Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Most of this is noncontroversial and seeks merely to bring the operation of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament referendum into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to suspend the provisions of the act that require the production and distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' case. The bill otherwise restricts government expenditure in relation to this referendum campaigning.

There are three parts of this bill that trouble those on my side. First is the pamphlet, which we say needs to distributed to all Australian households. The second is that this bill does not establish 'yes' or 'no' organisations. Third, we say that those 'yes' and 'no' organisations should be properly funded by the government.

The upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum is very important to the future of race relations in Australia. It is important to Indigenous Australian and it is important to non-Indigenous Australians. It is important that Australians understand the content of what they are being asked to vote upon. The upcoming process on the Voice should not be the stuff of wedges. Those who support the Voice should be given the opportunity to fully explain their case for constitutional change. Similarly, those that oppose the Voice should not be demonised as racists or bigots. This is an opportunity for our country to have an intellectual debate without descending into anger. It is an opportunity for Australians to consider both sides of an argument for constitutional change without hatred, without virtue signalling, without name-calling and without outrage. The government can assist by getting the process, the mechanics, correct. That is why I advocate for proper funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaign. I also support the distribution of a pamphlet to each Australian household. In this way, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Australians will be capable of waking up the morning after the referendum satisfied that their fellow Australians had the opportunity to be fully informed, that there was integrity in the process.

If we turn now to the history of referenda in our country, Australian governments have largely been reluctant to submit a proposal to alter the Constitution to the Australian people. Australians, when voting in referenda, have largely been reluctant to support changes to our Constitution. Since Federation in 1901, only 44 questions for altering the Constitution have been put to the Australian people. Of these 44, only eight have been approved. The last constitutional referendum was in 1999 and included questions on a republic in a preamble to the Constitution, both of which failed to be carried by a majority of voters or a majority of states. Majorities of both are, of course, required to alter the Constitution.

The most recent successful referendum was in 1977, relating to voters in territories being allowed to vote in referenda, age limits for judges and the question of casual Senate vacancies. Having regard to the small number of successful referenda in our history, the way that we conduct referenda into the future is important and deserving, therefore, of a prudent approach. In his second reading speech on this bill, the minister said:

A decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It is therefore important that the government can fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice.

I fully support the minister's sentiment on this. It is therefore beyond comprehension that he then stated, 'The government has no intention of funding 'yes' and 'no' campaigns.' If we are to give Australians a proper civics education, it only makes sense that there is a proper government funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns.

I was particularly concerned that the bill sought to remove the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining both the 'yes' and 'no' case for changing the Constitution. It is noted now that the government has announced an intention to restore the pamphlet and that announcement is welcomed. In an age of misinformation, it is extremely important that the government takes the lead on this and provides clear information to Australians and establishes a strong referendum process. If the government does want this referendum to pass, it must ensure that the process has integrity. To that end, I call upon the government to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and to appropriately fund those organisations. This is the basis upon which most other referenda in our country have operated and will be consistent, therefore, with established precedent.

There are cogent reasons to provide written material to all Australian households. We have heard from the AEC that, when they provide mailed material to voters during elections, 40 per cent of recipients will use the documentation as a main source of information in casting their vote. We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC, for example, has published data reporting that 92 per cent of the respondents to a recent survey had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming.

Proper, equal government funding of both the 'yes' and the 'no' cases will therefore increase the trust and integrity of the referendum process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The AEC has given evidence to parliamentary inquiries that the donation and disclosure regimes remain the most complex part of the Electoral Act. An official campaign structure is therefore going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum. We know there will be a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes is the best way to ensure the integrity of the upcoming referendum. Therefore, I conclude by reiterating the importance of careful consideration being given to changing our Constitution. Australians must be given the opportunity to be fully informed of the arguments for and against change—the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns.

The upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum is vitally important to the future of our country, to the future of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is vital to the future of race relations in this country. It is therefore outrageous to suggest that a referendum of this magnitude does not deserve equal government funding of both positions. It must be concluded with respect, and, for that to occur, we must consider the content of the debate. We must first ensure that the process, the mechanics, are correct to enable a debate based on intellect and integrity.

In all of those circumstances, it is pleasing to note that the government has agreed to the distribution of pamphlets to all Australian households. If the government also agrees to establishing both the 'yes' and the 'no' organisations and agrees to proper, equal funding of both of those organisations, this bill will be supported by those on my side.

See this speech in context