Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled A time for change: yes/no? Inquiry into the machinery of referendums, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

It is my pleasure to present the report A time for change: yes/no? Inquiry into the machinery of referendums. This is the fourth report of the committee for this parliament.

It is over a decade since Australia last held a referendum, over thirty years since there was a successful referendum to change the Constitution, and it is nearly a century since the introduction of the yes/no pamphlet as the principal means of informing voters in a referendum. This inquiry concerned the machinery of referendums—principally how voters are engaged in a referendum and how the yes/no cases are communicated. There have been many changes in effective communication methods over the last century, and yet our method of communicating to voters during a referendum has remained relatively unchanged over this time.

In 1912, when the requirement was introduced for a pamphlet outlining the yes/no cases for constitutional change, it was considered an innovative development in the way in which the government communicated with electors. In today’s array of communication technologies and expectations of public debate, we could hardly see such a pamphlet as innovative. Nearly a century later, it is appropriate to ask whether there is a more effective way of informing and engaging the Australian public about proposed constitutional change.

The requirement for constitutional change is rightly set high. Section 128 of the Constitution requires that a majority of electors in a majority of states approve of the proposal. It is therefore critical that electors understand the proposal being put to them so that they can make an informed decision at a referendum. It is also clear that a lack of understanding plays a significant part in an elector’s decision to vote no. Indeed, the 1999 republic referendum campaign demonstrated this plainly with the ‘Don’t know; vote no’ slogan against change. It is the view of the committee that, while the distribution of a yes/no pamphlet has provided a reasonable starting point for communicating with voters, it is the minimum of what might be needed and is no longer appropriate or adequate as the sole material provided to electors.

As such, the committee has made 17 recommendations to improve the referendum process. These innovations recognise that in the 21st century a range of communication approaches are required to inform and engage with voters. First, the committee recommends amendments to the act to require that a yes/no pamphlet is posted to every household rather than each elector. This change has been long supported by the Australian Electoral Commission. Additionally the current restriction on the word limit of the yes/no arguments should be removed from the act. It was agreed that parliamentarians should continue to authorise the yes/no arguments. Parliamentarians are elected representatives and are responsible and accountable to the Australian people. It is appropriate that they retain responsibility for authorising the official yes/no arguments.

In seeking to provide a more flexible and adaptable approach, the committee has recommended that a referendum panel be established for each referendum. The panel would be responsible for promoting the referendum and educating voters regarding the arguments. This would include determining the word limit of the yes/no pamphlet, as well as providing background material to electors on the referendum proposal.

These changes mean that there would be more than one way to communicate with electors before a referendum. The yes/no pamphlet would continue to be provided to electors and this would serve as a guaranteed minimum for referendum material. However, additional material, using a range of communication technologies, could be more effectively targeted to different groups of electors. The panel would comprise a maximum of eight persons, and should include a representative of the Australian Electoral Commission. The method of appointment to the panel should ensure independence and bipartisanship, and the government would determine the budget for the panel.

Further, it is clear that many Australians are not familiar with the Constitution. The committee has recommended that the Australian government develop and implement a national civics education program to enhance the engagement of the public in democratic processes and to improve knowledge and understanding of the Constitution. The title of this report is A time for change: yes/no? The report concerns the opportunity to change our Constitution. It does not promote change but acts to ensure that the opportunity for change is fair and represents the informed views of voters. We can and should do better in educating and engaging voters in the referendum process and so, yes, it is time to change the machinery we use for referendums.

I thank those who participated in committee hearings and roundtables and provided submissions to the inquiry. I also thank the secretariat for their work. And finally I thank the other members of the committee for their dedication and contribution to the inquiry. In particular I thank the inquiry secretary, Serica Mackay and research officer Angela Arundell, and also Anna Dacre, Sharon Bryant, Claire Young and Ozi Kosemehmetoglu.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is one of the few reports of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which have a dissenting report from a number of opposition members. While there is a dissenting report, I think that one ought to recognise that the process of the inquiry, with the roundtable, was very positive. There was a lot of initiative expressed by many people, and the committee worked well together despite the fact that at the end, when one was considering the deliberations emanating from the roundtable, members of the opposition found it necessary to lodge a dissenting report.

There is no doubt that the Australian Constitution is the foundation on which our Australian democracy is created. We have freedom; we have stability; we have a way of life that makes us the envy of people around the world. Consequently, any attempt to tamper with our Constitution or to interfere with the process of referenda to alter our Constitution ought to be undertaken only after the most careful consideration. Consequently, while the concept of a discussion on streamlining the process of constitutional referenda certainly is something in which all of us ought to participate, on balance the opposition members of the committee—or those who signed the dissenting report—could not go along with the majority view as expressed by the chairman. I would like to join the chairman in thanking the inquiry secretariat and indeed the committee secretary for the excellent service which the committee received, as always, when preparing the report entitled A time for change: yes/no?

In the time that is available to me, I would just like to mention briefly that the opposition members who signed the dissenting report wanted to make a comment about a number of recommendations. With respect to recommendation 1, it was felt that the generality of the recommendation calling for an amendment of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to improve the process was unhelpful, and it did not detail what amendments should be made. It was felt that this recommendation could not be accepted. Recommendation 2, which referred to the removal of the word restrictions of the yes/no cases, was a matter of concern because the recommendation did not preclude a decrease in the word limit.

Recommendation 3, if adopted, would have resulted in the yes/no booklet only being delivered to each household. As we know, in a democracy not everyone in every household necessarily agrees on everything. It was felt by opposition members that if individual electors did not receive a yes/no case then it could be that electors, who had a responsibility to participate in the referendum process, would not necessarily each receive a list of the cases in favour of change and, of course, against change.

With respect to recommendation 6, while opposition members generally agreed with the recommendation for the development and implementation of a national civics education program, it was felt that the recommendation would be enhanced if it included provision for such a program to be developed and delivered in conjunction with non-government organisations currently promoting and operating education programs about the Australian Constitution. Such organisations, as was indicated in the dissenting report, could include CEFA and the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies.

Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 referred to a referendum panel. The feeling was that such a panel would be unelected and unaccountable, whereas all of us are elected to the parliament and we are at least responsible to the Australian people. Consequently, recommendations 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 could not be supported because they referred to the referendum panel. Recommendations 4, 5, 11, 16 and 17 are supported.

This was an extremely useful and worthwhile inquiry. We were all pleased to be able to participate because—let us face it—democracy is a fragile flower and our Constitution is the foundational structure which makes sure that we are the wonderful country that we are. That is why any attempt to tamper with our Constitution or processes ought to be carefully scrutinised.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Isaacs wish to move a motion in accordance with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.