Shouldn’t Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the ‘yes’ campaign be proud of their promise of a treaty?
They’ve said often enough they’re going to implement the Uluru Statement “in full” after the referendum.
And that means a treaty and a “truth-telling” commission after the divisive Voice is cemented into the Constitution.
So why does Albo refuse to even say the word “treaty” these past few weeks?
What could they be hiding?
Well, just take a look at this document, which solves the mystery.
It’s the Uluru Statement … in full.
Is this what the PM and the ‘yes’ campaign have signed up for after this referendum?
“… 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 resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.”
While redacted parts appeared in the Final Report of the Referendum Council1, which referred to them as “extracts from the Uluru Statement”, the entire document was released under Freedom of Information laws.
And reported by Sky News host Peta Credlin last week2.
This is how news.com.au told the story3:
Taxpayers may be forced to pay “reparations” to Indigenous Australians for “past, present and future criminal acts” under a proposed treaty, with suggestions that “a fixed percentage” of GDP be handed over through “rates, land tax and royalties”…
But what’s that got to do with the divisive Voice, you might ask!
The ‘yes’ campaigners will look you dead in the eye and – like the Prime Minister – swear the Voice has nothing to do with a treaty!
But that’s not what Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid, members of Albo’s referendum advisory group, were saying before the campaign.
Mayo tweeted that without a Voice, Australians are “much less likely to support what we may claim in a treaty (reparations, land back etc)”.
“A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will provide the political clout needed to enforce & protect treaties,” he wrote!
Teela Reid tweeted that “enshrining a First Nations Voice is paramount to enforcing treaty and holding the system to account”.
The ‘yes’ campaign’s leading spokesman Noel Pearson said the Voice was the “starting point before we can talk about a treaty”4.
So why does the Prime Minister keep saying this referendum has nothing to do with a treaty?
The truth is that the Voice is the first instalment of a package deal.
As Noel Pearson put it, the Voice is “the first door” and the “treaty door is the second door”5.
So don’t tell us that this referendum is not about a treaty!
Because if you say ‘yes’ to a Voice enshrined in the Constitution …
… you’re saying ‘yes’ to handing the activists “political clout” and opening the door to a costly and expensive treaty.
Yours in unity,
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA
1 Referendum Council, Final Report, June 30, 2017.
2 Sky News, ‘Sky News host Peta Credlin exposes Labor’s ‘lie’ on the Uluru Statement from the Heart under Freedom of Information Act’, August 3, 2023.
3 news.com.au, ‘“Land tax”: Secret document reveals demand for “percentage of GDP” under Indigenous Treaty’, August 4, 2023.
4 Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, ‘In Conversation: Noel Pearson and Paul Keating’, April 2, 2022.
5 The Australian, ‘Pearson pushes constitution-first line on indigenous treaty’, August 4, 2018.