Federal election 2016: Full coverage Bill Shorten hesitates to call British settlement an "invasion" 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has agreed that the colonisation of Australia by British settlers could be described as an "invasion", but has distanced himself from the idea of a treaty with Indigenous Australians in the near term.
Mr Turnbull was asked if he accepted Australia had been invaded, a divisive term in the history wars over how to characterise the arrival of the First Fleet from 1788 onwards. 
"Well, I think it can be fairly described as that and I've got no doubt obviously our first Aboriginal Australians describe it as an invasion," the Prime Minister said.
"But, you know, you are talking about an historical argument about a word. The facts are very well known. This country was Aboriginal land. It was occupied by Aboriginal people for tens of thousands of years - 40,000 years."
But Mr Turnbull distanced himself from pursuing a treaty - a formal agreement between the government and Indigenous people that would involve legal outcomes - at least in the near future.
He said such a proposal could inhibit progress towards constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. The government has signalled it will hold a referendum on that question in 2017.
"We have to be very careful that you don't set hares running that undermine the real goal, which is to secure overwhelming consensus of Australians, overwhelming majority for constitutional recognition of our first Australians," Mr Turnbull said.
He noted that he spoke from bitter personal experience, having chaired the Australian Republican Movement during its 1999 referendum loss on Australian independence from Britain.
The comments, which are likely to draw ire from conservatives who have railed against any "black arm band" view of history, came after Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on Monday indicated he would support a treaty.
Speaking on ABC TV's Q&A program, Mr Shorten said he supported a debate after the referendum - expected in 2017 - arguing practical and symbolic recognition was needed. 
"Do I think we need to move beyond just constitutional recognition to talking about what a post-constitutional recognition settlement with indigenous people looks like? Yes, I do," the Labor leader said. 
"I do think there needs to be a discussion about should you have a treaty or shouldn't you have a treaty. What I'm not going to do is give all the answers on one spot at one time."
Asked if Australia's colonisation by the British amounted to an invasion, Mr Shorten said Indigenous Australians had been "dispossessed."
He agreed Indigenous citizens would consider it an invasion. "If I was Aboriginal, I wouldn't exactly call it a welcome, would you?" he said. "This was Aboriginal land. It is, it always will be."
Speaking in Perth on Tuesday, Mr Shorten said the Prime Minister's criticism was "complete rubbish". 
"Mr Turnbull shouldn't politicise this issue and furthermore ... this nation has been grappling with the equal treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders since 1788 and we haven't got it right yet."
He said he would consider a "settlement" process after the referendum to improve living outcomes for Indigenous Australians. 
"I'm up for the conversation on a treaty. What I am not going to do is impose paternalistic, top-down solutions. 
In   February, Mr Shorten left open the option of a treaty with Indigenous Australians. 
Similar agreements have been signed with indigenous peoples in countries including the United States, Canada and New Zealand. 
The Greens have called on Mr Turnbull to consider a treaty process alongside the referendum.
The Victorian this year began talks with Indigenous communities to consider a possible treaty. 
Follow us on Twitter