Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.