Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I won't seek to repeat all the various matters that have been discussed this morning about the lack of success of referenda in Australia over the past 120 years. These changes that have been proposed are modernisation changes, largely, many of which were canvassed in a significant report conducted in the last parliament by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.

This bill which we are looking at today, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill, seeks to modernise voting and counting, authorisations and financial disclosures for referendum entities and also to deal with foreign donations. The coalition have flagged that there are additional changes that we are seeking. I want to put on the record my thanks to Senator Hume for the work she has done in working with the government to secure the 'yes and no' booklet, which I believe will be an improvement to the bill as originally introduced. There are some additional changes that have been sought in relation to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and the designation of those and there has been the proposal of administrative funding for those campaigns, if they are to be designated.

These are laudable objectives to try to ensure that we have a clean referendum, because, in the age of misinformation and disinformation, we don't want to see the referendum tainted in any way by outside actors, given the deteriorating environment in which we live. The idea of having 'yes' and 'no' cases is not a new one. There were committees that were drawn upon for the republic referendum in '99, so it's not a new idea. It may be a complicated idea, though, and we need to look very closely at how that would work, given there are a multitude of voices in this space. There are already multiple 'no' campaigns, and there are different views on the 'yes' side as well. So it is important to give careful consideration as to how that would work, given there are strong views amongst both camps already at this very early stage. I think the question of administrative funding is a clearer concept, if you can deal with the difficulty of designating a committee or designating a particular campaign or group of campaigners. I would say this is an issue where there is an enormous amount of misinformation and it may be very difficult to bring all the different views on just one side together, but I believe it is worthy of consideration.

I want to talk about the issue here of the Voice. It is a referendum, like the other 44 that have occurred in the past, but it is a referendum which must be above politics, because it is not about a routine or day-to-day political issue; it is about trying to overturn and reverse 120 years of paternalism, which has been a disaster for Indigenous people in the main. When you stand back and look at Australia, you can say we have been a successful country. But we have not been a good country for Indigenous people in the main, and we spend a lot of time in this chamber and the other place discussing the various discrepancies on an almost weekly basis, as we should. So to achieve success at this referendum—and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's leadership in putting this on the agenda—requires a process which everyone can get behind in their own way, recognising that for different communities and different Australians there are different ways they will respond to the messages in this campaign. As we saw with same-sex marriage in 2017, there will be a desire and there will be a need for targeted messaging to motivate people to vote yes, perhaps, but also to vote no, if that is the will of the campaigner.

To date I must say it is regrettable that there has not been more effort put into setting up structures inside this parliament to enable a bipartisan position or tripartisan position in relation to these matters. In terms of the wording that is proposed for the document itself, we read in the papers today that the government wants to introduce a Constitution alteration bill in these sittings. That is their prerogative. But the fact that that has not been the product of a parliamentary committee I think is hugely regrettable, because once the government introduces a bill into this parliament then that is by definition the government's policy, and there have been multiple attempts by members of this and the other chamber to offer to work with the government and the community on looking at the wording that is going to be put to the Australian people. I recognise the minister is proposing that there be a routine committee, I assume a select committee or through the legal and cons committee of the Senate, to look at the wording. But as I said, that will be reviewing the government's policy. It would've been far better if the parliament could have looked at the various models for constitutional alteration before a bill was introduced into the parliament.

I make these statements because we are addressing a bill which is to do with the ongoing machinery arrangements of referenda, but it is very hard to separate the fact that this particular bill is being introduced and debated as a precursor to the Voice referendum. Even in glancing at the House committee recommendations from 2021, that link is made.

If you want this particular referendum to be successful as I do then a lot more effort needs to go into building up a broader base of support for the change. I know that many people here and many people around Australia will also vote 'no', and that is a reasonable position. It doesn't mean that you are a racist. It doesn't mean that you are anything. We want to see a debate where the facts are known, there can be civility and the vote will be known to all Australians with a degree of integrity. My sense of what Senator Hume is trying to pursue here is just that: that the changes that are to be made to the referendum machinery act are changes which ensure that Australians have confidence that the referendum to be conducted later this year on the Voice has been conducted with integrity and appropriate governance and oversight. We want to think very carefully about the changes we make here, particularly if we are to be empowering ministers to make judgements about these matters. There are very different views about these issues in the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and I think we ought to consider that.

I want to place again on record my acknowledgement of the work that's been done by the government here in acknowledging a slew of changes which have been needed to the machinery act but also of the suggestions that Senator Hume has made, part of which have been adopted by the government.

In closing, I want to reiterate for the record my expectation that, whether people are 'yes' voters or 'no' voters, they will engage in this debate with respect and civility. If this is a 'yes' vote, I personally believe that, if the wording in the Constitution is right, it will be a very significant step forward; but, if it is a 'no' vote, which I think would be a disaster for race relations in this country, we will need to live together and we will need to find a way to move ahead. I think anything we can do to maximise opportunities for us to get to a 'yes' vote with a bipartisan accommodation should be urgently addressed by the government in the coming weeks and months.