Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Hinkler on such a strong contribution. Australia has a tried and tested method of undertaking referenda. It is a method based on precedent, fairness and transparency, and it has served our nation well over the past 122 years. This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is conducted. The bill outlines how a referendum's donations regulations will operate, how the prepoll scrutineering and counting will operate and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will be applied to this referendum.

The bill makes a number of noncontroversial changes to the act to bring the operation of the referendum in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. However, the bill represents a considerable departure from the established precedent. The coalition has raised three key points with the government to address our concerns on the referendum process. Firstly, we've asked the government to restore the pamphlet that is posted to each household and outlines the yes and no case. We've heard that the government has agreed that they will now support that measure, which we strongly welcome. It was unfortunate we had to take so many months to get there. Secondly, we've asked the government to establish official yes and no campaign organisations. And, finally, as the member for Hinkler put so eloquently, we've asked the government to appropriately fund these official organisations in an equal and fair way. These measures are fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity. There is also the basis on which other referenda have operated and it will be consistent, of course, with the precedent that has served us well over the last century and more.

The coalition has welcomed the engagement from the government on the bill but until we have our concerns addressed exactly the position of the coalition is to oppose the bill. It is important to note that the changes included in the bill will likely become the new normal and be used as a precedent for all future referenda. This is bigger than just the question that we put the Australian people in a referendum this year. This potentially has significant implications for the future of Australia's Constitution and future referenda questions that may be put over coming the decades. So it's really important that we get this right now and that this is properly considered in the context of future questions, not just the one that we face this year. There may be future referenda questions that the Labor Party, or the government, wishes to defeat, so it is important to consider that it's not just about trying to get a yes answer to this vote, it's about where do we go from here over the future decades. When we consider questions like this, we should never undervalue the importance of precedent. This whole chamber is based on precedent in many ways. It is precedent that has served us well and it is precedent that we should cling to when taking our next steps.

It is interesting to look back at the history of the referendum pamphlet in Australia. The requirement for a referendum pamphlet was implemented 1912 and there have only ever been three referenda without an official pamphlet, those being 1919, 1926, 1928. I don't think any of the members present here today were around to vote in those referenda. There were very significant reasons why there weren't pamphlets. In 1919—this was a very rushed referendum—there was insufficient time to produce one. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the yes argument to that question. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government in relation to the state debts referendum. There was near unanimous support. For every subsequent referendum, every other referendum over the last 100 or so years, there has been an official pamphlet produced. It would've set a dangerous precedent if the government had embarked on its original course, which was to deliberately not provide one. We know how important it is because people trust that official material. The feedback I am receiving from the constituents in my electorate is that they don't understand what is been proposed and are keen to get more information and further details on the proposals. The opposition, of course, has been consistent in its call for the government to provide more detail in relation to this question. I hope that the official booklet will provide these constituents of mine with more answers to the questions that they are asking.

We have heard from the AEC that when they provide mailed material to voters during elections 40 per cent of recipients will use this documentation as a main source of information when they cast their vote. We welcome the government's announcement that they're going to restore the pamphlet, but we'll wait to see an amendment presented to the government to that effect. We cannot just simply take the government's word for it.

I note that there has been an important submission made to the committee's inquiry into this bill by Blind Citizens Australia. They outlined:

…we have serious concerns about this legislation in its current form.

We are greatly concerned that the new legislation was introduced without proper consultation with the blind and vision impaired community … We believe this failure to consult risks disenfranchising our community and excludes our voices from the electoral process …

I think those are important words for this chamber to reflect on. The Australian Human Rights Commission's submission noted:

The Commission supports retaining the requirement under s 11 that a Yes/No pamphlet be distributed to Australian electors as part of the referendum process.

The coalition is also advocating for the establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns through this bill. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The ABC has given evidence to the parliamentary committee that the donations and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the electoral act—of course it is. We all know that; we've all been through elections to get into this place. We understand how complex Australia's disclosure requirements are; often, members of this chamber and others who aspire to be here get tripped up by it—and these are professional people who are operating with the support of professional organisations who are supposed to know these things. An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum.

We know that there will be a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum. There'll be many players who come out of the woodwork who will not be associated with political parties and who will not be regular participants in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence an audit process for donations—   particularly from foreign influencers—is the best way to ensure the integrity of this referendum.

We've heard from officials that there might be people who will fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws but don't even know it. I can absolutely see that occurring with so many people interested in this question, many of them not having participated financially in elections previously. Even the Labor-controlled Joint Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs noted in 2019:

… it is important and appropriate that members of Parliament retain responsibility for authorising the official Yes/No arguments and supports the retention of this requirement.

I will now move on to our request for equal funding. We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding—if any is provided—to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged and to ensure that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes of the referendum. I think it's an important point that if we're adding this extra cost of compliance, adding all this regulation, and wanting participants in this referendum to comply with the very complex electoral systems that we have, they be provided some public funding to support them in bringing people up to speed, to ensure they employ appropriate people who can police that, and to ensure that we have good compliance and a good, transparent election. This plays into a basic principle of fairness.

While the government has currently committed to not spending on the set-up of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, this does not mean that both will start on an even playing field, as some of the previous speakers have mentioned. In fact, the government outlined in its October 2022 budget—in book 2 on page 17, to be precise—that campaign group Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition will be made recipients of tax-deductible gifts through changes to the relevant legislation taxation laws we passed towards the end of last year. This will directly operate as a form of funding for the 'yes' campaign. According to the government's own figures that it used in the budget, the financial advantage derived from these gifts will be valued at $800,000, with the figure likely to only grow as the referendum nears. There is no equivalent, of course, in the 'no' campaign. There is no equivalent treatment in terms of tax deductibility.

Let's take a closer look at some of the provisions that are also contained within this bill. Schedule 1 modernises postal voting in referendums, aligning it with the equivalent procedures in federal elections as outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In light of the significant uptake in postal votes—particularly post pandemic—this is a necessary step in reforming the referendum process, and the coalition will be supporting that element of the bill.

Schedule 2 allows for the early opening and sorting, but not counting, of prepoll votes. As a coalition member, I consider efficiency critical to the provision of government services and therefore support this measure. I'm sure we'll all be grateful there will be a quick count and that everything is prepared ahead of time for that. I've heard stories from many scrutineers in electorates across Queensland and other jurisdictions about unnecessary delay in sorting prepoll votes. I think this is a good, commonsense measure, and of course we support that.

Schedule 3 updates authorisation requirements to align with recent changes to the Electoral Act. Again, where the legislation is merely being modernised, of course we support that. Schedule 4 is also admirable in that its amendments effectively ban foreign interference in the Voice referendum and allow for transparency through its updated financial disclosure scheme—of course, no objections there. Schedule 5, like those before it, aligns the referendum process with the Electoral Act. The same goes for schedule 6. Schedules 7 and 8 contain a number of language changes, as well as legislative drafting modernisations. As noted above, most of the provisions are uncontroversial. It is, by and large, a considered attempt to modernise the Referendum Act.

If the amendments ended there, I would absolutely support the bill. But, unfortunately, they do not. The government's bill and the proposal for the conduct of the Voice referendum will not require the production and distribution of the 'yes' and 'no' printed pamphlet, as it currently stands. It will not establish or fund the 'yes' or 'no' campaigns. With the Prime Minister's unwillingness to provide any detail to the Australian people, the risk of a partisan educational campaign cannot be understated. In a hotly debated referendum such as this, allowing total government control over the educational campaign makes the Voice referendum dangerously susceptible to misinformation and a one-sided narrative. Having clear 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations creates trust and integrity in the process.

In addition to this, it will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for proper conduct of the referendum. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence an audit process for donations is the best way to ensure the integrity of the process. Furthermore, it will also stop foreign interference, something that we should all recognise the importance of, particularly given recent headlines regarding the level of foreign interference taking place across Australian government—and in civil society, for that matter.

Moreover, the regulatory auditing process, which takes up great time and taxpayer money, should be optimised in a national referendum. This could be done by having an official campaign to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. Some of the changes made could also have the adverse effect of incriminating organisations and individuals that are unaware that their current or previous activities relating to the Voice referendum will be captured by the proposed regulatory scheme. This is dangerous, and we should safely guard against that potential.

Changing Australia's Constitution is not something we should ever take lightly. I am a constitutional conservative, and I'm instinctively sceptical of any changes to our founding document, as are most Australians. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the Australian people, only eight have succeeded. Labor has not proposed a successful referendum since 1946. It is the only time they have succeeded in changing the Constitution. Changing Australia's Constitution is not something we should ever take lightly; it is not routine, and it should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances and with almost universal recognition of the problem and support for the solution. Our Constitution has enabled Australia to be one of the most successful and longstanding democracies in the world, and we should only interfere with that document in the most extreme circumstances.

This bill does have some positive elements. It modernises procedures to make them more comparable to a federal election. It makes the experiences of first-time referendum voters more parallel to what they've done in federal elections. This will be the first time I will vote in a referendum. It's also, I'm sure, the first time the member for Griffith has voted in a referendum. In fact, anyone born after 1981 hasn't voted in a referendum before. But, despite the positive elements of the bill, the legislation ultimately fails in its most important provisions. Supporting this bill supports an unfair and unbalanced referendum to alter Australia's foundational document.

See this speech in context