Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was rhetorical. I'm sure he does remember. In that referendum the choice was made by the then Labor government that they should allocate $10.5 million to the question of whether or not local government should be formally recognised in our Constitution, but $10 million was to be given to the Australian Local Government Association for the 'yes' case and $500,000 was to be given for the 'no' case. This allocation of funding was apparently based on the percentage of members of parliament who supported the change. I don't want to go back in history and analyse the reasons for that, but the basic proposition that you would give $10 million—20 times as much to one case over the other case—did not go down well with the Australian people. In fact, it actually hardened the opposition to the referendum. It was a strategic blunder by the then Labor government, and it didn't end well in terms of the prosecution of that case. So I think there is a lesson. We should learn from history. This is an example which suggests that we should look at providing equal funding to both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case—a minimal level of funding to ensure that the arguments can be ventilated in an appropriate way with the Australian people. If other people want to provide additional funding—absolutely. That's their right. We live in a democracy. There is no issue at all. But there should be at least a minimal level of equal funding for both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case, notwithstanding what the question is. Whatever the question is, whether it's the Voice or anything else, there should be that minimum, equal level of funding.

The last comment I want to make in relation to this matter is the way in which the debate is conducted, and I have spoken in this place before and called out what I consider to be egregious personal attacks which have been made on various members of this place who have stood up and given their perspective, their view, with respect to this question. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that, when senators—members of the lower house, members of the Australian community—get up and give a good-faith, bona fide position on this referendum, they are personally attacked, their motives are impugned and they are subjected to personal slurs. That is unacceptable. I say—and I remind myself; we should all reflect on ourselves—to those who engage in conduct at that level, who use that overblown language, personal slurs and rhetoric, whether you're 'yes' or 'no', all you will do is empower the opponents of whatever position you hold, whichever side of the debate you are on, because Australians typically, certainly in my home state of Queensland, do not approve of that sort of personal politicking. They really don't.

I think all of us in this place should lead by example in terms of the conduct of this debate and call out those who overstep the mark. I understand it's a passionate debate, and you've got to give some licence in that regard. But the line has been crossed on a number of occasions in the course of the last 12 months in ways which I consider to be indefensible. Certainly, I believe that those who have overstepped the mark have in fact undermined their own credibility, when they actually raise legitimate arguments for the consideration of Australians in the context of this debate. With those comments, I support the position of the coalition in relation to this bill.