Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 6 to 14), omit the clause.

This relates to clause 4 of the bill, which suspends the subsection of the act that places a cap on the expenditure that the government may make with regard to the holding of a referendum—which we now know, in fact, is to be held. In supporting the proposal that we should remain with simply the yes/no case being properly prepared and posted to each elector—which will be the subject of the second amendment proposing that it goes to electors and not to households—I refer to the fact that the Electoral Commission pointed out that, if there were not sufficient time for the preparation of additional material to be put together, the risks that would be invoked because of the short time frame between now and the holding of the referendum could include the following. I read from their submission dated 1 January 2013:

Should the AEC not commence preparation of the referendum campaign components until 1 March—

and I point out that we are now at 14 May. One of the risks referred to is:

… elevated potential for criticism by stakeholders, interest groups or the wider public (during the campaign or afterwards) if they perceive that the campaign advertising:

The submission referred to:

In other words, the Electoral Commission itself has said that that this short time frame that is now available for the preparation of material for a referendum on 14 September is going to pose risks as to whether or not it is seen by the Australian people to be properly conducted. This, of course, would only be compounded by the fact that not every elector is to receive a copy of the pamphlet individually.

The Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General pointed out that in 1999, when we had a stand-alone referendum, this clause was suspended. But, of course, at that stage it was a stand-alone referendum, not one held concurrently with an election, and therefore the confusion element was not there. Secondly, it was at a time when we were having surpluses, the government was in good financial shape, the country was being well run and we were not in the parlous financial state that we presently are in. As I said earlier in my speech in the second reading debate, if the additional expenditure which the government wishes to make were to be allowed by suspending this clause, it would mean that we were being fiscally irresponsible in spending money that does not need to be spent and could be put towards some other good cause. So, when we are looking at the importance of not suspending this clause, I would say, firstly, that it is financially sound and, secondly, that it is heeding both the report of Mr Spigelman and the predictions of the Electoral Commission itself as to why, in this truncated time, it would be unwise to embark on additional expenditure which is outside the parameters of section 11(4).

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, the government opposes this amendment. This is a proposal by the opposition to retain a cap on spending that has been in the referendum (machinery provisions) legislation since 1912. That is where the member for Mackellar wants to take Australian electoral processes back to—1912.

The context is that this whole matter of what was to be the machinery provisions to apply to the next referendum to be held in our country was considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in a report in 2009, and we seem to have a change of heart by this opposition because the opposition members of that Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2009 supported the removal of the limitation on spending for the purposes of referendums. But, of course, this opposition, represented here by the member for Mackellar, is nothing but negativity and obstructionism. One can only say that what has just been said by the member for Mackellar borders on the bizarre. She has quoted from an AEC submission to the joint select committee into the holding of this referendum, and the particular passage from which she read refers to the risk of inadequate advertising material, in particular such matters as the risk that the advertising material in association with the referendum would not be culturally adequate, would not be culturally specific enough, and a range of other risks—all of them directed properly by the Australian Electoral Commission to its concern that the Australian electorate be as fully informed as possible.

So what is the response put forward by the member for Mackellar? It is to propose that there should be no advertising; it is to propose that the only communication with Australian electors for the purposes of this referendum on recognising local government in our Constitution—bringing our Constitution a little bit alive and bringing it into the 21st century to recognise existing practice—is a yes/no pamphlet, a device that was invented in 1912, which is where the member for Mackellar wants to take us back to.

The removal of this cap on spending was supported by opposition members in 2009, and no explanation has been put forward by the member for Mackellar as to why it should not now be proceeded with. I would add that all parties, historically, have recognised that an effective referendum campaign—effective meaning that there is a high level of interest and a high rate of engagement by the voting public, not by the ultimate outcome of the vote, but effective in the sense of engagement—requires much more government input and financing than simply a yes/no pamphlet.

In 1999, $4.5 million was spent on a public information kit for the referendum on the republic, and $15 million was divided between the two opposing committees—there was a yes committee and a no committee—and another $16.9 million was provided to the electoral commission for the yes/no pamphlet and related advertising costs. That is a total of $36.4 million spent by the Howard government in 1999 on that referendum. The Howard government, quite properly, recognised the need for a range of funding avenues. I just quote again from what the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee noted about this subject. They said:

The increased funding allocated to the 1999 referendum to provide for both educational material and further campaign advertising illustrates the significant difference between what is necessary for an effective referendum and what is provided for in the Machinery of Referendums Act… the Yes/No pamphlet alone is insufficient to educate and engage the public.

The reality is that starving this campaign of sensible, reasonable funding will mean that the Australian community is unaware of and disengaged from the information that they need to make an informed vote in September. It is shameful. This opposition when in government removed the cap on spending for the purposes of a referendum and explained in detail why it was necessary to do so, seemingly understanding then in government that simply sending out 2,000 words in the yes case and 2,000 words in no case in a pamphlet to Australian electors was not sufficient. This is what the then-Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, had to say on the removal of the cap:

In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.

This opposition does not want that; it does not want the Australian people to be informed. Fundamentally they are an antidemocratic opposition.(Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that it is important to make a couple of points. Firstly, the existing legislation was passed in 1984 by the Hawke government. There were referenda in 1984. That is a long way past 1912.

It is important that people are properly informed, and that is why we are insisting that the pamphlet should be sent to each elector, not a household where it can simply be taken by one member of the household and disposed of and nobody else can even see it. It is important that it goes to each elector. I cannot stress enough how important it is—when we are talking about either the electoral roll for election purposes, or we are talking about conducting a referendum—that individual electors have to be the centre and main focus, not some grandiose plan that you can put information out there and hope that people will pick it up via advertising, squandering money at a time when we simply do not have any money.

The reason that I made a differential between what happened in 1999 and what is happening now is that then we had the money we could afford to spend. This time we do not have the money to spend. We have a government which is going to bring in another deficit here tonight, a deficit every year from Mr Swan in perhaps swan song. Indeed, if we are to be seen as fiscally responsible—as we wish to be—and live within our means, then you do not squander money on a campaign which is not necessary and at the same time deny the right of electors to receive directly information concerning that change.

We had a lot of fire and brimstone from the Attorney-General, and that is fine in firepower terms, but I do not think it is very convincing in terms of the need not to spend money unnecessarily, but to properly inform electors with the emphasis on electors as distinct from householders, and also to ensure that we do not go down the slippery slope of thinking that without properly connecting each individual elector you can have a proper referendum with people being properly informed. Point No. 1: if you want people to be informed, send the information to them directly and as an individual, not as a collective.

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

The member for Mackellar has just spoken to her second amendment, as I understand it, and this is also—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

On that basis, I will simply say that there is a complete hollowness in the member for Mackellar attempting to suggest that it is a desire to save money that is prompting this restriction of information to the Australian public about this practical and important change to our Constitution. I say again: the removal of the cap on the spending in association with referendums was accepted by opposition members in the deliberations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs back in 1999, and for good reason. You simply cannot say in the 21st century that this procedure is possible by use of a Yes/No pamphlet, a printed pamphlet, a procedure first devised in 1912. The member for Mackellar might point to the fact that the particular act of parliament that we are now seeking to amend was passed by this parliament in 1984, but the provision for the Yes/No pamphlet, which was taken up almost in identical words in the 1984 act of parliament, was first introduced to referendum procedures in 1912. We have not used the Yes/No pamphlet at every single referendum since 1912 for a range of reasons, but at most referendums it has been used. That procedure dates from 1912 and that is where the member for Mackellar would take us back to.

There is something grossly inconsistent about the two amendments that are being put forward here by the member for Mackellar: on the one hand saying that the opposition do not want to spend any money in ensuring that there is appropriate information provided to Australian electors and, on the other hand, saying that they want to retain the wasteful expenditure of sending an individual package of the Yes/No pamphlet, even if there are five, 10 or 15 of these packages going to the same household. The Australian Electoral Commission has pointed to the wastefulness of that expenditure of an additional $4 million. We will save $4 million by not sending this Yes/No pamphlet to every single elector—and that is what the member for Mackellar wants to happen—but rather by sending it to addresses. There is a gross inconsistency in saying that, on the one hand, 'We don't want to spend any money,' and then in the next amendment, saying, 'We want to spend an additional, wasteful $4 million in order to send it to every elector, apparently on the basis that that provision has been there for a long time.

The purpose of lifting the cap is to make sure that appropriate means of communication are used. By that, I mean the use of the internet—which perhaps the member for Mackellar has now discovered—the use of television advertising, something that did not exist in 1912, or the use of radio advertising, which also did not exist in 1912. I assume that the member for Mackellar has got some awareness of these modern communication techniques. We are now in the 21st century and, because we are in the 21st century, there is a need to provide for proper communications techniques. I will quote again from what the committee had to say in its 2009 report:

The increased funding allocated to the 1999 referendum to provide for both educational material—

because that is what we are directing this to—

and further campaign advertising illustrates the significant difference between what is necessary for an effective referendum and what is provided for in the Machinery of Referendums Act.

The committee went on to say:

The processes and campaigns introduced for the 1999 referendum—

the last time we went to a referendum in this country—

suggests that the current provisions are not working, and specifically, that the Yes/No pamphlet alone is insufficient to educate and engage the public.

The member for Mackellar wants to neither educate nor engage the public, as shown by these amendments.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to, again, point out that the date of the existing legislation is 1994, as passed by the Hawke government, and that there have been referendums since that time. It is also important to point out that the $4 million that the minister would like to save in postage is, presumably, money he would like to spend on promoting heaven only knows what. Although that committee proposed, back in 2009, that any additional expenditure be provided equally for the yes and no case, there is no provision for that in this amendment bill, just merely to suspend section 11(4). We believe that it is important—and, again, I stress this—that every individual elector receives the information, that they may individually be informed. The minister seems to be saying, 'No, that's not necessary. One pamphlet into any old household and then we will make up for it by having a full-on advertising campaign, paid for by the taxpayer, without any provision for it to be fair expenditure on a yes or no case.'

I think that, when the Hawke government introduced this legislation back in 1984 and put a cap on expenditure, it was a sensible thing to do. In this time, when we are so stretched for cash, when we are so indebted as a nation, to waste money by spending like this is fiscally irresponsible. So I put forward a number of reasons as to why we should oppose the suspension of section 11(4). I think those reasons are compelling and I would commend those reasons to the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (2):

(2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), omit the items.

The amendment removes those sections from the bill which would enable the yes-no case to be sent to households—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar has the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would mean that the yes-no case could be sent to households, as distinct from electors. As I said in my second reading speech, we believe that it is imperative that the concept of an elector is fundamental to the proper carrying out of an election and, indeed, of a referendum. So we believe that it is vitally important that this provision be removed so that we may return to the situation of the 1984 act, whereby every elector would receive the yes-no case. It would also prevent the Electoral Commissioner from making decisions about which address he may deem the fit one to send material to. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, with regard to emails, there is no available email register. There is no proper knowledge of which people have email addresses and which do not. At this stage, for 2013—it may be different in the future—we should maintain the position of posting, not sending, the yes-no case to every elector as an individual.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that this bill be agreed to.