Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:29): What we just heard was 10 minutes of misinformation, 10 minutes spent trying to create confusion and spread division, 10 minutes totally devoid of empathy, 10 minutes completely unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this country. Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting— Mr ALBANESE: In 2017, Indigenous Australians met and agreed on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Leader of the Opposition has just given a statement without a heart. This is very clear. The question that Australians will be asked at this referendum is clear. The exact wording of the constitutional provisions is clear. The eight design principles explaining what the Voice will do, and what it won't do, are clear. All of this information has been available, in some cases for many years. Most of it was developed when the former coalition was in government. What's just as clear is that some of those opposite are not interested in answers. They were always set on saying no. The Nationals said no before they even saw the question, and the Liberals said no before the parliamentary process even started. The question before the Australian people is simple: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? Yes or no? Then there are the provisions which are there: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: 1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; 3.— importantly, the one that maintains the primacy of this parliament— The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. In addition to that, the Attorney-General's second reading speech made it very clear that they would advise on 'matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' and, importantly, on 'matters … which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community.' The eight principles that were developed under Calma and Langton are clear as well: independent advice; chosen by Indigenous people themselves; representative of Indigenous communities; empowering and community led; the need to be accountable and transparent; working alongside existing organisations; importantly, not a funding body; no program delivery function; and, also importantly, the Voice will not have a veto power. They used to talk about the Solicitor-General's advice. This is what the Solicitor-General's opinion said: The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system. The SPEAKER: The member for Fairfax is getting close to being warned. Mr ALBANESE: It went on to say: … it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system … in my opinion proposed s 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system. It went on to say it: would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power … instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government. The Voice clearly has no power of veto. It went on to say: … if proposed s 129 is introduced into the Constitution, representative government will be unaffected. That, of course, is consistent with what people such as Justice French and Justice Hayne have said. Today, the four land councils of the Northern Territory came to present to me the Barunga Statement, calling for a vote for yes in the referendum. In the history of our federation we've had 122 years of decisions being made about Aboriginal people, without Aboriginal people. With the best of intentions, we have presided over an expensive, well-intentioned failure. It's been 122 years of doing things for Indigenous Australians; this is our chance to do things with Indigenous Australians. With respect to the Leader of the Opposition: when he appointed Julian Leeser as the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I said to colleagues, and I thought, that someone who had been a part of this process for far longer than myself—going back to at least 2012—and who had supported a voice so strongly was able as a legal practitioner to give advice as well to the now opposition, making it very clear that this scare campaign is completely unworthy. This morning the Leader of the Opposition was on Ray Hadley's show, speaking about the Voice dealing with where defence bases would be. I mean, seriously! Indigenous people have an eight-year gap in life expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, and rates of disease and infant mortality and family violence so much worse than in the general community. Young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. They have among the worst incarceration rates in the world. Only four out of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Something is broken, and fixing it should be above politics. The idea of recognition through a voice did not come from here in Canberra; it came from Indigenous Australians themselves, from the ground up, from the people who know the difference that change can make. Aunty Pat Anderson said this on Monday: It is a universal truism when you involve people you make decisions for, you make better decisions … That is what this is about—listening to people, working with people, getting better at decisions. All we need to do is listen. That is the opportunity this referendum represents for all of us—not as members of a political party, or, indeed, as members of parliament, but as Australians. We can answer the gracious, generous, optimistic request from Uluru: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. It went on to say: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. That's what Australians are being asked to vote for—to say yes to recognition and yes to listening. I go to all the scare campaigns we've heard before. The Leader of the Opposition, in 2008, said: I think the Australian people deserve to know the full details of the implications of this policy including the financial ones. It would beggar belief that they would be contemplating an apology that could open the government up to serious damages claims without knowing what those claims would be. At a time when there are stresses on the economy we need to know fully the impact of all government decisions. He predicted $10 billion in compensation claims if the apology occurred—nonsense then, nonsense now. The Leader of the Opposition didn't just sit there and tell Brendan Nelson he was opposed to it; he actually stood up and walked out. That's the Peter Dutton that I know. That's the Peter Dutton that Australians know. And we're seeing it played out again. I finish where this historic opportunity began—with the final words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. Churches, sporting organisations, civil society, business and Indigenous people themselves are out there saying yes. And I am optimistic that Australians will also say yes. (Time expired)