James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

STEVENS () (): I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Obviously, previous speakers from the coalition have indicated some of the issues we have with this bill. And, of course, there have been some suggestions from the government about discussions as this bill progresses through the parliament, so there is some ambiguity as to what and if we will be supporting this, depending on how that goes.

I want to commence by saying I respect that a lot of speakers have made their comments regarding a potential referendum that might be held regarding a Voice to Parliament, and I don't in any way criticise that, but this bill is much beyond just any one particular referendum that might occur. I have very much said on the public record that I don't support amending our Constitution to enshrine a Voice to Parliament within it. There will no doubt be other opportunities for debates on that in this chamber. I think that yes, of course, we view these changes through the prism of an imminent potential referendum, but all referenda, theoretically, that may be held into the future could be subject to this legislation until the parliament changes this bill.

I think there are some very important principles with regard to how the Australian people are asked to change our Constitution in any way that we need to make sure that we defend and adhere to, particularly on this side of the chamber. I am also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, so I have had the benefit of being part of the inquiry that we conducted into this bill. Our lead speaker indicated that the government is reconsidering the bill's removal of the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet provision. I am guessing that that is going to progress as an amendment and that the issue will be removed, so I won't make further comments regarding that. I'm very pleased that that's going to be in place. But I've got an extremely significant concern regarding how we give equal weighting and equal resourcing to campaigns for and against changing our Constitution, no matter what that campaign might relate to. Just before I reached voting age we held a referendum in this country regarding a republic and, of course, that's the most recent reference point to look to, after an unsuccessful attempt to consider adjusting our Constitution regarding the recognition of local government.

It's vitally important that we articulate the need for, and defend the fundamental principle of, ensuring that the Australian people are as well informed as possible as to the merit or lack thereof of changing our Constitution. I really do worry and have concerns about the principle we'd be establishing. There's a very long-held tradition of making sure that there is proper resourcing of the arguments for and against changing our Constitution; the pamphlet is one that I've addressed. The concept of not having formality and resourcing of those campaigns is very concerning and unfair. We in the coalition maintain those concerns.

If we do look to the imminent proposal of changing our Constitution regarding the Voice, it's probably a great example of a situation where one side of that campaign has been in existence in one way, shape or form for a very, very long time, going back to campaigns around recognition even before the Uluru statement and the imminent proposal around an enshrinement of a voice. It is a very mature campaign structure. I don't know, but I'm guessing that campaign has been able to amass a degree of financial resource as well in the many years of its existence. And good luck to that campaign; that's the great democracy that we live in.

That proposition does not really have a properly formed, formal counterbalance to it that I'm aware of. Certainly, we've had debates in here around the tax-deductible status of a campaign for that proposition, and I've not seen, at this stage, the existence of a counter to that. And that's not the fault of people that may well become that structured opposition to a change. It is foreseeable that there could be all kinds of proposals to change our Constitution in the future where there is a mature, established argument for that and a yet-to-be-formed counterforce defending the status quo, or whatever the proposition might be.

We've really got to remember how important it is to ensure that people are fully informed when we're changing our Constitution. It's a significant enough issue when we go to general elections every three years or so in this country and we think about how our democratic structures have developed to contest elections. They're very important, and we're all very grateful, generally speaking, for their results; we're certainly proud of the robustness of our democracy. There are always ways that we can improve, but, by and large, we consider ourselves to be at least the equal greatest and most robust democracy on the planet. That is also underpinned by the existing institutions and political structures that are in place, particularly our political parties, our party system and the like.

We have, of course, public funding for federal elections, so there's a formula, based on the number of votes that you receive, that essentially operates under the principle that we do want to ensure that there is some form of funding support to people that contest elections. The fact that we do that in general elections and would not consider changing our Constitution to be at least as significant as—frankly, possibly much more significant than—any particular general election that we have, given the consequences of changing the Constitution or not—it baffles me as to why anyone would now hold the view that we don't want to ensure that there is proper resourcing for a case for and against changing our Constitution. It has been tradition and practice, and there's certainly been opportunity for members in this parliament that don't support a proposition to change the Constitution to have an appropriate amount of support for them to take their argument to the voters of this country in a way that means those voters will hear both sides of an argument. I think that is a fundamental principle that we need to make sure we keep in place. It should not necessarily be purely viewed regarding an upcoming referendum that may occur on one particular proposal. It's about the principle of always ensuring that the merits of both arguments to change the Constitution of this nation are always resourced enough so that people vote on those changes in an informed way.

I might also just reflect on the fact that the government are foreshadowing some changes to the way in which we undertake the fundraising and funding of elections in time for the next general election. This is something that they ventilated publicly, and at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters there will be a reflection on some of those concepts and proposals. It does interest me that the government are not interested in having any of those mooted changes in place in time for a referendum. Frankly, the member for Goldstein made this point regarding changes that could occur in time for this referendum that are being proposed for the next election. Why does the government not want to undertake any reform around funding of campaigns in time for the most imminent potential campaign, being a referendum that, we are told, may be proposed to be held later this year? Why is it that there is apparently such an urgent need to change the way in which people donate to political causes in this country and the way in which campaigns acquit the funds that they raise on political campaigns? Why is it so important to change the way in which we undertake funding and disclosure in this country, but not in time for the first opportunity to put any of that in place, which would be a referendum? I'm very suspicious about that, and I very much wonder what the motivation is for those that claim we need reform but have no intention of putting it in place before a referendum possibly to be held later this year.

That plays into the debate on this bill, because, in essence, what this bill is doing with the various measures that I've been discussing is essentially rig the system in favour of one side of the argument against another. There's a mature, developed campaign to change our Constitution that is far advanced from the campaign and argument to not change our Constitution. A variety of the measures proposed in this bill are essentially trying to rig the system and lock in place an advantage for one argument over the other. And that, perhaps, is why we're not seeing any change to funding and disclosure laws in time for this referendum. Maybe the current system advantages one argument over the other. But maybe those same changes might advantage a particular side of politics over the other in a different way in time for the next general election in this country.

That's where we're at with these apparently pure-as-the-driven-snow arguments around what is and isn't appropriate in our democratic system, as far as how our people financially support campaigns in this country. There's one rule for the upcoming referendum and potentially a very different rule at the next general election. We could put in place changes in time for this imminent referendum. That's what you'd do in this bill right now, but, of course, nothing of the sort is being proposed. I just reflect on the fact that that says a lot about people that could do that and are choosing not to in this bill when we come up for this debate in the next six to 12 months, or whenever it might be. It is apparently vitally important to change the funding and disclosure laws in time for the next general election in this country, but it's not important enough to do in time for this referendum. These are the same people who claim it is so totemic, monumental and vitally important, but we wouldn't want to make changes that they might claim in another context are so vitally important for the strength of our democracy before an imminent referendum, which would happen in this bill if you were seeking to do it.

I do have ambiguity about my position on this bill, as the coalition does, depending on potential changes and amendments. We think this is important. There are some very significant principles regarding the integrity of our Constitution and how it is changed into the future, and that will guide the way in which we determine our position on the various questions on this bill later in the debate. Given the appointed hour, I conclude my remarks with that.

See this speech in context