Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar has just spoken to her second amendment, as I understand it, and this is also—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

On that basis, I will simply say that there is a complete hollowness in the member for Mackellar attempting to suggest that it is a desire to save money that is prompting this restriction of information to the Australian public about this practical and important change to our Constitution. I say again: the removal of the cap on the spending in association with referendums was accepted by opposition members in the deliberations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs back in 1999, and for good reason. You simply cannot say in the 21st century that this procedure is possible by use of a Yes/No pamphlet, a printed pamphlet, a procedure first devised in 1912. The member for Mackellar might point to the fact that the particular act of parliament that we are now seeking to amend was passed by this parliament in 1984, but the provision for the Yes/No pamphlet, which was taken up almost in identical words in the 1984 act of parliament, was first introduced to referendum procedures in 1912. We have not used the Yes/No pamphlet at every single referendum since 1912 for a range of reasons, but at most referendums it has been used. That procedure dates from 1912 and that is where the member for Mackellar would take us back to.

There is something grossly inconsistent about the two amendments that are being put forward here by the member for Mackellar: on the one hand saying that the opposition do not want to spend any money in ensuring that there is appropriate information provided to Australian electors and, on the other hand, saying that they want to retain the wasteful expenditure of sending an individual package of the Yes/No pamphlet, even if there are five, 10 or 15 of these packages going to the same household. The Australian Electoral Commission has pointed to the wastefulness of that expenditure of an additional $4 million. We will save $4 million by not sending this Yes/No pamphlet to every single elector—and that is what the member for Mackellar wants to happen—but rather by sending it to addresses. There is a gross inconsistency in saying that, on the one hand, 'We don't want to spend any money,' and then in the next amendment, saying, 'We want to spend an additional, wasteful $4 million in order to send it to every elector, apparently on the basis that that provision has been there for a long time.

The purpose of lifting the cap is to make sure that appropriate means of communication are used. By that, I mean the use of the internet—which perhaps the member for Mackellar has now discovered—the use of television advertising, something that did not exist in 1912, or the use of radio advertising, which also did not exist in 1912. I assume that the member for Mackellar has got some awareness of these modern communication techniques. We are now in the 21st century and, because we are in the 21st century, there is a need to provide for proper communications techniques. I will quote again from what the committee had to say in its 2009 report:

The increased funding allocated to the 1999 referendum to provide for both educational material—

because that is what we are directing this to—

and further campaign advertising illustrates the significant difference between what is necessary for an effective referendum and what is provided for in the Machinery of Referendums Act.

The committee went on to say:

The processes and campaigns introduced for the 1999 referendum—

the last time we went to a referendum in this country—

suggests that the current provisions are not working, and specifically, that the Yes/No pamphlet alone is insufficient to educate and engage the public.

The member for Mackellar wants to neither educate nor engage the public, as shown by these amendments.

See this speech in context