Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

To the children watching up in the gallery, this year there will be a debate in this country about amending our Constitution, and our Constitution is a document that not only defines the boundaries of our democracy; it must be one that serves you and your children and your grandchildren. So the decisions that we make this year must be ones that we are proud of and ones that serve our democracy.

The Prime Minister has said that, when we wake up the day after the referendum, we must feel proud, and he's a known advocate for change and for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. But I think there's a more important question that we should ask ourselves the day after the referendum—that is, as a nation, we respect that the public got it right. That's what happens in a democracy. Whether it's yes or whether it's no, if the public were fully informed and were treated with respect, whatever their decision is, that is the right one, and that is what we should always do in a democracy. And that is why the machinery provisions that we're discussing here are so important.

The Prime Minister and the government do have a mandate to put a question to the Australian people, but it's a mandate for a question, not an answer. The answer lies with the people. Anthony Albanese is our Prime Minister, and that mandate is one that we respect, but we must always respect the mandate of the people to answer it. A peaceful and orderly transfer of power matters in a democracy. It begins with a concession by the losing candidate. This marks the election as legitimate because of the core belief that the people always get it right. That is why the Prime Minister's description of the Voice being about decency and manners is concerning. The same can be said for the criticism that this is about whether Australians want to be counted on the right side of history. Last year, former prime minister Kevin Rudd claimed that arguments against the Voice were 'intellectually fraudulent' and the work of 'bad actors'. Such ad hominem is antidemocratic and should be discouraged as we continue this debate.

What if the referendum fails to achieve enough support by enough people or enough states? In defining the question of support as one of decency and manners, what does that mean for the legitimacy of the vote? Will that majority be bad mannered and lack decency? Is that how we will reflect upon the Australian people the day after they vote? Will the Prime Minister then condemn the majority for being on the wrong side of history? Even worse, some have sought to put our national reputation on the line by labelling the opposing view xenophobic. Again, this form of advocacy is toxic and should be resisted by all.

We know that our Constitution lacks the soaring rhetoric of other foundational national documents. We're not a democracy that is founded in civil war and blood. We are a democracy founded in careful thought and consideration of other democracies and what would serve best for here. Our Constitution will never provide the inspiration for a musical like Hamilton, but ours delivers something far more consequential and far more beautiful. Ours is the foundation stone for one of the world's most stable liberal democracies.

It is disingenuous to attack any voices in any debate for lacking decency and manners, especially if that view ends up being shared by a sufficient majority. Those who are advocates for their cause are understandably passionate. Fear of losing the referendum is rational, but fear of the people hearing the opposing argument is inexcusable. Again, that is why what is being discussed in these machinery provisions is so important.

Changing the Constitution is one of the most serious of decisions. The Prime Minister has said there will be a national conversation. A conversation, by its definition, involves the exchange of thoughts and ideas. It should include matters of principle, practice and constitutional design. The Prime Minister will be a passionate campaigner for the 'yes' case, but he should be an even more forceful advocate for the legitimacy of the debate. If that happens, and if both sides commit to that, then no matter the referendum result we will wake up the day after and say that the people have made the right decision.

The Prime Minister gave a key speech at the Chifley Research Centre conference on 5 February this year. It was a good speech. Parts of it are relevant to what we are discussing here. The Prime Minister spoke about the risk of 'the rolling fury of a culture war and the way it undermines civil and rational debate', and he spoke about 'our capacity to disagree respectfully'. The Prime Minister then referred to the 6 January riots in the United States Capitol. He said people who had 'fallen headlong into poisonous conspiracy theories, into a world view of grievance and suspicion' saw 'betrayal' and that there 'were no political opponents, only mortal enemies'—people 'who would rather believe that an election was stolen than accept that their preferred candidate was defeated'. He said that democracy 'can never be taken for granted' and that people should always be 'treated with respect'.

These principles don't apply just to other democracies and the United States; they apply here in this referendum. There is a great risk that the tone of this debate in this year will be highly divisive. The role that we all have to play here starts with understanding and respecting that people can have legitimate differences about what our Constitution should look like.

The Prime Minister said in that speech, 'Governments need to be prepared to put their faith in the judgement of the Australian people.' He said 'drumming up outrage, trying to start a culture war' is counterproductive. He finished with some positive tones. He said he's 'optimistic for the success of the referendum' because he is 'optimistic about the character of the Australian people'. Again, that's where the Prime Minister falls short. He's linking success to the result. The success of this referendum should be that it is an informed, considered and respectful debate. That is what we should respect. Again, the Prime Minister defaulted to his passion for the 'yes' case winning by saying that Australians should play their part in a historic step forward for our country.

This referendum bill has some key changes, one of which will be in the Senate. The three parts that the coalition is committed to are: restoring the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' case and 'no' case'; secondly, establish an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign for organisations; and thirdly, appropriately fund those official organisations. We have heard commitments that the first of those three—restoring the pamphlet—will be made by an amendment in the Senate and that is a welcome change, because we should always trust Australians when hearing both sides of an argument—always. We here in the news and through this place and many others the risk of compromise in digital information. We can't just say, 'It is 2023. There is no need to send a bit of paper to Australians because we can send them a social media link or an email or something else, or they can go to the website.' That isn't good enough. For those of us in this place, we communicate with our electorates using all means. We use social media, digital, emails but we also put things in people's letterboxes, and if that wasn't effective we wouldn't do it. We do it at great expense to the taxpayer because we know that it works and we know that it is important. Particularly for electorates that have migrant communities where English is not their first language, it is even more important that we spell things out clearly in their letterboxes. I think that is always an important part of communicating and it will be for this referendum.

We on this side welcome the commitment to have a pamphlet; that is so important. But there is no commitment for the other two parts that we are worried about—that being, an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation and appropriately funding these. This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on this voice is to be conducted. It should be a constructive one that reinforces the principles that the Prime Minister outlined in his Chifley speech, because the risk of division in our democracy is real. It is not something that just happens in Washington or in other countries; it can happen here. We all need to lean in and make sure that that doesn't happen, and it starts by having a respectful debate. So we call on the Prime Minister and the government to make sure that they commit to properly funding both sides of the campaign because this will increase trust and integrity in the process.

I was a barrister before this, and people would often say to me: 'What is the measure of a fair court or a fair judge?' It is a simple answer—that the loser feels like they were given a fair hearing. So whatever the result of this referendum, the passionate advocates for either case will wake up saying, 'You know what? We put our case fairly, it was heard, the result was made and we respect it.' That is what we should all be saying the day after the referendum, not accusing this country of being xenophobic or racist because the 'yes' vote didn't get up. Or if it is flipped and if 'yes' does get up that we respect that decision too. That is our duty. But again, it starts with making sure that we get the process right.

The proper conduct of the referendum is an obligation on the government and, therefore, on the parliament. The Electoral Commission has given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains one of the most complex parts of the Electoral Act. Again, the people in this place are probably more knowledgeable about that part of the Electoral Act than most other Australians and it is complex—it just is. So if we can help to reduce any potential corruption in the process, that would be a good thing.

It is also important we recognise that for this referendum the participants are often people who are not regularly involved in elections. Again, for us, and for those political parties or for those who have their own community movements, we have become quite seasoned at being involved in elections. We have structures, procedures, knowledge and people we can draw on. People will be coming out to get involved in this, and we encourage that. But again, they need help so that they make sure that they comply with all our laws and regulations.

I come back to the Prime Minister's speech at the Chifley centre. It was a good one. I ask that when he asks: 'What shall we feel like the day after the referendum,' that he reflects upon his answer to that. It can't just be about his commitment to the 'yes' case. It has to be that our democracy is a stronger one the day after, no matter the result, and that starts with improving this bill because it isn't quite there.

See this speech in context