Ministerial Statement
Senate · Thursday 24 July 2025
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The debate centred on the conduct of One Nation senators who turned their backs during acknowledgements of country. Senator McCarthy criticised this as disrespectful, while Senator Hanson argued the practice was divisive and not traditional. Senator Price supported the view that such rituals were performative and tokenistic, whereas Senator Waters defended the acknowledgements as a source of national strength. Senator Wong urged respect for chamber traditions, while Senator Cash defended the right to hold differing opinions on the matter.
Senator Wong did not grant leave for further statements, but Senator Cash was granted leave to make a short response.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
McCarthy argued that the actions of One Nation senators constituted deliberate disrespect towards First Nations Australians. McCarthy stated that the Australian public had rejected divisive culture war politics in the recent election. The minister emphasised that the government’s approach relies on listening to and respecting Indigenous peoples. McCarthy urged all senators to maintain a respectful tone in the chamber regardless of political disagreements.
Government response
Wong argued that Senator Hanson was promoting division and disrespect within the chamber. Wong stated that while senators need not agree with the tradition, they should respect it as part of parliamentary rituals. Wong highlighted that the Leader of the Opposition had previously shown respect for the welcome to country. Wong concluded that decency and respect are essential for building unity and did not grant leave for further statements.
Opposition response
Cash stated that she did not wish to make a statement but sought leave to respond to Senator Wong. Cash argued that all previous speakers had expressed their opinions respectfully and that individuals have the right to hold differing views on chamber procedures. Cash defended Senator Hanson’s right to her opinion regarding the acknowledgements. Cash also defended Senator Price’s perspective and criticised Wong for pontificating on the matter.
Hanson argued that acknowledgements of country were divisive and not a traditional Australian practice. Hanson claimed that many Australians, including some Indigenous people, were tired of the division caused by these rituals. Hanson stated that the practice disenfranchised non-Indigenous Australians and that equality for all citizens was the primary goal.
Waters supported Senator McCarthy’s statement and argued that racism, not acknowledgements, was the source of division in the nation. Waters noted that the inclusion of acknowledgements in parliamentary processes was a result of long-term advocacy. Waters expressed commitment to working on issues such as closing the gap and addressing deaths in custody.
Price argued that acknowledgements of country were a form of political tokenism that objectified Indigenous Australians. Price stated that such practices did not improve the lives of those living close to traditional culture. Price emphasised that all Australians are equal and that the chamber should focus on serving all citizens rather than singling out specific groups.