Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Constitutional referenda are governed by section 128 of the Australian Constitution and by the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 will prepare and update the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 ahead of a referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, expected during this term of parliament. However, as it is currently presented, the bill would suspend the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 that require the production and distribution of a 'yes' and 'no' case against a proposed constitutional change. In its current form, the Liberal-National Party will be opposing the bill for this reason and because of other outstanding issues relating to the conduct of referenda that the government must address. We note that the government continues to discuss the coalition concerns with the bill and thank the minister for this engagement. We would encourage the minister and the government to consider the reasonable changes that the coalition has put forward to ensure a referendum with informed voters and processes is a referendum with integrity and trust.

The process for amending the Constitution is as important as the amendment to the Constitution. We should not diverge from past practice where it would create uncertainty. We should take all measures available to us to ensure that the process is robust and that voters have as much information as possible about the choice they are being asked to make.

We do support the modernisation of the act insofar as it updates regulations of donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and imposes reporting obligations. It would also ban foreign donations of $100 or more from being used for referendum campaigns and bans foreign campaigners authorising referendum material, which is a good measure introduced by the coalition to govern federal elections and should apply to referenda on changing our Constitution. These updates bring the act into line with the current Commonwealth Electoral Act and are found in schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The bill makes these changes in preparation for the referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament, and will apply these proposed changes to the conduct of that referendum. The bill also contains schedules that provide legislative modernisations to the language of the act in schedules 7 and 8. However, the coalition has significant concerns about the questions that remain unanswered by the bill as it is currently drafted. We're concerned that the government presented a bill in its first iteration that included changes that depart from normal practice. Firstly, the bill removes the requirement to provide a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' arguments to all households. The government has stated that the purpose of removing this provision relates to the modernisation of the referendum process for a digital age, and that the requirement was more suited to referenda conducted before the internet. Other arguments have included the desire not to publish a significant amount of printed material that will not be read and end up in landfill. However, the AEC has, through the committee process, confirmed that it does and will continue to provide printed material to households at federal elections and as part of the referendum. Since the introduction of the referendum pamphlet in 1912, there have been three occasions where a pamphlet has not been provided, but a pamphlet has been distributed in every referendum since 1928.

There have been three referenda, as I said, without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. In 1919, there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet prior to the conduct of the referendum. In 1926, there was no agreement on how to argue or produce the 'yes' argument. And in 1928, there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments at all levels. In evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC provided evidence that a pamphlet to all households would be expected to cost approximately $10 million, and the AEC has noted that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides to households in conducting their vote at an election. We welcome the government's announcement that they will be making amendments to the bill to reinstate the provision. However, without amendments presented by the government we will reserve our position to consider how this is to be done.

Secondly, Labor has not made provision for an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation to be established. This is of concern in relation to the implementation of modern electoral regulations on donations and foreign interference. The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. As provided in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, both the Department of Finance, which is responsible for electoral policy, and the AEC stated that they were unaware of any organisations that have been established to campaign for or against the referendum. This is in contrast to the public coverage of a number of bodies which are promoting themselves as referendum campaign bodies, such as From the Heart or Reconciliation Australia. In the same evidence, the joint standing committee heard that there is a potential for organisations and individuals who are unaware of their current or previous activities relating to the Voice to be captured by the proposed regulatory schemes.

Under the government's model we would see a free-for-all of participants who will be captured by the donations and disclosure regime at the referendum. As the AEC has stated in evidence, donations and disclosure regimes remain one of the most complex areas in the Electoral Act. It's complex enough that even regular participants—political parties that are active at every election—still get it wrong. What is worse, we will see the regulatory regime applied to a one-off electoral event and we will only find out the extent of the success of this regime after the event. As the AEC has said, to educate the number of participants on their responsibilities and obligations will be a significant body of work. An official campaign structure will, at the very least, provide a starting point for the AEC's efforts in coordinating education on the responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in the referendum campaign—as well as providing a head start on the integrity measures Australians should expect from a properly conducted electoral event.

Finally, the government has stated that it does not intend to provide support to any campaign to adhere to the new regulations and requirements of participants at the referendum—in particular, to official 'yes' or 'no' campaign organisations. This is disappointing. It's clear that, if we're to have a strong process for the referendum, we should be ensuring there is a structure in place for those processes and regulatory bodies to start their work. In doing so, we should fund official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations to ensure that they can adhere to the laws we're about to pass. It remains the position of the coalition that there will be a requirement that, if any funding is provided to either case, an equal amount should be provided to the opposite case.

The bill represents a significant update to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The parliament should consider the fact that these changes reflect how we go about changing our national document not only today but also in the future. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for others. It's the view of the opposition that we should remain consistent with past practice, and we'll be opposing the bill until the government addresses these issues.

See this speech in context