Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The referendum working group is still working at the detail as we are being asked to pass this legislation, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Flip-flopping, backflipping, chopping and changing, and making it up as we go along are the staples of the lead-up to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament by this government. We've seen changes to the wording, suggesting the Voice might also speak to national cabinet and then that maybe it would not, muddling about it making representation to the executive and parliament. One week we were told the Voice was about closing the gap, the next that it was about reconciliation—but wait. It's also about giving Indigenous people a say in the laws—or is it now 'matters'—that affect them and it's about international reputation. It is all a little confusing, really.

Regardless of whether you made up your mind long ago or are still waiting for the detail, one thing that should be a given is that the information related to the question is accurate and presents both sides for consideration. The bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in Australia that go beyond what has been done in the past. Australians have proven time and time again that they don't take changing the Constitution lightly, and so we should all be cautious every single time, regardless of the question. Australians think deeply and carefully about changes to the Constitution and should expect that their only consideration and concern should be how they vote, not the process that has enabled the vote. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the people on the Australian Constitution, only eight have succeeded.

This referendum should be no different from any other in form. There is no genuine, reasonable reason for it to be different or out of step with every other referendum. That is why I won't vote for the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill in its current form.

In an age of disinformation, the Australian public, no matter where they live or how they access information, must have access to and know that there is credible and evidence based information that they can rely on. That will assist a strong, informed referendum process that has integrity, transparency and accountability. Three things need to happen for us to support the bill: the pamphlet that outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases needs to be restored, official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations need to be established, and those official organisations need to be appropriately funded.

This bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. This action sets a dangerous precedent. The requirement for a pamphlet was implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. In 1967 and 1977 only 'yes' pamphlets were provided to the electorate. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet—in 1919 when there was insufficient time to produce it, in 1926 when there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument and in 1928 when there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments.

In the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the electoral commissioner said that a significant education effort would be important to ensuring that individuals and entities involved in referendum campaigns are aware of their disclosure obligations. The act prescribes that each argument in the official pamphlet can be up to 2,000 words in length, and there's a time line to ensure it arrives in a timely manner. How could anyone, understanding the diversity of Australians, think that there was something wrong with that? We welcome the government's announcement to restore the pamphlet, but we'll reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. It's the detail that's needed.

The bill does not outline any official funding of these campaigns. We can't support a bill that doesn't have a plan on how to properly regulate donations and foreign interference and doesn't provide a plan for how scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Surely it's reasonable to look at simple, practical steps that put structure around this process and help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum. Changing the rules to meet the fast-tracking of an election promise creates risk, some of which could be resolved by the establishment of appropriately and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations.

We welcome the engagement from the government on this bill, but until we have our concerns addressed we must and will oppose this bill. In the general community I still hear people say that they don't even know what the Voice is. There is little confusion about the concept of constitutional recognition, but the concept of the Voice remains insufficiently explained. It is simply not people's priority and not front of mind for people. The cost of living is the predominant issue I hear about. Yes, although the public narrative seeks to ignore them, there are also Aboriginal people who will not vote for it. Quality information needs to reach people, regardless of where they live and of whether they've formed a position.

If the process for referenda needs to be changed then it should not be made up on the run. These changes, without proper consultation and interrogation, should not become a precedent for future referenda. This bill suggests a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. These positions have consistently been advocated to the government by the opposition. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum process that informs voters and a process with integrity based on precedent, whether you live in Pukatja, Port Augusta or Peterborough.

We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission that when they've provided mailed material to voters during elections 40 per cent of recipients used that documentation as a main source of information in casting their vote. We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC has published data that has reported that 92 per cent of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had 'some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming' and that 'analysis has identified concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services that are widespread, entrenched, and systemic'. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will increase trust and integrity in the process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum.

The AEC has given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. We know there will be a significant number of organisations and participants in this referendum who are not associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination for an audit process for donations and for reporting suspected interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. They have even acknowledged that political parties sometimes struggle to get this right. We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding—if any is provided—to each side, to ensure that neither side is advantaged and that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes at the referendum.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 governs how the government must conduct a referendum. It is similar to the Commonwealth Electoral Act's role in governing the process and procedures in conducting an election. The act includes how a referendum's donations and regulations will operate, how the pre-poll voting, scrutineering and counting will operate and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will operate. Any change must be made in an organised way, not made up on the run, for a process that has the potential to result in a change to our most important document, our Constitution.