The Uluru statement, drawn up by Aboriginal activists and adopted ‘in full’ by Albanese, mentions a treaty as well as a Voice

Anthony Albanese is either a liar or astonishingly ignorant on his planned treaty. So what is so dangerous about it that he refuses to even mention the word?

Is Anthony Albanese a liar or a fool? Why this pretence that he doesn’t have a plan for a disastrous treaty between our “races”?

On Wednesday morning, Albanese put in probably his worst media performance as Prime Minister when he tried to sell his Voice – a kind of Aboriginal-only advisory parliament, in our constitution.

One reason his racist Voice is dying in the polls is that voters now realise it’s part of a package to give people identifying as Aboriginal not just extra political rights but a treaty, with potentially “reparations”.

So now it’s a clown act: Treaty? What treaty?

Is Anthony Albanese a liar or a fool? Picture: Martin Ollman

Asked by the ABC’s Patricia Karvelas if he’d start negotiating a treaty if Australians voted for his Voice, an agitated Albanese denied everything: “No, Patricia, because that that’s occurring with the states right now.”

Really? Karvelas tried again: “Are you still committed to Commonwealths negotiating treaties?”

Albanese got even more agitated: “Where does it say that? It doesn’t even say that in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It doesn’t say that, it doesn’t speak about the Commonwealth negotiating treaties. It doesn’t say that, Patricia. So don’t get sucked in.”

From start to finish, lies, deceit … or astonishing ignorance.

In fact, the Uluru statement, drawn up by Aboriginal activists and adopted “in full” by Albanese, does indeed mention a treaty, as well as a Voice.

True, it actually calls the treaty an “agreement” with “governments”, and “the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle”. You know, like a treaty.

Indeed, Albanese has called this a call for a treaty and was all for his government negotiating one, as the Uluru signatories clearly intended.

Last year, for instance, he praised “Uluru’s three generous requests: voice, truth, treaty”, and told Parliament: “Labor is committed to all three — the voice to parliament enshrined in our Constitution, truth … and treaty emerging from the Makarrata commission …”

Sure enough, the government’s Budget this year included $5.8 million to set up this Makarrata commission to “oversee processes for agreement-making and truth-telling”.

Don’t be fooled by “agreement-making”. Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney was more frank a year ago, promising a “Makarrata commission that would have two jobs — treaty and agreement-making”.

Yes, treaty.

So who is Albanese trying to fool? And what’s so dangerous about his plans for a treaty that he refuses now to even mention the word?

If Albanese is so frightened of “treaty”, shouldn’t you be, too?

Originally published as The Uluru statement, drawn up by Aboriginal activists and adopted ‘in full’ by Albanese, mentions a treaty as well as a Voice