Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'm broadly supportive of the government's recommendations in the advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. In particular, I am glad to see a recommendation to support increased enrolment and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities and the uncontroversial updating of the mechanics of how we run referenda. On a broader note, after this referendum we should do a compressive review of the referendum act to reflect the developments of the last century so that last-minute changes don't need to be made through new legislation relating to each referendum.

I'm supportive of the somewhat vague recommendation that the Australian government ensure appropriate structures and mechanisms are put in place to ensure impartial information is made available. While I have some concerns about the veracity of the information to be included in an official 'yes/no' pamphlet, I am not against the opposition's suggestion that having official 'yes/no' pamphlet may be useful for the diminishing part of our community that does not get its information from the internet. I support this change.

I would like to speak briefly to the three additional comments I make in the report. It's essential that we do a better job of ensuring truth in political advertising. This is broader than the proposed Voice referendum, but concerns about racist misinformation in this context are real and sharpen the focus on truth in advertising because of the potential damage that could be done. I accept that it will be difficult to establish a robust truth-in-political-advertising regime in time for the referendum. In the short term, and so as not to interfere with the timing of the referendum, a compromise position could be to establish an independent panel to fact-check information disseminated in the referendum campaign. This panel is consistent with the government's second recommendation, to establish structures and mechanisms to ensure impartial information, and could play a role in that function as well. The panel could also play a role in determining the wording of the question, and many expert witnesses backed this idea.

Another broad area of reform that will surface in relation to the referendum is financial disclosures. The bill recommends the same excessively high threshold of $14,500 and late timing for disclosure of who's supporting the yes and no campaigns. I recognise that this would create a reporting burden, but there is overwhelming community support to improve the transparency of who is funding political campaigns before we vote, and I think it would be a good idea for any organisation campaigning on the Voice, either way, to think about the fact that their support will be made public. In relation to financial disclosures, I would support a recommendation for greater transparency in line with most states, with more immediate disclosure of all donations above $1,000.

For such an important referendum for the future of the country, truth and transparency are vital, and I urge the government to consider improvements to this end in the implementation of the legislation.

See this speech in context