Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to talk on this matter as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We had an inquiry on the bill over the January period. I think the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 does a lot right. There is some harmonisation of the electoral processes that is well and truly needed. Some of the amendments that have been foreshadowed probably go a step too far in trying to lead the electoral process; I think we should harmonise wherever we can. There are some great changes that I support coming up in amendments, but they are things I would like to see first in the Electoral Act before launching a referendum.

The problem with going this late on the speaking list is that all the good things have already been said. I will have to do a bit of making up, but I like constitutional change. I like the option of it. I like the idea of a country being able to have referenda to change its document. I quote a couple of previous prime ministers. Sir Robert Menzies said, 'The Constitution is not an unchangeable tablet of stone but a living document responsive to changing conditions and needs.' Quite topical at the moment: 'The constitution is a reflection of our values and aspirations as a nation. It should be changed when those values and aspirations change.' That was Paul Keating, who is in and out of favour depending upon the day.

I would like to see referendum machinery that is fit for all purposes, not just one that we're changing for this referendum—a referendum position to going through constitutional change where we aren't fearful of losing the referendum; we're joyous at being able to put the question to the Australian people and for them to have a say in an informed and considered way. Ultimately, that is where I have a problem with where this bill comes down in the end and is why there is the dissenting report of the coalition members in the inquiry. There is, as Senator Paterson put it, a thumb on the scale. It's not seen as a fair fight. It's seen that there is some advantage in starving resources from a constitutional question this time, and to me that doesn't work in longevity. We want people to walk into the light knowing what they're talking about, knowing what the consequences are. This isn't a blind date. You don't go in hoping it goes well and then getting unintended consequences.

In Australia we've had not a lot of luck with constitutional reform, and we haven't had a lot of unintended consequences from that, but around the world I notice, of all places, Bolivia in 2009, when a new constitution came in. One of the things it did was to give a lot more rights to Indigenous people, who had been suppressed for some time. It ended up in violence and significant problems because it wasn't well considered. It wasn't gone through. It was put in as part of a whole new constitution. We Australians, as a nation—everyone here—need to take a more open and considered look at these changes.

As I said, I wish there were more of them. I wish the government had no stigma against putting forward things in this parliament, them being considered and getting it wrong—'No, we don't want that.' I'd like to see some work on property rights. It would not be just Mabo or The Castlecoming through but real property rights. When we're talking taking productive lands, the right for transmission lines for electricity, e-zones over farmers' lands and not fairly compensating that, I'd like to see constitutional questions there. Maybe there could be something on debt levels. All these sorts of things that are open, where we could do more as a country—just put them up. Have them every now and then. Go through the process.

I don't think this bill is fit for having a long-term lifespan as the way we hold referenda. I think it is a short-term beneficial thing in light of just one referenda: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. I don't want to get into the politics of that, because whether you support the change in the referendum shouldn't influence you; it should be the bill by itself.

When you acknowledge that a lot of corporate Australia in their ESG plans and a lot of sporting bodies will come out on one side of this referendum question, to starve the other side of resources seems a little exploitative and opportunistic. That's not good, because we need to be safe with our changes. We can't have unexpected consequences.

I had a real strange soliloquy. I was with my son when he went for his Ls on the weekend. You get 50 questions and you can get only two wrong. He sat through the whole thing. The last question was his second one wrong, so he failed on question 50. It seemed a little unfair, but then I thought, 'He's about to be on the road with other people and I want him to be safe.' If I ever got 48 out of 50 on a test, I would be pretty stoked, because I was never that smart. But he got that and he failed. It's the same with our Constitution. We want it to be safe and informed. We want to go through.

One of the great sorrows I see in this process is that, without greater clarity on what the question is and without greater clarity on how it will be implemented—and we are taking away funding for something that will give people knowledge of what will happen—it isn't a safe process. It's a process set for an outcome, and that is not fair.

As we go through we'll look at all of the issues one by one. I personally am in love with Senator David Pocock's exclusion amendment, as I'll probably have to spend this Saturday on a polling booth in Monaro for the state election. I'll come back on Monday sunburnt and either happy or unhappy. I love that amendment, but again it is too soon for that.

As we went through the joint standing committee process—and it has been mentioned by others, but I'll repeat it—there was a turning point for me on the pamphlet. I was swayed by the use of new technology to disseminate information. I was really interested and thought, 'That's right.' The turning point for me was the Australian Electoral Commission saying that 40 per cent of their respondents use the electoral booklet as their primary source of information for the election. A normal part is being included—I thank you for that change to bring that back in because, even if it's not the majority and even if their numbers are fudged a bit, a significant number of people will feel better about that.

When we come to how we go through the process and show up, concerns were raised by Senator Paterson, the previous speaker, about foreign interference. There is a specific purpose—and again I don't think it's to influence the outcome of this—to cause division. We are at a time in this country when people are looking at the next year or two years, are looking at their finances, are looking at their lives and are looking at what's going on. We are consistently talking about potential conflict around the region and we have a war in Ukraine. People are worried about a lot of things, so it doesn't take a lot to trigger disunity, disharmony and exploitation—'Someone is getting what I haven't got.' If we were better funded and had better provisions to protect Australians from having a go at one another, that would be a great thing.

All constitutional changes can be emotional. They change this country we've built over 100 years and the rules which we have. Some will be for the better and some are potentially for the worse—obviously they won't get up if they are for the worse. But we need more clarity and better vision. We need a better process so that people don't go, 'Oh, we didn't know,' because, as hard as it is to get constitutional change through a referendum, it is harder to get it undone.

The medical view is 'do no harm'. We can talk about lots of things with that. My fear is that, by having this as the referendum model that now works and that starves one side of resources, it will become the norm. That would be a horrible thing for our country. What could potentially be worse is if it doesn't get up because it is seen to be weighted. What does that do to the conversation in our nation about bringing more things forward? What does it do for people who had their hearts and souls in this? I think it's a management process in any election. I managed campaigns. I ran them. When you can show that something is not fair and you can show that something is loaded against them, people get their heads up. In this building, we have spent years having a go at one another. Negative advertising, truth in advertising—we're talking about all these things at JSCEM. We invest so much money and time making the public doubt us, think less of us and feel worse about our public processes. This will feed directly into that narrative.

Personally, I would love for there to be a time when, in the conversation about fact-finding, the South Australian model of truth in advertising were there when facts are wrong. But there are so many ways around it. If I want to make an accusation, 'Have you seen candidate A has got a criminal record?' I'll just get around that by asking a question, 'Do you know if candidate A has a criminal record?' I'll ask a question; I won't make it a fact. There are ways around it. We need to do better. We can't go complaining about the way this parliament, government and politicians act and why referendums are held if we keep being nongenuine and we keep doing things in our own interest. I think a great change would be one where any political advertising can only mention you, your candidates or your policies and you can't have a go at anyone else. It's clearly something that would make it a lot harder to place negative ads. That is something we have to think about when we're talking about some of the amendments, and I think Senator Pocock has got something on a factfinder's booklet. Whose facts and where are they? Facts are only when you say, '32 per cent of people,' or numbers or stats. They don't cover opinions or grey areas. We've got to do more work on it.

Constitutional reforms are great. Again, I would encourage us to do more of them. It's a time for people to have a greater say on the long-term future of their country and on things that can't be done by political will. But I think this bill needs to be constructed in a way that is fit for purpose for the long term. This doesn't do it; therefore we can't support it.