Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I can say, Mr Speaker, that listening to my colleagues there seems very little support for Senator Dastyari being on the committee. The 10-person committees are based on the model used in '99 where committees were established by the Howard government to plan and manage expenditure for the yes-and-no case in the republic referendum. What we are proposing here is that there will be, in exactly the same way, committees chosen by the Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General. There will be five members of parliament—five members of either the House or the Senate. There will be two from the government, two from the opposition—it is up to the opposition, of course, to nominate them—and one crossbencher. So that is five. The other five will be chosen from the ranks of the advocates' leading figures on the yes-and-no case, and we will obviously consult widely.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to join with us in supporting this plebiscite, I would be delighted to consult with him. If he supports the plebiscite, he can have two people on each of these committees. So, as to all of this concern about hateful advertising being published with government money, he can have two of his own people on those committees and they will have a direct say and influence over any advertising developed or promoted. In accordance also with the practice in '99, advertising, because it involves government money, will have to be approved by the cabinet subcommittee, the SDCC—the successor to the MCGC. This is not from a point of view of censorship but in order to ensure that it complies with advertising standards and the purposes of the campaign for the plebiscite.

I was on one of those committees in the '99 referendum. I can tell you I do not recall the Leader of the Opposition being prominent in the yes case. I remember that referendum very well. We did not win the referendum, as we know, but it was not because equal funding was provided to both sides. Is he suggesting that the only way the Australian people would vote yes for same-sex marriage is if no funding were given to each side? Is that what his suggestion is? It is ridiculous. This is a thoroughly fair process. It is based on precedent. It is based on very solid, well proved precedent. Again, I acknowledge the great work of my ministers in bringing the details together.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

See this speech in context