Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor senators also talked about facts and myths. Let me share one fact and it was reported in The Australian on Tuesday, 18 June, by Christian Kerr. It said:

The row erupted as a brief by the West Australian Local Government Association emerged, containing the admission that 'Refining the Constitution will create a slightly broader head of power for the federal government' but omits to mention grants would be tied.

Let me share another myth. The first chapter in this deceit is the decision not to fund equally the yes and no campaigns. The second chapter in this deceit is to set up the referendum task force unit using $1.6 million of Australian taxpayers' money—not a secret, it was in the Senate estimates process. When I challenged the government to give me a guarantee that this $1.6 million sub-branch of the yes campaign would not be used to promote just one side of the argument, this is what I was told. The official said:

We would be providing the normal support to the minister on a range of tasks.

I said:

But you are the referendum taskforce unit. To an outside observer it could look like you are becoming an advocate for the referendum proposal. Is that true? So is $1.6 million being allocated to advocate for the referendum?

The official said:

The taskforce is there to provide support to the government to deliver the referendum.

She said, further on:

The taskforce, as I said, is a part of the department, so in the same way as the department is established to serve the requirements of the government, so is the referendum taskforce. We in the taskforce will implement government policy, which is to facilitate the running of a referendum.

This deceit does not have one chapter; it has two. That is what we know today. What will we know tomorrow?

I think it is worth considering for a moment what the government's decision earlier this week means. We know there is $10 million for the yes campaign and $500,000 for the no campaign—and I add that money does not necessarily mean you have the most convincing argument. If we look at the 1974 referendum on the same issue and at the national vote that was achieved for both the yes and no campaigns, we see the funding allocation looks much fairer, with $4.6 million for the yes campaign and $5.3 million for the no campaign. If we look at the 1988 referendum result, we see there was $3.3 million for the yes campaign and $6.6 million for the no campaign. Integrity and fairness must be integral to this process. But, when I asked the government at Senate estimates, 'Can you guarantee that the process will be fair,' this is what Senator Lundy had to say:

It is certainly our intention to have a fair process. I cannot be any more specific than the officers, but we will do what we can and make it as fair a process as possible.

I said:

Great, so fairness means that you will guarantee that the activities of the referendum taskforce—

Senator Lundy interrupted:

No, I will not say anything specific, but I am telling you it is the intention of the government to make this a fair process.

This was the exchange at estimates on 30 May. It continued:

Senator SMITH: So you cannot specifically—

Senator Lundy: No.

Senator SMITH: You cannot specifically guarantee fairness?

Senator Lundy replied that she was happy to take that on notice. So she took it on notice on 30 May and, at the beginning of this week, Australians found out that what the government was doing was not enshrining fairness but damaging the fabric of our democratic process.

There is much for this Labor government to be ashamed of, but surely this must be the most shameful moment of all. But there is a redeeming feature. This particular element of this particular debate means the referendum secret is no more, and Australians will now be forced to examine the facts, which speak for themselves: Labor cannot be trusted to govern our country; Australians should not trust them to change the Constitution. That is as clear as it can be, as clear as it can get.

The bipartisanship that has often been talked about is close to being in tatters, and it should be. The good faith of many people has been breached, including the good faith of the Leader of the Opposition and the good faith of the Senate. I think it is time for the Australian Local Government Association and the Western Australian Local Government Association to distance themselves from this particular element of the campaign and call for equal funding of the yes and no campaigns. That is the right thing to do, that is a fair thing to do and it is in keeping with the Australian character.