David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is a very complex bill. It should be separated that this is changing some of the ways that referenda are to be run from here on in. That in itself is a cause for great concern to me and to many, because there doesn't appear to be a level playing field. That is a very important principle which needs to be addressed. We need to know that when a referendum happens for this upcoming recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution it's not only a huge change to the Constitution but the process will linger on for other referenda.

I don't think it is giving any solace to people with great concerns about the referendum that this bill is allowing huge amounts of disinformation and factual incorrectness and is not addressing other really serious issues that people are crying out for by not funding both sides of the argument. It's a travesty, as far as I'm concerned. We have to have a pamphlet available with accurate information for both the 'yes' and the 'no' case. We have to have the ability to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and to appropriately fund them. It is very, very important.

The bill is responding to some inquiries that have been led by standing parliamentary committees. Some of the machinery things to bring the referendum process in line with the Electoral Commission process makes common sense. But overall this bill is very concerning. To support this, the coalition have to have no doubt that there will be equal support for the 'yes' and the 'no' case. As the bill stands, it does remove the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet. The government have mentioned, separate to this bill, that they're going to restore the pamphlet, but there are no details and there is no funding. It's very wishy-washy. We need certainty going into this critical piece of legislation, and I would like to say informed voters are of that opinion. I have taken vox pop polls around my electorate. Most people are in the dark about what is proposed, let alone how the machinery of referenda would be run. It's a very dangerous precedent to set that nothing is defined, apart from how foreign interference and donations can be restricted and how any Australian citizens who are funding campaigns have to be clear.

With all the referenda that I've been involved in in my lifetime, there was plenty of information for both sides. There were only three referenda that didn't have 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. There were exceptional circumstances in 1919, after the war—there wasn't sufficient time to produce them. There was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument in 1926. And, in 1928—a unique event—there was overwhelming agreement between the parties. We know now that people are hungry for information. When you scratch the surface, lots of people in my electorate, dozens of people I incidentally meet, have grave concerns. If you want the Australian people to have trust in the integrity of the process, you need a pamphlet, and that is meant to be a signature of this new government—that they are all for integrity and openness. We are asking for equal funding, and it's a reasonable request.

I will say a few words about the referendum itself. It is a really important referendum. Every referendum is important because the referendum result can allow changes to the Constitution. But, from what I've seen, it gives carte blanche for the government to then go and establish not just constitutional change but yet another level of bureaucracy on top of the bureaucracy that's funded to the tune of over $30 billion every year, which hasn't delivered any significant tangible benefits pro rata with the amount of money spent across state and federal governments.

I object to the concept of a change in the Constitution to give special legal standing to a group of people based on race, even if it is Indigenous Australians. And there's no definition of what is Indigenous. You get lots of different definitions, and that's very vague and undefined. Many people have commented that it would just be a body of advice, but what we've learnt in subsequent announcements from ministers on that side and by eminent High Court lawyers is that what is an opinion and an advisory comment could have standing as being obligatory when it's taken to the High Court, and it will be justiciable. There's a bank of High Court lawyers and barristers who agreed with this. Legal opinion is ringing loud and clear, and this isn't what was advertised by the other side.

The National Party have done our legal homework. We have sought opinions from highly qualified legal people. I would like to also put on the record that six per cent of my population is Indigenous, and I'm sure the vast majority of them would support it, but our role here, particularly with constitutional change, is to establish the consequences of what a law will do to how this nation is run. To have one body which, depending on the size of population survey you do, represents three per cent of the population and gives them special standing at state, federal or local government levels—because the local voice, the state voice or the federal voice has an opinion—will gum up the whole works of the nation.

The concept of Australia is that we are full of people of all nations, and I acknowledge that Indigenous people have been here. There have been three waves of Indigenous civilisations in the 60,000 years. But, since Australia has come into being, once you are Australian and you are a citizen, you get the same treatment. You get the same education, support and health. The law is applied the same, without fear or favour. This is, in the words of a former Prime Minister, creating a de facto third chamber. A recent opinion from a former Labor minster in Australia's second-most-respected national paper even said this will be a shadow government. It will have the ability to pass an opinion which can then be acknowledged, read, understood but not agreed with, and then it will be off to lawfare, and that will not be fair to the rest of the nation.

There is also no legal impediment for any Indigenous member of Australia to run for local government, state government or federal government, and we have whole departments dedicated at state and federal level to Indigenous affairs. We have Indigenous advancement strategies. We have health policies. We have Prime Minister and Cabinet committees. We have prime ministerial committees taking advice from Indigenous groups. We have land councils. We have so many voices from Indigenous Australia, and this will be just be another bureaucracy, but the making of laws and the way we decide to govern ourselves will be decided by an unelected third chamber. That is the nuts and bolts of it.

The fact is, whether you are someone from Ethiopia who just got their citizenship, like the last ones in my electorate, or you are from the Biripi, or the Ngunnawal or the Ngambri people in the area where I was born and raised, here in the Monaro—sure, Australians respect and honour the traditions of the Indigenous—we are all the same. We are one country under one law and we all have the right to stand for parliament. This particular bill isn't about that, but I take the opportunity to put my thoughts on the record.

This Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill is very vague and one-sided, and I won't be supporting the bill unless it's changed considerably. By the sounds of it, that is not going to happen.

See this speech in context