Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 that's before the Australian Senate. As Senator McGrath has so eloquently stated, a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, is not something that can be taken lightly. It is particularly incumbent on those of us elected to this place that we uphold the highest standards of integrity when examining the process by which any such referendum should be conducted. In fact, given the speech by Senator McGrath, it is a little ironic that the Albanese Labor government, who, prior to being elected to govern, talked so much about transparency and integrity, would actually bring this bill to the parliament, because there is nothing in this bill that lives up to the standards that Mr Albanese said he would be setting for himself in terms of transparency and integrity.

It is irrelevant what question is being put to the Australian people. Any question which will change the Australian Constitution—in this case, to establish a voice to parliament—is a momentous occasion. In many ways, we are the protectors of this nation's founding document, and each and every one of us in this place should take that role very, very seriously. There is no doubt that we live in an age where information is ubiquitous, as is disinformation. Therefore, it is important that the government takes the lead—which it is not doing, with the bill that it has presented before the parliament—by providing clear information to Australians and delivering a strong referendum process.

Those of us on this side of the chamber believe that the government is falling short—in fact, I would say well short—of what should be done. It took pressure from our side for the government to commit to producing pamphlets to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. How do you actually answer the Australian people when they ask, 'When will I be receiving the 'yes' and 'no' cases'? You have to say to them: 'Guess what? The government did not want you to receive a "yes" or "no" case.' They are actually lost for words and cannot believe that a government would want to hold a referendum without formally providing them with a pamphlet that clearly outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases. This should never have been something that was in dispute. A responsible government engaging in a referendum process should always, unless it had something to hide, have been willing to outline the two cases in such a way.

We also believe that the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations should be properly established and appropriately funded by the government. Again, are you a government that believe in integrity and transparency or are they just weasel words that fall nicely from your tongues? We cannot support a bill that does not have a plan for how to properly regulate donations or foreign interference or that doesn't provide a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Again, this is a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, and it is not something that anybody in this country should take lightly. And yet, with the bill presented to the Australian Senate, that is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. All of the issues that have been raised could have been resolved by the establishment of appropriate and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations.

This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is conducted. However, what the Albanese government is, I would say, almost deliberately failing to tell the Australian people is that they should be very, very aware that the changes included in this bill could also be used for future referenda. Whilst the bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it also makes fundamental changes to how referenda themselves will be conducted in Australia.

We have made our position clear: we will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters—because why wouldn't you want the Australian voter to be informed about what they are actually voting on?—and a process with integrity based on precedent. We advocated for a pamphlet because, without one, a dangerous precedent would have been set. This would have been the first time no pamphlet was provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup.