Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:38): I thank the member for her question. The issue of treaty-making is something that has been around for a long period of time—since the Barunga Statement, which was one of the things that was mentioned on the weekend at Garma—and, of course, Bob Hawke gave a commitment to advance treaty-making. Since then, there have been various issues done. One of those, of course, is in Western Australia. Probably the most significant one is the agreement that was done between Premier Barnett and the Noongar people that covered south-western Western Australia. At the moment in Queensland there's a process with the LNP and the ALP government. To quote the leader of the Queensland LNP, 'I rise to support the Path to Treaty Bill 2023,' which passed the parliament there in May. In Victoria there is also a process. There the leader of the Victorian National Party, Peter Walsh, said, 'The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria'. Mr Pike interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman is warned. Mr ALBANESE: In Tasmania there's a process. Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier, said, 'I am also deeply committed to delivering a pathway to Treaty and Truth-Telling'. People outside the process as well—Warren Mundine, a former Liberal candidate— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton: The question couldn't have been any clearer. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to answer just one question with a straight answer? Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Can you answer a question honestly? The SPEAKER: Under the standing orders, the answer must be relevant to the question. The Prime Minister, as I am listening, is talking about treaty process. Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER: I hadn't finished what I was about to say, but I will listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I seek clarification from you as to whether your ruling is that the Prime Minister is in order and that his answer is relevant to the question asked. The SPEAKER: As I was explaining to the Leader of the Opposition before he took another point of order, the Prime Minister was asked about makarrata and whether he remains committed to treaty as called for in the Uluru statement. Under the standing orders, he is talking about treaty. He may be talking about another form of treaty— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Let me finish. I'm going to listen to his answer to make sure he is being relevant to the question. He's halfway through his answer. I will ask him to return to the question to make sure he is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE: I am, absolutely. We know that we have the great privilege of sharing this vast island continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth. There 400 Indigenous nations around this country. What we have seen is that things work the best when people come together. The concept of makarrata is coming together. It's a Yolngu word for coming together after conflict. That is precisely what has occurred with native title. It's what has occurred with the Mabo decision. It's what has occurred with all of that— Ms Ley: How can this be in order? The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not interject. Mr ALBANESE: Indeed, Warren Mundine— The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I ask that you rule on whether the Prime Minister is in order and whether he is relevant to the question asked. The question is: does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Not some other treaty; the national treaty. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to it? I ask that you rule in this matter. The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke: To the point of order, in the first instance, points of order on relevance can only be raised once. If the earlier point of order was on anything else, it was out of order because that's clearly the issue that was being raised. Secondly, the standing orders require that the answer is relevant to those terms in the question, and all the terms the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to are being referred to in the answer—all of them. The SPEAKER: I want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. The standing orders clearly state that answers have to be directly relevant. That is not the same as a direct answer. That is not in the standing orders. I know that may be frustrating for members opposite, but that is the standing orders. If you wish to change that, the standing orders will have to change. As they stand now, the Prime Minister is talking about the subject matter, so he is being relevant. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE: In May 2017 Warren Mundine said this about the government of which this member opposite was a member: I've always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. … … … I've proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas. That was Warren Mundine talking about the advice he gave to the former coalition government. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the member for Page, who is seeking leave. Mr Hogan: I thank the Prime Minister for earlier tabling page 1 of the document, Uluru Statement from the Heart. I seek leave to table the full 26-page document, Uluru Statement from the Heart. The SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Mr Burke: Leave is not granted. The SPEAKER: The member for Page will put away his prop.