Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:08): I'm not a lawyer, but Robert French is a pretty good one. He was the Chief Justice of Australia between 2008 and 2017. This is what he had to say about the words that have been put forward: The power of the parliament is expanded under the revised paragraph three to cover laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice generally. Thus, the parliament can make laws about such things as the duties, if any, of the executive government in relation to any representation and the legal effect of representations to the government. That was Justice French. That comment was made on 25 March. Very clearly— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my left, I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Cease interjecting immediately! Mr ALBANESE: Ken Hayne, a former justice of the High Court of Australia, is someone who was chosen by those opposite to conduct royal commissions. Ken Hayne is reported as saying: A lot of people have spent a long time trying to think 'well, what possible quirks, [legal] minefields, could there be?' I think there are none. And another prominent lawyer, called Julian Leeser, said this: 'From the perspective of a constitutional conservative, this proposal I think has two distinct merits. First, the proposal is designed in such a way that it doesn't empower the High Court to strike down acts of parliament— Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker--- Mr ALBANESE: Oh, come one! Ms O'Neil interjecting— Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for infrastructure. I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton: It's on relevance. The question was very specific. It was about the government's policy. Citing examples and past legal commentary on previous models et cetera, is not relevant to what is a very tight question. The Prime Minister of our country should be able to answer the most basic questions about the government's public policy on a very major proposal— The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. The question was phrased in a way that it was about the government's policy. He is referring to that. I will bring him back to the question. He's entitled to add to his answer regarding evidence or information. Mr ALBANESE: I'm amazed that those opposite would disagree— Mr Dutton: Just answer the question, for goodness sake! The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE: The anger! It just bubbles up! Th e SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE: He said this: 'First, the proposal is designed in such a way that it doesn't empower the High Court to strike down acts of the parliament. There'll be no new avenue to challenge laws in the High Court.' He went on to say: 'Secondly, the proposal is designed to ensure that better policy-making occurs in the Indigenous policy space.' I will tell you what: I agree with everything in terms of the government's intent. It is exactly the same as the intent that was shown by the member for Berowra over a long period of time—exactly the same. That's why, on so many occasions, he said, for example, 'I think one of the particularly good aspects— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! You do not need to yell out 'Time!' If anyone does that again, they'll be warned. It is highly disorderly. Ms Ley interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. One more time and she will be warned. When the House comes to order, I want to hear from the member for Reid.