Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which proposes crucial amendments to one of the most important instruments available to the Australian people for change. Questions of national character and constitutional reform are some of the most serious questions we can ask of voters in this country. When we propose a change to the Constitution at a referendum, it is a change which goes to the foundation of the way in which our nation operates, of how it is governed, of how it is protected, of how it does what the Australian people expect it to do.

The Constitution empowers the Australian people to own their democracy and, when we change it, we must be cautious that we are not disempowering voters on one side or the other. A lot has happened since the referendum act was last used. In fact, it hasn't been used since 1999. It was in 1999 that the Australian people rejected a politician's republic in favour of the status quo. They opted to retain the constitutional monarchy because, well, it worked, and the change would come at a price too high—uncertainty, instability, and an increase of power to the elected, not the electors.

As the Samuel Griffith Society pointed out in their submission to the inquiry, the fact that the nation has experienced the longest period in its history without a referendum should be seen as an indication of Australians' overall satisfaction with our existing constitutional arrangements. However, after nearly 25 years, the legislation which enables such a referendum has not kept pace with the modernisations we have made successively to the electoral act, amendments which have improved the efficiency, transparency and integrity of our electoral process.

Since the last national referendum, we have seen some remarkable change. The iPod was invented and has since transformed into wearable mobile technology thanks to the Internet of Things. YouTube was invented, along with the social media platforms from which we now source so much of our information and news. Advances in cybersecurity, generational shifts in workforce participation and the working week, and social change at scale unlike anything we have seen, at least my lifetime, have taken place in a quarter of a century since the referendum act was last used. It is time for its modernisation. That is why in 20121 as chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I led an inquiry into constitutional reform and referenda, passing the baton on to the member for Moncrieff on my election as Speaker of the House of Representatives. That inquiry, which has contributed to this bill in debate today, showed me a number of things. The minister claims that this bill aims to ensure that referenda reflect contemporary federal election voting processes, and extends transparency and integrity measures in the electoral act to support voter confidence in referenda. That may well be the aim, but, in some respects, it will not be the result.

Australians are becoming more aware of the Constitution's role. Since the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs was handed down, Australians have become a little more aware of the real-life implications of our Constitution on democracy and government. That is not unusual as we are approaching a referendum. I believe that Australians, given that there have 25 years since our last one, will take a more active role in understanding what referenda are about, a lot more about our Constitution and about how the Constitution should be changed, if at all. During the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of the COVID lockdowns, the nature of Australia's competitive federalism was laid bare before the Australian people. For some, the to-ing and fro-ing between the states and the Commonwealth was proof that the system was strong, demanding cooperation across borders while protecting state electors' interests. For others, it was a point of concern and contention that governments disagreed at times and agreed on other issues.

The question we are discussing now is not whether competitive federalism is the best system of governing our Commonwealth and its states. The question is whether the provisions proposed empower the people of this country to make such decisions for themselves if or when the time comes.

This debate should be considered in light of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament debate. What we debate in relation to this bill will naturally be viewed as a reflection on the upcoming referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament. It will, after all, be the first national referenda held in nearly a quarter of a century. The changes we make now, however, will extend to the referenda which follow: crucial moments of significant and fundamental change to the way our nation operates. As such, it's important that we all take a critical and forward-thinking approach to these reforms and that we undertake this debate with dignity, that we do it in a collegial spirit and, perhaps most importantly, that we do it with respect. I am heartened by the tone of the debate in relation to this bill, because this bill is almost a precursor to the Voice referendum itself. How this debate is managed by this House over the next hours and days, if it comes to that, really does set the tone, and I think that tone needs to be one of respect.

Now, there are things that we have taken for granted in our typical election process which have not been amended since the previous referendum nearly a quarter of a century ago, and I will go through some of the things that we do agree with in relation to this bill. The coalition supports some of those changes. We support allowing the early opening and sorting—but not counting—of prepoll ordinary votes from 4 pm on voting day along with the extraction of declaration votes during preliminary scrutiny. These changes will support the timely scrutiny of prepoll votes on the night of voting day, consistent with federal election processes.

We support measures to combat foreign interference, particularly in relation to financial contributions. In a rare foray from Labor into actually improving integrity and accountability measures, this bill would see the financial disclosure procedures amended to protect referenda from foreign interference. It would prohibit foreign donations of more than $100 and prohibit foreign donors and actors from incurring referenda expenditure, to a maximum of $1,000 per financial year. This includes aggregated smaller donations below the disclosure threshold.

As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, 'The threat of foreign influence in democratic referendums can risk undermining democratic integrity and has the potential to erode democracy by compromising trust in voting results and trust in political participants.' The limit on foreign campaigners and the restriction on their ability to fundraise or directly incur referendum expenditure is a mechanism to counteract the effects of foreign influence in Australia's democracy and maintain Australians' trust in their referenda. Genuine freedom to vote at referenda requires freedom from undue influence or interference. Donors will also be required to report to the AEC the details of donations for referendum campaigning valued above the disclosure threshold. If only those opposite would consider the same level of scrutiny with respect to Australian superannuation funds or union contributions to general elections!

Unfortunately, this bill is one-sided, and that really touches on one of the key concerns. It's hypocritical. The bill as proposed does not include a commitment to provide equal information about and equal funding to both sides of the debate. This means that those with the most money and the greatest capacity to provide free information—that is, governments—have an extraordinary and unprecedented advantage. This is a heinous double standard. What has become clear is that the Australian people are losing faith in the Albanese Labor government. They're losing faith in the government's integrity, their intentions and their abilities. It's not often I'll quote the current member for Warringah, but I will today. When she talked about her Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill in December last year, she said 'the government knows it needs to protect truth, and it's failing to do that'. The Australian people know it to be true. To that end, the coalition and Australians with common sense are calling on the government to amend this bill and commit to: restoring the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, which they have now done; establishing official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns organisations; and appropriately funding both of those official organisations.

Early on, we called Labor out with respect to the pamphlets. It may sound like a little thing, but the inequity and inaccessibility with relation to information for the opposing argument would be a grossly undemocratic stain on this critical referendum. Initially, Labor refused. It came as a shock. In their own words in the 2021 SPLA report, they said:

Awareness and understanding of our Constitution, referendums and constitutional matters is disturbingly low amongst Australian citizens.

I was shocked because I assumed that Labor meant what they said and said what they mean.

Recommendation 6 of the SPLA inquiry that I referenced before specifically called on the Electoral Commissioner to distribute the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets to all electors, using any additional methods that the Electoral Commissioner considers appropriate. Labor agreed to this when they were in opposition, but once granted the reins of power they went back on their word. Shock, horror—I know! There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and the government. Surely, a century on, we are past these kinds of excuses.

We've also called on Labor asking them to provide equal public funding for both sides of the campaign. A recommendation of the SPLA report in 2021 called for the act to be amended to provide for the Australian government to fund referendum education and promotion of the arguments for and against the referendum proposal. This is the model applied across like-minded democratic parliaments.

In conclusion, what the coalition want to see is equal funding, equal access to information and equal standing for Australians who share a common love of country but, perhaps, differing views on one particular issue. It's about being a mature government, a fair government and a responsible government. That's what Australians expect. With all that said, I cannot support this bill as it's currently written, and I want to support it because we need to modernise our approach to referenda. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity based on precedent. To that end, we're hopeful that the amendments that I've outlined today will be introduced in the Senate and accepted so that we can vote on what is an important reform to the way we amend and defend our Constitution.

See this speech in context