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

I rise in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 and to make some additional comments in relation to some of its more contested elements, consistent with my additional comments in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following our inquiry.

A large part of this bill modernises the process for running a referendum, in line with how we now run elections. Generally, these changes have been broadly supported, although they do raise the question of why we need to make temporary changes to the referendum act in the context of an upcoming referendum, rather than considering modernisation of the act dispassionately when there's no referendum looming. No doubt other priorities win out, but it would seem a sensible idea to do a broader review of the act after this referendum to ensure that next time we have a referendum we're at least starting with a process that's grounded in the 21st century.

An example of this is in the wording of questions. Section 25 of the referendum act requires that a referendum ballot paper be set out in the form prescribed, with the title of the proposed law first and a question: 'Do you approve this proposed alteration?' This clumsy wording may be challenging to understand. This requirement could be amended to ensure that a simple version of the change being proposed can be included in the actual referendum question. For example, for this referendum the actual question could be something like: 'Do you support the establishment of a First Nations Voice as provided in the [short title of the act]?' This is unlikely to be fixed this year, but it should be part of a broader review to ensure the smooth running and clarity of future referenda.

I'm supportive of amendments made to improve enfranchisement of Indigenous voters, in accordance with the recommendations of the joint standing committee. In every election or other voting opportunity, it's important that all Australians are given the opportunity to participate in our democracy. But it would be particularly painful if we were not listening to the voices of Indigenous Australians on the question of whether we should listen to the voices of Indigenous Australians.

I'd like to make a few comments on the more contested elements of what's included in and omitted from the bill. I'm not against the inclusion of a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, an amendment negotiated by the opposition and expected to be moved in the Senate, but it does raise some concerns. In the past, these pamphlets have not necessarily always been factual and have been full of emotive language. They are, after all, drafted by committees of parliamentarians who hold a view one way or another. There remains a challenge for government to address as to how to ensure that information contained in the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet is accurate and fair—and I'll speak about this more later—but I accept that there is still a proportion of the population that doesn't get its information from the internet. In the interests of fair debate, a clear setting out of the best arguments on each side will afford people an opportunity to sit down and consider both sides, following up with their own research on any particular points that challenge or resonate with them. I suspect the number of people who sit and read 2,000-word essays has diminished, but creating the opportunity is probably a good thing.

The bill suspends subsection 11(4) of the referendum act, allowing government to spend money on providing public information and education about the referendum and to counter misinformation. The government has indicated that this education campaign will be on the mechanics of referenda, rather than for one side or the other, and that neither side will receive government funding. There is a leap of faith involved that this will be upheld, but, given that the last referendum was in 1999, I can see that education is required on the mechanics of a referendum so people understand the significance of their personal vote as well as their state's vote. Education is also required on what a referendum is and what it is not, and on what type of information belongs in the Constitution and what type of information does not. No doubt there'll be cries that the education campaign strays into a 'yes' campaign. While this remains a risk, the best we can do is be vigilant and attempt to remain fair-minded in an increasingly polarised world.

Donation transparency is an area desperately in need of reform at a federal level, with federal regulation lagging behind almost all the states in terms of both the donation disclosure threshold of $15,200 and the timing of the disclosure months and months after votes are cast. While there's a simplicity to aligning donation disclosures for the referendum with part 20 of the election act, it's a lowest-common-denominator approach. I would like to see stronger transparency requirements in relation to funding campaigns for the voice referendum. I accept that it creates a reporting burden for entities unaccustomed to the financial disclosure regime, but I also think that any entity campaigning on the voice either way should be willing to disclose that publicly in advance of the referendum. There is overwhelming community support to improve the transparency of who is funding political campaigns before people vote.

I support greater transparency in line with most states, with more immediate disclosure of donations above $1000. If this is not in the legislation, in line with community expectations and to show government that requiring real-time disclosures won't cause the sky to fall, I would like to see any companies, not-for-profits or individuals contributing to campaigns for either side to voluntarily disclose their commitments in real time. If the norm starts to change voluntarily, this may make regulation easier for the major parties. In my election campaign I disclosed all cash donations in real time on my website. Ninety per cent of donors chose to disclose their names despite not being required to. This shows that it's possible and not a big deal if you have nothing to hide. Those who choose not to disclose their support until months after the referendum, hiding behind the 'I complied with the law' excuse, may increasingly have to explain to their stakeholders why they were not proud enough of their political support to own it in real time.

Another issue that's not covered in the bill but came up in the submissions to the committee inquiry is truth in advertising. 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. My crossbench colleague, the member for Warringah, has introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022, laying out a potential approach to rebuilding community trust in what our politicians say. This is an admirable and solid contribution to debate on this topic, reflecting a strong community appetite for political information that can be believed. I support this bill and would like to see some version of this enacted in this term of parliament.

I accept that there are a number of issues that need to be resolved in setting up appropriate structures to ensure the community has faith in the arbiters of truth. No doubt there will be resistance to whichever body is tasked with determining the truth of statements, and conspiracy theories will abound. This challenge is not insurmountable and can't be used as an excuse not to commit to a structure to rebuild trust in our politicians. I accept that it may be challenging to build an appropriate regulatory framework on this board issue in time for the referendum and that getting it wrong could be very damaging in the long term.

For this reason, I would like to see the government set up an independent panel specifically for the referendum, with the goal of finalising the question, ensuring access to fair information and addressing instances of misinformation. Many expert witnesses to the committee inquiry backed this idea. The panel could be comprised of both sides of politics and experts to oversee public information relating to the campaign. This is also consistent with the amendment moved by the member for Warringah to require fact-checking of the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets.

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 this legislation.

See this speech in context