Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note in particular of the question asked by my friend and colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to the government's position with respect to a treaty. I should note in this regard, as I start my comments, that I was greatly honoured to serve as deputy chair of the parliamentary group that drafted the 'no' case for the referendum pamphlet under the chairing of Senator Nampijinpa Price, who is a colleague and a friend and has my utmost respect. I thank all colleagues who participated in that process and everyone who supported them through that process. It is greatly appreciated.

There are two guiding principles I have sought to adopt during this debate on the referendum. The first is to be civil in all discourse in relation to it, so not to make or engage in any personal attacks whatsoever. The second has been to do my best to ensure that Australians have the benefit of all the arguments that they are entitled to have as they come to a decision with respect to this important referendum. As has been said by people across this chamber, this referendum is not about the politicians; it is about the Australian Constitution, and it is so important that in the course of the civil discourse in relation to this referendum all Australians have the benefit of understanding all the implications of what flows in the event that this constitutional referendum is successful.

As my friend Senator McGrath said, there is one word which those on the government benches refuse to say, and that word is 'treaty. Notwithstanding being asked a direct question by Senator Nampijinpa Price with respect to what the Albanese government's position is with respect to the establishment of a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians, the government refused to answer. They refused to answer, just as the Prime Minister, on seven occasions, refused to answer on Radio National Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas. The Prime Minister was asked the question seven times—seven times. He was not asked by a member of the opposition in this place but by Patricia Karvelas, one of the nation's leading political journalists. The Prime Minister was asked seven times as to whether or not he supported the federal government entering into a treaty. On seven occasions he refused to answer, just as Senator Gallagher refused to answer today and just as Senator Green, in her contribution to the debate, refused to answer. Those in the gallery were here and listened to Senator Green's contribution to the debate. It was articulate and it was considered, but it didn't mention treaty. There was no mention of treaty, and this is what we're seeing in the course of this debate. The government refuses to use the word 'treaty'.

The transcript of this Radio National Breakfast interview is startling. On seven occasions the Prime Minister was asked what his position was. On seven occasions he refused to give it. In fact, at one stage, he accused Patricia Karvelas of getting sucked into the narratives of the 'no' case. Patricia Karvelas being sucked in to the narratives of the 'no' case? You have to be kidding me! I was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas in relation to the 'no' case in the referendum pamphlet. Far from being sucked in, she asked relevant, strong, objective questions, which I answered simply and directly, and that's the way in which the process should work so Australian citizens have the benefit of all the information before they make up their own minds as to how they are going to vote.

Why isn't treaty relevant to these discussions? The Uluru Statement from the Heart document, which was released in total by the National Indigenous Australians Agency back in March this year, actually refers to treaty. It refers to treaty in the context of the Voice. This is what it says; it's from the document itself, on page 17:

Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.

Voice, treaty, truth—they are all part of the same package. It also says this on page 19, and you can find this document on the NIAA website:

In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP) …

The Australian people have a right to this information before the referendum.

Question agreed to.