Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to 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.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill advances the government's commitment to hold a referendum to enshrine the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution, the Voice that will advise the parliament and the executive about matters that affect First Nations people. The Prime Minister has said the referendum will be held sometime between October and December, so there is a pressing need for us to modernise the legislation that governs how this referendum will be held.

Referendums are an important part of our democracy. The Constitution is the rulebook that governs our nation, yet there is no recognition in our founding document of this country's first peoples of more than 65,000 years of continuous connection to the land. The Constitution is the people's document. Politicians can't change it. Parliaments can't change it. Only the Australian people can change the Constitution, and it is my deepest wish that later this year Australians will vote 'yes' for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through the Voice.

Twenty-four years have passed since the last referendum, and since that time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 has not kept pace with changes in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The bill will make amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context and ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election. The bill will also ensure that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections apply to the Voice referendum.

This bill also seeks to establish a financial disclosure framework for referendums to support transparency and accountability, as I have said. The accountability that I'm referring to is about expenditure. This bill replicates financial disclosure obligations in the Electoral Act, requiring those involved in referendum campaigning, referred to as 'referendum entities', to disclose how much they spend and receive on campaigning.

With respect to the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, amendments will be moved on this in the Senate, and I make that point very loudly. We are making a significant concession on this issue by agreeing to have both 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, and we hope the opposition sees this and meets us halfway to support this legislation.

I want to briefly talk about what the Voice is. Put simply, the Voice is an advisory body that will consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the matters that affect us. The Voice means delivering better practical outcomes in health, education and housing. The Voice is part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the largest consensus of Indigenous Australians on the way forward for this country. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create lasting change. As the Prime Minister has said, the Voice will be an unflinching source of advice and accountability, a body with the perspective and the power and the platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth about what's working and what is not.

The Referendum Working Group has released design principles for the Voice. Those principles identify the Voice as a body that provides independent advice to the parliament and the government. It is chosen by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities. It is representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It is empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced and includes young people. It is accountable and transparent. It works alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. The Voice would not have a program delivery function, and the Voice would not have a veto power.

The next critical question is why the Voice is needed. Despite inhabiting this land for more than 65,000 years we have no place in the Constitution. It's like we never existed. For too long, policies were designed for Indigenous Australians, not with Indigenous Australians. To borrow a line from the Uluru statement, in 1967 we were counted; in 2017 we wish to be heard. We can't accept more of the same poor outcomes and more of the same gaps in life expectancy. That is why a voice to parliament is needed, because the Voice to Parliament will mean governments of all persuasions will need to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the issues that affect us. Respect works. Recognition works. When a government listens to people with experience and with knowledge of country and culture then the policies and the programs are always more effective.

This brings me to the next question: why does the Voice matter to all Australians? I believe everyone wants to make Australia a better place, whether your descendants came here on the First Fleet or your family arrived here during postwar migration. It doesn't matter if you live in the suburbs or the bush. We all want to make Australia a better place. We all want to see Australia move forward for everyone, and constitutional recognition through a voice will do that. Australians are proud of the unique place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold in our shared history and, importantly, our shared future. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build lasting change. It's on all of us present to commit to work hard. This needs to be done. Let's get this done together.

I want to speak briefly about the 60 Minutes report last night on Aboriginal deaths in custody: 527 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have died in custody since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is a national tragedy. The footage of Veronica Nelson dying alone in pain was harrowing. Veronica made 49 pleas for help, and they were all ignored by the authorities. My heart goes out to Veronica's mother, Donna Nelson, and her family and loved ones.

Too many of our people are being robbed of their futures by a justice system that has failed them. I am working with the Attorney-General and Senator Dodson to implement the government's $99 million First Nations justice initiative. This means working with local communities to prevent First Nations people from entering the justice system. As Senator Dodson said to me this morning, the best way to prevent deaths in custody is to make sure our people aren't ending up in prison in the first place, and that is why justice reinvestment is so important.

Our justice reinvestment policy will enable up to 30 communities to establish locally tailored initiatives that address the underlying causes of incarceration and deaths in custody. Existing community-led justice investment models such as those in Bourke have proven successful in reducing incarceration and reoffending by providing targeted supports and services into their communities. To support these efforts, Labor will also establish an independent National Justice Reinvestment Unit as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and this unit will assist communities to develop and evaluate justice reinvestment initiatives in ensuring valuable lessons can be learned and shared across this country.

I want to conclude by quoting Galarrwuy Yunupingu from North-East Arnhem Land. He said, 'Together we must secure a future for Australia in which we can find harmony and balance for all people of this nation.' Galarrwuy has worked with no fewer than 10 prime ministers of Australia on the struggle for recognition, and has lived through many disappointments and broken promises. 'I am fire,' he said, 'and that fire must burn until there is nothing left.' The 1988 Barunga Statement still hangs upstairs in this place. Galarrwuy has been crystal clear:

We need to obtain balance in a new settlement. Indigenous Australians must be brought in from the cold.

To obtain balance, we must ensure that every Australian has the opportunity to involve themselves in the discussion. All Australians must think about their future.

Galarrwuy has despaired at the big talkers and the noise in the past, and I can only imagine that he must be doing so again now. If Galarrwuy were in this place, he would remind us that the future is our responsibility. All who are here today would be asked for their leadership on reconciliation, recognition and the referendum. Let's take Australia forward for everyone.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 amends the referendum machinery to align with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I'm generally satisfied that the tidying up and modernising aspects of this bill are necessary and appropriate, and I agree with them. There are, however, three aspects of the bill about which I have serious concerns.

Firstly, they relate to the provisions relating to financial disclosure and how these will interact with the current JSCEM inquiry into disclosure thresholds and real-time disclosure of political donations generally, in relation to both federal elections and federal referenda. If we know that system is broken, why repeat it for the referendum? Secondly, I'm concerned about the government's suspension of subsection 11(4) and the lack of detail on its recently reported about face on a pamphlet for a yes and no campaign, when such pamphlets will be distributed and what fact checking will be required in relation to the content of those pamphlets. Thirdly, I wonder why this bill does not address truth in political advertising and referenda advertising—particularly the issues set out in my Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. So I am surprised that this bill includes matters relating to financial disclosure, which are currently the subject of the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election. The JSCEM inquiry is, amongst other things, tasked with considering reforms to political donation laws, particularly the applicability of real-time disclosure and a reduction of the disclosure threshold to a fixed $1,000. I agree with Dr Paul Kildea from the University of New South Wales that the bill's regulation of referendum donations and spending is well overdue but, in replicating the political finance provisions of the Electoral Act, this bill and these amendments are adopting the problems of a high disclosure threshold and not requiring real-time disclosure, so we know there is a problem. In one of the most significant questions we're going to put to the Australian people, we are embedding and replicating the very problems we know mar our election process.

On the subject of the suspension of section 11(4), the minister claims that, instead of issuing pamphlets or funding a 'yes' or 'no' campaign, the government will fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the voice, including providing voters with a good understanding of Australia's Constitution, the referendum process and factual information about the referendum proposal. There is no detail given as to what this will entail or when it will be implemented. I note that on the 8 February this year the finance minister confirmed that existing laws requiring a pamphlet for both sides would be maintained. Despite this, the explanatory memorandum states that temporary suspension of 11(4) will ensure that there is more than one way to communicate with electors before a referendum, and it allows parliamentarians to choose how and when to engage with their relevant constituency.

The intent of the government was to offload engagement with constituents to individual parliamentarians and the private sector to navigate the maelstrom. This was and is particularly concerning for independent members of parliament in particular, whose resources are already stretched very thin. I call on the minister to give more detail about the timing of the issuing of these 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, and the extent to which it is now intended that individual parliamentarians would bear the burden of disseminating the government's civics education as well as delivering the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets. It does beg the broader question of how much our education system is failing in civics education when it comes to Australian people understanding the Australian Constitution and the role of a referendum. It just shows that we still have a low level of constitutional literacy and understanding of our systems of government and how they work.

What we do know about is the lack of regulation around misleading and deceptive conduct not only in political elections but also in referenda erodes trust. It means that you have a standard that is below the standard the Australian people expect. In business and commerce, we have regulation. But for these questions of elections and referendums, where we are really debating and where the Australian people are being asked to vote on incredibly important questions, there are no protections; it is a free for all. There is an opportunity before the government to ensure that there that fact checking, and it really should happen.

Prior to Christmas I tabled the bill known as the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. Various iterations of this have been debated for years. We know this is needed. This is overwhelmingly supported by conservative and progressive voters, left and right alike. They feel cheated by the system and that there is no regulation around political advertising. The bill that I presented had been drafted deliberately to extend to both elections and referenda. The stop the lies bill must be considered in scheduling the order of these bills, so that the very important issue of truth in political advertising is addressed before the consideration of the government's bill.

The terms of reference for the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election include the consideration of the potential for truth in political advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. I note that the JSCEM advisory report on this bill, delivered only some weeks ago, declined to recommend establishing a truth in political advertising regime, saying that the forthcoming referendum is not the right time, given that the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election has not yet published its report. We know there is a problem. We are about to ask the Australian people to respond to one of the most essential questions, our next step in our reconciliation journey. This will have a mark on Australia for years to come. The government knows it needs to protect truth and is failing to do that. It is nonsensical.

The government is intent on pressing ahead with this bill before the outcome of the JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election, and it really has not delivered any information on how it is going to ensure that there is no misleading and deceptive content in either the 'yes' or 'no' pamphlets but also at large in the debate. If this isn't the right time on a question of such importance that we're putting to the Australia people, when will be? The proposed referendum is already generating a substantial amount of energetic debate, and divisions are appearing which are not only following political party lines but also occurring within and outside political parties. It's important that we have open public discussion. That is an incredibly important thing as part of a democracy. But there is clearly potential out there for passion to override moderation and for false and misleading statements to be made. We know there has really been that in relation to the referendum. Legislation like the stop the lies bill is needed more than ever, and it's needed now. We really need to address this.

Australians know they face an incredibly important question this year, one that is long overdue. We can't undo the past, but we certainly can all take responsibility for the future we want to create for Australia. What do we stand for as a nation? For my part and for many in Warringah, I know we have a deep-seated desire to ensure that there is constitutional recognition for First Nations people, that we must do better in closing the gap, that what we have done for so many years has failed to close the gap. We must address the simple question of better listening to communities and ensuring that, when policies are going to directly impact First Nations people, their advice is sought and they are listened to, with an understanding of the impact those policies will have.

So I welcome this bill to amend the referendum provisions. There's no doubt that the bill as it is currently drafted is for another century, another era, and it needs to be updated. But there are some key areas that really haven't been addressed by the government. For me, that's sloppy. At the end of the day, we don't want to be looking back, after the debate on the referendum, and saying: 'This debate has been marred by so much misleading and deceptive content. If only we had done something about fact checking, stopping false claims being made as to the effect of the amendment that's proposed to the Constitution. If only we had done that.' I call on the government to really do that at this point. It's important that we protect this process. We mustn't have an erosion of trust in the referendum. It really is so important that we get this right. It means you have to tick all the boxes, not just some or the easier one or the more obvious ones.

The process has started in Warringah. I have already distributed information about how referendums work, information about the draft motion and the draft proposed amendments to the Constitution. And people are incredibly keen to understand and engage with this debate. They want to listen to experts. They want to listen to First Nations people. That's why it's so exciting that there's going to be a forum in Warringah, coming up in April, with Dean Parkin—so we can really talk about the importance of this decision for all Australians. This is not just a responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This is a responsibility for all Australians. We all have a responsibility for what kind of nation we want to be. Do we want to take that next step of reconciliation?

So I urge the government to go all the way, to make sure we have a fair and respectful debate and to make sure that we stamp out misleading and deceptive facts so that we can be proud of this referendum's process and proud of its outcome.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:

(1)in relation to any referendum, communicate timelines for the distribution of any yes and no pamphlets; and

(2)ensure that there is an independent process of verifying the accuracy of the facts contained within said pamphlets".

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that I start today by acknowledging the traditional owners and original custodians of the First Nations land upon which we meet. I pay my respects to our elders who have come before, our elders with us today and our elders who are emerging to become the leaders of tomorrow. Further, I believe it is important to recognise that the land upon which we all work—the land upon which we all love, learn and live—always was and always will be the land of our First Nations brothers and sisters. As a proud Wiradjuri man, the son of a caring and compassionate Wiradjuri father and a strong, independent Wiradjuri grandmother, living on the lands of the original custodians on the New South Wales Central Coast, and speaking today in the home of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri, I acknowledge this land.

That's because for 65,000 years, our culture has been one of love, openness and respect. For 65,000 years, our communities have had, and still have, a strong, deep, continuous connection to land and to culture. For 65,000 years, we have been a part of this land. And now it is time that our people have their voice. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament will achieve practical outcomes for First Nations communities. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters in our Constitution and to ensure the Australian community is truly a place of equity, a place of equality and a place for all. As a Wiradjuri man living on Darkinjung country, I think that a Voice to Parliament is essential. It will ensure that we, as a united country, address the injustices of the past and create meaningful, structural change to deliver a better future. This is our best chance to come together as one, and to rise as one and to move into the future as one. As a nation, we need practical measures that will address the issues affecting First Nations communities, and this is what the Voice will do. It will give local people and local communities a say in the areas that directly affect them. Importantly, this is an opportunity to recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters in our nation's birth certificate: in our Constitution. Comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Voice will be an advisory body that will have the capacity to make representations to government on issues and legislation that will affect First Nations communities.

The idea is that we have policy tailored to meet the needs of First Nations people. While there have been several First Nations MPs and First Nations senators elected to the Australian parliament at the recent election, this may change in the future. The Voice will ensure there is a First Nations voice into that future. Furthermore, every person in the country has different circumstances and life experiences, and this is also true within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Thus it is important to have input from different parts of First Nations communities about the laws that will affect them. It will be in fact not just one voice; it will be the voice of many and the voice of many coming together as one. Moreover, this is not another chamber of government. It does not have the power to veto; it will be a body providing advice to those creating legislation.

Some of the issues affecting First Nations people are not improving; the gap is widening. If we continue down the same path we will continue to get more of the same. We need to come together as one community to improve and strengthen quality of life, health and education outcomes for our First Nations communities. The opposition have a chance to show leadership. They have a chance to give in-principle support to the Voice. And it would appear that the opposition is saying no just for the sake of saying no. In this significant, nation-defining opportunity, will the opposition listen to the voices of First Nations people—of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—who are, at the end of the day, only asking for a say in the matters that affect their communities? Or will the opposition stoke the fires of disunity and division, and advocate for poor outcomes, unfulfilled potential and widening gaps in health and education?

The Voice to Parliament is not merely a symbolic gesture. It is constitutional recognition. It is an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who will give advice to government on issues that affect their communities—that will affect their lives. This is an opportunity and a time for unity.

In 2022, the government introduced the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, and that bill will make amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions in the referendum context to ensure consistency between the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This will ensure the voting process and experience of the referendum remains similar to that of a federal election, as well as implementing similar disclosure, transparency and integrity measures. The bill does not provide for any public funding of a 'yes' or of a 'no' campaign. The government does not intend to provide funding for these campaigns. The referendum act has not been used since 1999 and has not kept pace with the efficiency, transparency and integrity reforms in our electoral processes. This bill amends the referendum act to replicate current electoral machinery provisions in the referendum context. This will ensure a voter experience that is consistent with the 2022 federal election. When passed, this bill will modernise and streamline the referendum act to support voter familiarity and voter confidence in the process, as well as enabling the successful delivery of the referendum by the Australian Electoral Commission.

This bill establishes a simplified donations and disclosure regime for referendums aligned with the existing disclosure thresholds in the Electoral Act. This ensures transparency, and this will ensure accountability regarding those actors who seek to influence the outcome of the referendum. The bill will achieve the transparency that Australians expect in voting campaigns while minimising the regulatory burden on referendum campaigners. This does not prevent any Australian individual or entity from making donations or participating in the referendum campaign itself.

Many Australians have never voted in a referendum. I am one of those people; I myself have never voted in a referendum. Some may not know much about the Constitution and they may not know how we go about changing it. It's critical that the government provide factual and authoritative information about the referendum to combat misinformation and disinformation. The bill will temporarily suspend subsection 11(4) in the referendum act, which would otherwise prohibit the government from conducting campaigns that promote public awareness of a referendum proposal. This suspension creates no obligation for government to fund any 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, and the bill does not provide for any such funding. The suspension will last until the end of polling day at the next general election, which means the future parliaments may consider this issue as appropriate for future referendums.

Key measures within this bill have been developed in consultation with First Nations leaders via a Referendum Working Group. The Referendum Working Group includes a broad cross-section of representatives from First Nations communities across Australia and is chaired by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Special Envoy for Reconciliation and Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

I say again to this chamber, to all those in the gallery today and to all those listening at home: the Voice to Parliament is not simply and merely a symbolic gesture. It is constitutional recognition. It is an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to government on the issues that affect their communities—on the issues that affect their very lives. This is an opportunity, and this is a time for unity.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If not us, who? If not now, when? That was the simple challenge I put to the Goldstein community during the election campaign. It applied to revamping climate policy, it applied to revaluing women and girls, it applied to restoring trust in leadership, and it applies to the once-in-a-generation opportunity that is now before us. That's because the Voice is a simple proposition—a simple and generous invitation—but, if we do not accept it now, then when? As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it at a time when the United States faced one of its greatest challenges: we must now be touched by 'the better angels of our nature'.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 sounds pretty darn dull, but actually it's superexciting. It's about the truth—acknowledging the truth that First Nations people were the original custodians of this continent. It begins a process that will allow us to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution and then give First Nations people a say in the formulation of the policies and laws that affect them. It's as simple as that.

As the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister said in the second reading speech on the bill:

Referendums are an integral part of our democracy; however, the last referendum was held over 22 years ago.

Since that time, the … referendum act … has not kept pace with changes to the … Electoral Act …

The bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election.

The bill also ensures that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will apply to referendums.

These changes are important, but in my view they should be coupled with truth in political advertising laws under the member for Warringah's 'Stop the Lies' bill. Already in the initial stages of this debate we've seen information manipulated and deliberate omission of information during the political discourse. If disinformation is translated into political advertising and set loose via social media algorithms that favour false and negative information, it will spread like wildfire. Democratic processes should be free, fair and trusted, and that means stopping the lies that we see repeatedly during electoral periods. This is even more important in the context of a once-in-a-generation referendum that rests on the framework of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its three pillars: Voice. Treaty. Truth.

In short, from where I stand, the referendum is about three principles: respect, recognition, results—practicable, tangible results to close the gap for First Nations communities. This is a gap that, by listening to and hearing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I do believe we can begin to bridge through firsthand advice to parliament from First Nations people through the Voice. And I would say here that the Voice, when it's passed at the referendum, must make sure that those First Nations people who've had little connection with the process to date do indeed have a voice, a seat at the table. It should be built from the ground up, rather than from the top down, as the most prominent advocates have noted. That has been one of the biggest problems in the policies and programs for First Nations peoples to date.

I would make this point here, as we work to modernise this legislation to make it fit for purpose: the Voice is not flippant or kneejerk. This referendum is the culmination of 20 years of patient effort by our First Nations citizens—20 years. Indeed I was struck when reading an article about various efforts to give Indigenous Australians representation that the first Indigenous advisory body, the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, was announced by the Whitlam government in the year of my birth, 1972. Much as I hate to admit it, that's more than 50 years ago. Then there was the Fraser government's National Aboriginal Conference from 1977 and Hawke's ATSIC from 1990.

A key aim of this referendum is to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution so it's not subject to the ebbs and flows of party politics. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was first read out in 2017. That's six years ago that an invitation was issued. Our First Nations people have been patient in their advocacy, telling us that all the above models designed to improve their situation failed in part because they were designed from the top down, rather than the bottom up. That's why their direct Voice to parliamentarians like us is so important. The government says the referendum is a matter of principle—true, but it's about more than that. It's about practical results: how best to close the gap and spend time, money and effort in a practical way by listening and then taking practical actions. As a parliamentarian I say this firsthand advice will be invaluable.

It was a Liberal Prime Minister, Harold Holt, who initiated the landmark 1967 referendum of which we're all so proud. In principle the Holt Liberal-Country party government was asking voters whether to give the Commonwealth the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states and whether to include all Indigenous Australians when counting the nation's population. The referendum question actually read:

DO YOU APPROVE the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled—

'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population'—

not about what might follow the success of the referendum, not what laws might be enacted, not what policies might be adopted; simply the principle. Harold Holt didn't have to put up with the misinformation and disinformation that are already emerging around this referendum, and that's one of the reasons it was carried with a record majority of over 90 per cent, even though a second proposition in that referendum was defeated. Voters were able to make a distinction between what they wanted and what they did not, because decision makers and opinion leaders were united on the initial proposition but not the second. One little-mentioned and likely unintended effect of that referendum is that it took all reference to Indigenous Australians out of the Constitution—60,000 years of history and custodianship of this land, and not even mentioned. Here we have a once-in-a-generation chance for a next step.

Referendums are about principles. Parliaments are about laws. I have had discussions with some who oppose the Voice. I hear the concern about entrenching failed structures and about the need for female leaders to be a key part the Voice and indeed for a diversity of opinions and positions from Indigenous people who may not always be heard. We must be very careful when we reach the time for legislating to ensure these issues are considered and properly incorporated. The voices of those who are articulating valid concerns should be listened to as the process moves forward, but the principle stands.

In the marriage equality survey of 2017 the Goldstein community voted in favour with 76.3 per cent, well above the national average of 61.6 per cent. Based on the feedback I've received so far I believe the Goldstein community likely has a similar view on the Voice and this referendum. I campaigned on equality during the election campaign, and I know this resonated deeply with women in the Goldstein community and young people. The marriage equality ballot of 2017 saw an upsurge in enrolments from young people. They saw in that result that democracy works and their participation matters. It is one of the reasons, I believe, that young people flocked to the polls in record numbers last year. We need their confidence to ensure the enduring quality of our democracy, and for young people this referendum is another watershed.

For them, for the kids I talked to in and around Goldstein, what this referendum is seeking is a given. It not a contested space. As my 16-year-old son puts it: 'Mum, the voice is a huge opportunity for Australia to come together and begin a more formal road to reconciliation. It'll bring the nation closer than it ever has been before, improving the lives of Australia's First Nations people.' The kids are alright. He doesn't want to go down the wormhole of mis- and disinformation, distraction and distortion.

Infinite regress is a typical tactic of those who don't want to address the substance of an issue. It is simply to distort and confuse. It's one of the reasons why it's urgent that this parliament debate the member for Warringah's bill to stop the lies in political advertising, as she puts it in her proposed private member's bill. Also, now that the government has agreed to publish 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, how will they be fact-checked? What measures are in place to prevent the material in the pamphlets being skewed and manipulated, especially online? It is critical that we see a fair process for what I honestly hope and believe will be a fair result. In the words of the legendary Archie Roach: it's time to write a new story, to accept an invitation from Indigenous Australians for respect, recognition, and results. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by thanking the Attorney-General for his diligent work on this legislation. It is a brilliant piece of reform that will bring our referendum machinery into the modern era. The last time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act was updated was in 1984. In 1984, Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister, Western Australia abolished capital punishment, the first untethered spacewalk occurred and 'Original Sin', by INXS, was the No. 1 Australian single.

The world was a very different place 39 years ago. Social media didn't exist, computers could barely fit on a desk and modern forms of communication were but a dream. The notion that we run a 21st-century referendum based on archaic laws is absurd, and so I rise today to speak strongly support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 2022. Whether or not you support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, this legislation is crucial. At the end of the day, the job the Australian people send us here to do is to make laws. If you're a Labor government, you make good laws. And so this is exactly what we're doing. Elections, referenda and the machinery that governs them are the beating heart of our democracy. A referendum is the voice of the Australian people, speaking and directing their government down a path. Whether an election runs well is a difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy. We have seen the division a contested election can cause in communities in the United States. Australia must never head down that path, which is why the machinery that governs our upcoming referendum is so vital.

Labor has a proud history of electoral reform. It was Hawke who introduced disclosure thresholds for political donations. Our Special Minister of State has also flagged truth in political advertising is a particular area focus. One of the key measures of this bill is an education campaign for all Australians. Any Australian under the age of 40 will never have voted in a referendum campaign before. Now must be the moment in which we educate people on the importance of our Constitution. We must also educate people on what it means to amend our Constitution. If we want people to make an informed decision on what it is they're voting on, we must invest in their knowledge and their capability to do so. This is a monumental moment for our country, a chance to reshape our interactions with First Nations people. Yet, if we do not also grasp the opportunity to inform the Australian public on what it means to recognise our First Nations people in the Constitution, we will have missed a great opportunity.

The previous government, through their advertising efforts in their COVID-19 messaging, undertook an ambitious public education campaign. To do this, the government used mechanisms that people regularly use and can easily understand—TV, social media, radio and the internet. This is not a foreign concept or one without precedent. I sincerely hope that the opposition agrees with us here. We know that the way people interact with information is different in the modern era. Most people get their news and information online or on their devices. We all know that here we spend half of our lives staring at our phones. It is critical that we meet people where they are and that, as a government, we modernise the way we interact with people. That is at the heart of this legislation.

What is also essential in this legislation is how it aims to bring referenda voting closer to resembling a federal election. This means including provisions for postal voting, something we know is really important for people who may not be able to attend in person, for people with mobility issues and for the elderly. Our federal elections run well. We definitely have issues in my electorate of Lingiari around the vast logistical challenges of remote polling. In Lingiari, as you can imagine, there are about 195 remote polling booths in that electorate alone, which is something the AEC will need to be conscious of for this referendum.

All in all, our elections run to a high standard. Why should we not aim to emulate this in the upcoming referendum? This is particularly important for postal and prepoll voting, which we all know enhances participation in our democracy. Nowhere is this more important than in Lingiari, with a vast electorate, complex logistical efforts for remote polling and a deeply invested community. This referendum needs to run well. For regional Australia and, indeed, all of Australia, this legislation is vital.

I've made no secret that I am a major supporter of the Voice. If you look at the Uluru Statement from the Heart, you will see my signature. For 65,000 years our people have occupied this land. Surely it is time. We deserve a voice to this parliament; surely we deserve recognition in our country's Constitution. How else can this country move forward? Until we look back on our history, how can we ever look with hope to our future?

I was there when the largest gathering of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership was at Uluru. Now some people seek to undermine that meeting. I think that is cheap and disrespectful. This parliament consists of around 227 members. There were 250 First Nations leaders present at Uluru. Does that not validate the importance of that meeting? This parliament speaks with the authority of the Australian people, and at Uluru the leaders of our First Nations communities also spoke with authority. The Voice may be a new term for many people out bush and, certainly, a lot of people across the bush electorates that I have consulted. I'll be making sure that we work hard to ensure that people in remote communities, particularly in Lingiari, understand what we are embarking on. But what is well understood is that Aboriginal people need to have input into policies that affect them. If you ask people, like I have, from Warlpiri to Tiwi to Anmatjere to Yolngu, 'Should your communities be consulted on policies that affect you?' The answer I am hearing overwhelmingly is yes. Our people want better outcomes on health, on education, on housing—right across the board. How are we to get these outcomes if our mob are not included or keep being excluded in the discussion?

As it stands, our Constitution, our nation's founding document, is incomplete. It does not tell the story of our First Peoples. And, indeed, for a long time, it actively discriminated against them. We need to correct this. Australians are known as the people of a fair go. Australians believe in justice. We know what is right and we stand up for people around us. It is time for Australia to extend this to our First Nations people and to join them on a journey forward, an exciting journey and one that seeks to bring our country closer together. But more than that, if we are ever to make significant inroads between our First Nations people and others in this nation we need these practical reforms, reforms that put the views, interest and voice of our First Peoples at the heart of government decision-making. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians said, 'In 1967 we sought to be counted. In 2017 we seek to be heard.' It is the unfinished business of this country. First Nations people seek to be heard.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and, given that your speech was interrupted, you'll be given permission to resume it then.