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

A long time ago, Senator Scarr—that is exactly right. The requirement for a pamphlet was implemented in 1912. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet—in 1919, 1926 and 1928—but let's look at the reasons as to why. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce them. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government. For this referendum, none of those circumstances apply. We know there's not complete agreement on this issue, we have time to produce a pamphlet and we can get agreement on how to argue the cases.

The government has relented on this issue, but there is still more to be done to ensure the referendum is conducted with both integrity and transparency. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns are required to increase trust in and the integrity of 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 will be applying that regime in this referendum and to participants who are not regularly involved in elections. An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum. We know with this referendum that there will also be a significant number of both participants and organisations who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes for donations or foreign interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. We've already heard from officials that there might be people who will fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws who don't even know it. The AEC have said that the education of participants will be significant, given that these events happen so rarely and that it isn't the usual political parties that they will be regulating. They have even acknowledged that political parties struggle to get it right every time.

So why are we asking for equal funding? We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged and that they comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes at the referendum. Again, if you believe in the integrity and transparency of this process, why do you bring a bill before the parliament that fails to address these issues?

Why is foreign interference a concern? The director-general of ASIO recently told Australians again that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. This government does not seem to be concerned by the words and the warnings of the director-general of ASIO. Surely, though, we should look at simple, practical steps that put structure around this process and help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum.

We know that there has been foreign interference in other countries. In Canada, their intelligence agencies have uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government. That was actually foreign interference wanting a particular outcome of the Canadian election: a minority government. According to the CSIS documents published by the Globe and Mail, Chinese officials in Canada said Beijing wanted a minority government so that 'the parties in parliament are fighting each other'. That is foreign interference, and this government is not heeding the warnings from their director-general of ASIO about it with the bill that it has brought before this parliament. This is one of a list of foreign influence campaigns that have been revealed publicly in Europe and elsewhere, and anyone who thinks that Australia is immune doesn't know what they're talking about. We know that we've had our own parties targeted, with reports that three major parties have been the victims of state sponsored hacking. On those grounds alone, we think there's good reason to have some formal structure about the referendum and at least a nominated official 'yes' and 'no' campaign.

As I said when I commenced my comments, the conduct of a referendum to change the founding document of our nation, the Australian Constitution, is an important moment for all Australians. The Australians who'll be required to vote in this referendum deserve every assistance possible to ensure that they are able to make an informed choice. We know from history that Australians do not vote for changes in the Constitution lightly. They take this duty seriously, and the government should take its duty to all Australians seriously. Providing all Australians with reliable information and protecting the integrity of this process need to be at the forefront of this bill. We do not believe that this bill reaches the minimum standards that should be in place for such an important process, and, on that basis, we are opposing the bill.