, which demonstrates the 18 to 20 pages of length of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I remind the Prime Minister to refer to those pages in light of the fact that he never answers a single—

The SPEAKER: You may resume your seat. The deputy leader just needs to seek to table the document, which she has done. She’s entitled to do that.

Mr Burke: The document has been on the internet for six years. Leave is not granted.

Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Ms WARE (Hughes) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister rule out financial payments being made by the Commonwealth as part of a treaty or makarrata process?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:31): I thank the member for her question. She asked about one element of the Uluru statement, and I am very happy to respond to that. This government is absolutely focused on the referendum at the end of this year.

I am asked a question, as I said, that relates to the element of the Uluru statement that goes to agreement-making.

There is much of that going on around the country. Treaty is being progressed in Queensland with bipartisan support.

A treaty is being progressed in Victoria with bipartisan support. Peter Walsh, the leader of the Victorian Nationals, said:

The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria …

And in Tasmania a Liberal government has established a pathway to truth-telling and treaty with bipartisan support.

Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, said:

We are committed to progressing truth-telling and treaty in true partnership with the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

Our priority is constitutional recognition through a voice, a voice that will help drive better results for Indigenous people. That is what the Australian people will vote for later this year.

Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (15:05): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Prominent ‘yes’ advocate Marcus Stewart has said of treaty negotiations, ‘They could take 10 to 20 years to be negotiated.’ Can the minister inform the House as to how long the government expects treaty negotiations to carry on for?

The SPEAKER: There are some problems with that question—the minister is not responsible for every single

statement for every single person—but the end part of the question is in order. Obviously, the minister can answer that how she sees fit.

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:05): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. The question went to issues to do with an element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the position of the Australian government is that we support the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

This is an idea that came from Indigenous Australians themselves, not the government. It is a generous offer to all Australians to walk together to a better future, and this year we have the chance to vote for constitutional recognition through a voice. It is something that I support. It is something the member for Berowra supports. The member for Bass, the member for Calare, the member for Curtin, the member for Wentworth and the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, support it. It is important to understand that recognition through a voice is about a better future.

10 Aug

Uluru Statement from the Heart: Treaty

Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. One of the elements of the Uluru statement is a ‘makarrata commission’ for ‘agreement-making’ and that ‘Labor will take steps to implement all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in this term of government’. Will the government negotiate a treaty in this term of government?

Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:10): I thank the member for his question. I have repeated a number of times this week that the priority of this government is a referendum at the end of the year to recognise First Peoples in the Constitution and to make sure that policy and practical outcomes are improved so that we can close the gap.