Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to raise two issues in tonight's grievance debate. The first is the announcement that we had from the local government minister today about the no case in the question in our referendum on whether the federal government is able to apply terms and conditions when giving grants to local governments. He said that the no case will receive one-twentieth of the public funding for the yes case. The government is giving $10 million to the yes case, but it is only giving $500,000 to the no case. This is on top of already $10 million of public funding, which the Local Government Association is giving. What is of great concern are the words of the government's Attorney-General which he used in parliament immediately before the question on the Constitution was put to a vote. I quote:

What the government has committed to—and this is set out in the budget papers—is $10 million to fund a neutral, non-partisan civics education campaign. That campaign will provide the community with information about the Constitution and the process for considering any change in the roles of the Commonwealth, the states and local government, and about the terms of the proposed alteration.

This is the punch line:

This education campaign will not advocate either a yes vote or a no vote but will help ensure electors are aware of the issue and in a position to make an informed vote …

I put it to you that the only interpretation than anyone can get from those words of the Attorney-General is that Commonwealth funding on this referendum question would be neutral. It would at least give both sides of the argument equal public funding. Yet, today, we hear that the no case will get one-twentieth. This is an abuse of our Constitution. It is an affront to our democratic process. It is just another example of the fact that you cannot trust a word that this government says. They say one thing and then they go and do another. The excuse given was that it was proportional as to how the vote went in the House. Many people actually abstained from that vote—I was one of them—on the understanding that there would have been equal funding for both cases. We now know that that was simply not true. The other thing about a so-called proportional vote is that the Senate is yet to vote on this. What happens if the Senate splits 50-50. How can that be reconciled with one-twentieth of the funding going for the no case.

The other issue concerns what was actually voted on in the House. The vote in the House was for the referendum question to be put. Even though a lot of people on the coalition side were not in favour of the question, they were in favour of the question being put. That is quite a logical position to have in our democracy. We understand there was a call for this question to be put, so you could argue that the referendum should be held, but you are quite entitled to argue the no case. The question put to the House was not about those who were for the yes case and those who were for the no case; it was one of whether you are in favour of the question being put. This shows complete disrespect for our constitutional processes. To fund the no case with one-twentieth of the funds for the yes case shows disrespect for our democracy. It is something you would expect from a tin pot government in a tin pot country and it is an absolute—

See this speech in context