Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I was speaking on this yesterday and, for those viewing at home, I started out by absolutely saying that we all support the right for Australians to have a say on this very important issue. We all want to support a referendum, but we want a fair referendum. We want to make sure that the referendum is conducted with full disclosures. We on this side, as I said yesterday, raise three very important points. I got as far as talking about the equal funding for both the 'yes' campaign and the 'no' campaign. We want the equal funding because we want the referendum to be conducted fairly. We want both sides to be able to operate in compliance with all our disclosure and regulatory regimes, by having a formal structure. By having 'yes' and 'no' campaigns that are identified by parliament, recognised by parliament and funded, we will have a formal structure to minimise the risk of foreign interference, to minimise the risk of misinformation and, as I said yesterday, to also minimise the risk of letting the Googles and the Amazons and the Metas of the world actually run this debate.

We believe that we need to look at simple and practical steps that put structure around this process to help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum and to give Australians confidence. That is why, on this side, we have been advocating so forcefully, particularly for the inclusion of a pamphlet outlining both the 'yes' side and the 'no' side of the debate. We know from past referendum data from the Australian Electoral Commission that, when they provide mailed material to voters during elections, at least 40 per cent of recipients use that documentation as a main source of information on casting their vote.

We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation, and we've all spoken about misinformation in this place. So, for the government to refuse to recognise 'yes' and 'no' organisations, they are opening the door to more misinformation. I do want to, though, acknowledge that the government has now agreed to our call for pamphlets that outline both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns. It does, however, look like the government is putting caveats around those pamphlets and how they will be produced. I would implore the government to just let the pamphlets—acknowledged and recognised by this place—be sent out to all voters and made available in different languages to ensure that people can make their own informed decisions.

Having an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign will make things simpler for the Australian people, it will make it simpler for the regulatory environment and it will make it simpler for the conduct of the referendum. We know that there will be a significant number of participants and organisations in this referendum who won't be associated with political parties and who don't regularly participate in electoral events. We want to make sure that by having a single point of coordination for both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns to provide education that there's capacity to have an audit process for donations, an audit process to ensure there's no foreign interference and an audit process to ensure the integrity of the referendum.

We've also called for equal funding, which I believe the government has said a flat-out no to—and yet the government has set aside $9.5 million for a 'facts of the Voice' campaign. It says this is not a de facto 'yes' campaign, that it's an awareness campaign to include the facts of the Voice. However, we only have their word for that; we have no oversight into how this education or civics campaign will be run or who will be in charge of it. We know that there's already significant activity by our government agencies promoting the 'yes' side. Ironically, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, with its 1,200 staff and 39 offices around Australia, actually has as one of its reasons for being to work with the government to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests are considered in developing policy. That kind of sounds a bit like a voice to me but, obviously, it's a bureaucracy and not the Voice. But they're are also out there, working hard to ensure that people are aware of what the Voice is, what it means to them and what the referendum means.

I note that the National Indigenous Australians Agency will also have processes upgraded through the expenditure of this $9.5 million. It will upgrade its website, provide information in 30 languages and develop a more comprehensive information program on the facts of the Voice and the relevant civics information. We do need to be confident that it isn't 'facts for why we need a Voice' but that it outlines what the Voice could mean on both sides of the debate—both for and against. According to a report in the Guardian, the money is also for paid media placements for the Voice information program, to expand reach across the broader community significantly. Again, we need to be confident that it's unbiased information being presented under the banner of a civics education campaign.

We need to ensure that we give Australians balanced information so that Australians can make up their own minds. As I said at the outset, I absolutely support and respect the right of Australians to have their say on this issue—absolutely! But when this issue is run, we want to make sure that it's run fairly, that it's run by officials in an unbiased manner and that Australians can have confidence that when they do access information it's legitimate information—not information that's being rolled out by keyboard warriors—and that it's respectful. Importantly, it's got to be respectful information, because we want this debate to be respectful. We want this debate to be conducted openly and transparently. That's why we've put forward our three key asks: to have an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, and I acknowledge the government has now agreed to that request; importantly, to identify official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns so that we can verify them, not have them Twitter verified or Google verified or Meta verified but actually verified by this place; and also to fund it so that it's funded fairly and so that the organisations can ensure they meet our regulatory requirements.

I know there is a lot left to go in this debate; there are a lot of speakers on the speakers list for the second reading, and I will listen to all their contributions with interest. There are also a lot of questions that need to be answered and that hopefully will be answered during the campaign committee. So I do reserve my right. I have not yet finalised my position on this very important matter, and I will listen to the committee stage of the debate with interest and reserve my right.