Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:56): In the lead-up to this parliamentary sitting week we were told that it was going to be about the cost of living. But they've given up on the cost of living and they have decided to stick with dividing. They have decided to stick with division— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left. Mr ALBANESE: This is someone who we thought could not be more divisive than the former prime minister, whom he replaced as the leader of the Liberal Party, but of course the Leader of the Opposition is managing it. He is the same person who, as he mentioned, when the former prime minister Kevin Rudd stood at this despatch box and gave the apology to stolen generations—it was a proud moment to be in this parliament. The then leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, had the courage of his conviction to do the right thing and stand at this despatch box as well to make sure that it was a matter of national unity. Around the country, schoolchildren gathered in front of television screens to celebrate that moment to advance reconciliation, that moment to lift up our nation. And the Leader of the Opposition not only opposed it but also threatened to resign from the frontbench over it and walked out on that event. So terrible was it that in that moment of national unity there were only a few people who were so determined to sow division that they just couldn't cop the concept of saying sorry for the wrong thing being done, for children being stolen from mothers, fathers, grandparents, families and communities. They could not stomach it. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition a range of comments, most of which were not about what is before the Australian people. He spoke about my speech to Garma last year, and I'm proud of it. I'll be proud of the speech that I give at Garma this weekend. There was a time when the leaders of both parties went to Garma, and those opposite now have a situation whereby not a single frontbench member from the coalition is attending this event. Today, on his weekly tough interrogation from Ray Hadley on 2GB, he went on to say that he wasn't going to attend because it was all about a 'left fest'. Well, the Yothu Yindi Foundation hosts that event, and the Leader of the Opposition was happy to go to the funeral of Yunupingu and to state the important work that that great Australian contributed to this nation. Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Mr A LBANESE: Also in that interview today, he said, 'I want to see constitutional recognition.' Ray Hadley said, 'If this gets beaten it won't be revisited in my lifetime.' The response of the Leader of the Opposition was to say that the referendum will change the whole system of government, that it will cost billions of dollars—that it will change the whole system. We heard that again today. Well, I say this to those opposite. You can't say that it will change the entire system of government and then say you will legislate for the Voice. That is what you are saying. You can't say it will promote racial division and then say you will legislate for the Voice. You can't say it will make a positive difference but then say you will legislate for the Voice. Clearly they don't see it as radical or divisive, or any of the other noise of confusion that they are seeking to inject into the referendum. Otherwise, why would they legislate for it? Let's be very clear. Both sides say they support constitutional recognition. Both sides say they support legislating for the Voice. The third provision that is being put forward makes it very clear: 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 the composition, functions, powers and procedures. And they ask, 'Where's that legislation?' They actually had nine years. To be very clear, when the Leader of the National Party actually spoke about process, they opposed it before they even knew what the question was. Then the Liberal leader, after they lost the Aston by-election, in a once-in-a-century event, didn't even bother to tell his shadow minister for Indigenous affairs or shadow Attorney-General that he was abandoning the process even before the parliamentary committee had met. And they speak about dividing. They're managing to divide themselves. They had someone who was one of the architects of the wording, the member for Berowra, now sitting up the back. Andrew Gee is sitting up the back as well. Julian Leeser is someone who has more honour in his little finger than the frontbench combined. The truth is that the process that occurred began in the lead-up to the 2007 election, under John Howard, who promised to advance constitutional recognition. Then in 2012 Tony Abbott established a process to take forward what the form of constitutional recognition would be. That process led to the constitutional convention of First Nations people held at Uluru in 2017, where Indigenous Australians said they wanted something that wasn't just symbolic; they wanted something that would make a difference. The way you make a difference is by engaging people directly, by listening to those people who are impacted by decisions. That is why a Voice to Canberra is so different from what has happened over the previous 122 years—which is that, with the best of intentions, it has been a voice from Canberra. And I pay tribute to the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ken Wyatt. He says that with the best of intentions we need to listen to First Nations people and we need a Voice to Parliament and to government. That is how you get better outcomes. We know that is the case. If we look at the programs that are working the best—Indigenous rangers, community health programs and justice reinvestment programs—they all have something in common. They have all come from Indigenous people. They are all programs of which Indigenous Australians have been the architects. But those opposite, particularly this Leader of the Opposition, seek political advantage rather than trying to come together. 'Makarrata' means a coming together after struggle. It's as simple as that. It's a process bringing people forward in the nature of reconciliation. The fact is that he is not prepared to front up at the Garma Festival this weekend in order to explain his position. He would be received politely if he attended. He would be. One of the things about the Yothu Yindi Foundation and that event is that it's about respect. It's about bringing people together—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. This is an opportunity to do just that. That's why Australians will vote 'yes' for the referendum when it's held in the last quarter of this year. They will vote 'yes', and they will advance reconciliation. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.