Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (16:29): The front page of the Herald and the Age today spelled out the dishonest and divisive strategy of the 'no' campaign. It is as cynical and as shameful as you'd expect—pretend to care, try to impersonate a concerned Australia, do anything you can to sow fear and doubt and, whatever you do, avoid the facts and also, unbelievably, don't even identify that you are from the 'no' campaign. There's no wonder. There is material being circulated around saying—this is just one—'The Voice to Parliament will affect every property owner. The United Nations has given the Australian government a mandate of ownership for all housing, property, farms and businesses countrywide that will come onto effect.' It goes on and says: 'If Indigenous people are to be written into the Constitution, the United Nations will own all Australian land.' That is what is being circulated by the 'no' campaign. The bottom line headline on it is 'The final conflict for all Australians'. That is in there. That is what is being promoted by the 'no' campaign. Do you know who is on the board of the Advance Australia campaign? Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister. The fact is that the speech from the Leader of the Opposition followed those instructions to the letter. It's disappointing but in no way surprising because, when it comes to dishonesty and division, when it comes to fear campaigns and falsehoods, this bloke wrote the book. I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. The referendum isn't about him and it's not about me. It's about an idea that came from the people, and it will be decided by the people. If this bloke ever works out how to go back in time, he will be out there campaigning against Federation, revving up the 'no' campaigners to send out telegrams across the colonies warning them of all the horrible dangers of a united Australia. This bloke boycotted the apology. He didn't just boycott it; he stood up, along with only Wilson Tuckey, and walked out of the apology because he thought it was so bad and was going to have such a devastating impact that he threatened to resign from the frontbench on that basis. This bloke's only got one trick and one answer—no. The Herald article today outlines exactly the fear, division, sneakiness and nastiness of what is being projected. Even the text of the motion captures the bad-faith approach of the Leader of the Opposition. It says: (2) an unwillingness to consult in relation to the words of the constitutional amendment … I put forward a draft form of words in my speech at Garma in July 2022. We established working groups. The Leader of the Opposition attended those working groups on two occasions, on 2 February and 16 February. Those groups worked alongside a group of constitutional experts, including senior academics and a former High Court judge. Following their consultation and advice, on 23 March we put forward the updated form of words for the referendum question and the proposed constitutional amendment. During that period, I met with the Leader of the Opposition no fewer than seven times to try to seek agreement. But, of course, at no stage in the process did the Leader of the Opposition suggest any alternative words—none. Then in April, after losing the Aston by-election in a once-in-100-year debacle, and before the joint select committee process had even begun, the Leader of the Opposition went to his party room and came out and said he would be campaigning for 'no' and then changed the words that went to the Liberal party room which spoke about a national voice and went into a press conference and spoke about local and regional voices. He couldn't even tell the truth between his own party room and that press conference that was held. He just said no and cut loose the person who he had personally chosen to be the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and shadow Attorney-General, someone who had more than a decade of involvement in the process which occurred leading up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart that occurred under the former government in a process appointed under the former government. That happened under Tony Abbott, with that press conference that was held at Kirribilli House way back in 2014. That happened under Malcolm Turnbull, in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. That happened under Scott Morrison, and that included, of course, the appointment of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma by the former government to give advice to their cabinet. That advice went to the cabinet not once but twice and was rejected, in spite of the support of the former minister for Indigenous affairs, Ken Wyatt. The Leader of the Opposition comes in here and speaks about that. We had the legislation. It went to the Senate and then returned, of course, here. The truth is, though, that he sat here on this side of the House and voted for the referendum to go ahead. Under the constitutional arrangements for the referendum, if you're going to support 'yes', you sit on this side of the House and you get to participate in the wording of the pamphlet that goes out. If you're going to vote no, you sit on that side of the House. That's the process that occurs. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE: He sat here. And there wasn't a single vote on any amendment. There was nothing put forward in the House of Representatives and no divisions in the Senate either, just the process going forward. Then, after all that's over, he comes up with the idea of a second referendum. If this is defeated, he will go to an election, and if he's ever Prime Minister he will hold a second referendum on a process that no-one wants. Indigenous people themselves determined that they wanted constitutional recognition with substance, not just with symbolism, and that's what the Voice is about. David Axelrod described democracy as an ongoing battle between cynicism and hope. It's hard to imagine a more perfect demonstration than this referendum. In the cynicism corner is the opposition leader, Mr Dutton. The interjections across this chamber from the former—not once but twice—Deputy Prime Minister and others say all of what it's really about. Those opposite speak about it being all about politics and—as members of the Liberal Party have been quoted saying—all about causing damage to the government. There is no concern whatsoever for Indigenous Australians and closing the gap. There is no alternative plan. They say they support constitutional recognition—both sides do—and they say that they will legislate for a voice. Mr Pike: Because it's changing the Constitution. The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman is warned. Mr ALBANESE: So what is this about? The big distinction here and all of this fearmongering is about whether the existence of a voice—a body—should be enshrined in the Constitution. But within that the other clauses are very clear as well on what the Australian people will vote for. The first thing is: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: That's the recognition. Then it says, 'There shall be a body'—the voice. The second bit is, 'The voice may give advice on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.' The third is the primacy of the parliament over the functions, procedures and composition of the Voice. That will be ongoing. That is the clause that is absolutely critical to ensure the primacy of this parliament going forward, yet those opposite are incapable of saying yes. The referendum is about something very simple: recognition and listening. The Voice is an advisory body only. It does not have a right of veto. It's not a funding body. It won't run programs. What it will be able to do is give advice to parliament and to government in order to get better results. If you keep doing the same thing, you should expect the same outcomes. We have an eight-year life expectancy gap. Indigenous young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. An Indigenous young woman is more likely to die in childbirth than a non-Indigenous woman. There used to be a moderate wing of the Liberal Party. Now there are some brave people who are out there, to their great credit, showing courage, but instead of a moderate wing you now have people who will say to you in private that they support a voice and they hope 'yes' gets up, but they cannot, in the modern Liberal Party and what it's become—a reactionary party, a party with nothing that is liberal and certainly a party that is not conservative either, as it trashes our institutions. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: The time for this debate has now concluded. The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.