Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 3 years ago
The Federal Government has been challenged to explain what a 'treaty' might look like if a voice to parliament is established. The coalition has sought to stretch questions on the voice into what might come next such as a treaty. But supporters of the voice argue it's fearmongering, and the debate should not be distracted.

Category

📺
TV
Transcript
00:00 Right, until we are done.
00:05 Political unity in green and gold.
00:07 Labor and coalition MPs backing in the Matildas before returning to well-entrenched divisions
00:13 in the chamber.
00:14 When will we hear a straight word from this Prime Minister?
00:18 He needs to spend less time on his dirt unit and more time in the red dirt, in the red
00:24 dirt of the top end.
00:27 The government's support for a voice has been prompting questions about its commitment to
00:32 the other aspirations of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
00:35 Do you support a treaty, Prime Minister?
00:38 Look, what is before the Australian people is a referendum which is about voice.
00:48 The coalition looking to cloud the voice debate with questions on what might follow.
00:53 Progress on Makarrata will not occur until after the referendum.
00:58 Our priority is constitutional recognition through a voice.
01:03 The PM and others have pointed to treaty processes already underway in Victoria, Queensland and
01:10 elsewhere.
01:11 It amazes me how that's just popped up now and it's being used as a fearmonger campaign
01:17 by the coalition.
01:18 I mean, we just need to see some maturity in this debate.
01:22 The Uluru Statement calls for voice, truth and treaty.
01:26 Those campaigning for a voice point out that treaties are decades in the making and argue
01:30 any conversation at this point is an attempt to distract from the voice.
01:34 But the government has committed to the Uluru Statement in full and can't escape demands
01:39 to articulate what that commitment means.
01:41 [BLANK_AUDIO]

Recommended