Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 6 to 14), omit the clause.

This relates to clause 4 of the bill, which suspends the subsection of the act that places a cap on the expenditure that the government may make with regard to the holding of a referendum—which we now know, in fact, is to be held. In supporting the proposal that we should remain with simply the yes/no case being properly prepared and posted to each elector—which will be the subject of the second amendment proposing that it goes to electors and not to households—I refer to the fact that the Electoral Commission pointed out that, if there were not sufficient time for the preparation of additional material to be put together, the risks that would be invoked because of the short time frame between now and the holding of the referendum could include the following. I read from their submission dated 1 January 2013:

Should the AEC not commence preparation of the referendum campaign components until 1 March—

and I point out that we are now at 14 May. One of the risks referred to is:

… elevated potential for criticism by stakeholders, interest groups or the wider public (during the campaign or afterwards) if they perceive that the campaign advertising:

The submission referred to:

In other words, the Electoral Commission itself has said that that this short time frame that is now available for the preparation of material for a referendum on 14 September is going to pose risks as to whether or not it is seen by the Australian people to be properly conducted. This, of course, would only be compounded by the fact that not every elector is to receive a copy of the pamphlet individually.

The Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General pointed out that in 1999, when we had a stand-alone referendum, this clause was suspended. But, of course, at that stage it was a stand-alone referendum, not one held concurrently with an election, and therefore the confusion element was not there. Secondly, it was at a time when we were having surpluses, the government was in good financial shape, the country was being well run and we were not in the parlous financial state that we presently are in. As I said earlier in my speech in the second reading debate, if the additional expenditure which the government wishes to make were to be allowed by suspending this clause, it would mean that we were being fiscally irresponsible in spending money that does not need to be spent and could be put towards some other good cause. So, when we are looking at the importance of not suspending this clause, I would say, firstly, that it is financially sound and, secondly, that it is heeding both the report of Mr Spigelman and the predictions of the Electoral Commission itself as to why, in this truncated time, it would be unwise to embark on additional expenditure which is outside the parameters of section 11(4).

See this speech in context