Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I continue my remarks from last night regarding the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I had started speaking about the history of pamphlets and the ability for the government to provide information on a 'yes' and a 'no' case to the Australian people. It would have been the first time since 1928 that a pamphlet was not supplied to Australians. That sets a dangerous precedent. The pamphlet has been required since 1912, and there have been three referenda that have not had a pamphlet: in 1919, when there was insufficient time to produce one; in 1926, when there was no agreement on the 'yes' argument, so a pamphlet was not produced; and in 1928, when there was agreement between parties and the government that there was no requirement for a pamphlet to be produced. Now, in 2023, none of those circumstances apply. It is important that Australians have a document produced that allows a neutral civics education program on the 'yes' and 'no' arguments for this important decision, which will change the Constitution. We have to get agreement on how to argue the cases.

I've heard it said that there shouldn't be a pamphlet produced, that it's just creating a whole lot of material to be pulped. I think that's a really strange argument, to say that the government shouldn't produce an important document because the paper that it's written on will need to be recycled. I think that's really short-changing Australians and their ability to have an informed decision. Official material is important. The AEC says that 40 per cent of voters use mailed material as information when they come in to vote. All of us who stand on booths, handing out how-to-vote cards at elections, would know that to be true because each time we see more people coming in with their material from the Australian Electoral Commission, or from the state electoral commissions if it's a state election. That's because official material has weight and gravitas. Misinformation is incredibly dangerous, and in this modern world of social media it's very easy and very fast for misinformation to be spread. Official documents give voters peace of mind that this is something which has been weighed and considered; it's being put to them and they can trust it. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that Australians are well informed, because constitutional change is not a minor thing. Referenda can be life-changing, and the onus is on government to remain the single reliable source of information in this regard. The ACCC has highlighted public concern about online information and journalism. It has also published data, reporting:

… around 92% of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming.

That is a major risk to the integrity of this debate. Official material increases trust in government and increases trust in the process.

A simpler regulatory environment and better conduct of the referendum are two other issues that would make it easier for people to feel confident in the process. It would be a terrible failure of this government not to have enacted a transparent and trustworthy process for this referendum to go ahead. In the absence of that, Australians will feel that they have no choice but to vote against it. That's the responsibility of the government, to ensure that Australians are provided with suitable materials and that they feel well informed—that they can trust the process and have confidence in it. The official campaign should bring structure and clarity around the guidelines

It's very important that this education about electoral processes and enforcement of the law are carried out. That's why, with the disclosure and donation regime—the most complex part of the Electoral Act—it's important to have good disclosure for the integrity of the process to stand up. It's incredibly important that we don't risk influence by unseen players, overseas players, who may seek to influence the outcome of this referendum. So the disclosure of donations is also incredibly important. It may be that people will fall under the electoral law without their knowledge. People may be breaking the law without realising it, because they don't understand this complex part of the guidelines for disclosure of donations under the Electoral Act. That's bad for integrity, but it's also not right that people could be breaking the law unintentionally. Even the most well-informed people and political parties, who have to understand this process, don't always get it right. An official campaign reduces the risk of this happening.

Equal funding is also important, and the coalition has requested assurance of equal funding if any government funding is going to be provided. That's because equal funding provides equal footing for both campaigns. Australia is the land of a fair go, and I don't think that Australians would like to think that one side of the argument is being supported with government funding, government institutions and other processes, while the other side of the argument is not being equally supported. That doesn't seem fair. It's not right. Equal funding levels that playing field.

I've touched on the concern about foreign interference. ASIO has raised these concerns. We are facing our greatest level of interference yet. It is a serious risk to national security, to the strength of government, to online safety and to misinformation. There are simple steps that we could be taking to alleviate those risks. There are global examples of interference in elections around the world, and Australia is not immune. Despite being an island nation a long way from other places, in this digital world we are not immune to that kind of interference, and so we must guarantee integrity and trust in government processes.

I have been on the record that I do not support the Voice, but I absolutely support this referendum. I absolutely support the right of every Australian to be able to go to a voting booth and have their say. But I do think that it is equally important that this machinery-of-referendum legislation that we're talking about now does include these critical elements: having a pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases provided in an independent and impartial manner by the government, provision for both a 'yes' and a 'no' campaign, and equal funding. That is the fair thing to do. That is the right thing to do for Australians who are making this very important decision to change our Constitution—a document that has served us incredibly well and that has allowed us to be a very stable nation for the last 100 years.

I'm not speaking against this bill, but I'm raising the very real concerns that I have, and I will wait for the government's responses on these important points. I hope that they work constructively to strengthen the referendum process, because, as I said previously, the government will fail to have a successful referendum if they do not provide a transparent, trusted process of integrity that allows Australians to vote with confidence. In the absence of confidence, Australians will have no choice but to vote no. They will have no choice, because that is the conservative, cautious thing to do.

It is in the government's best interest—as they've clearly stated, as they support the Voice referendum and the change to the Constitution—to make sure this process is as fully fleshed out as possible, because I have to tell you, as I get around my parts of the country, northern Australia in particular, most people have never heard of the Voice. They've never heard that there's going to be a referendum within the next 12 months. It is not something that is on people's minds and lips, particularly given that we've just had flooding right across northern Australia. The government seems to be treating it fairly lightly. There's been a very poor response. We had floods in northern Australia in 2019. I've just had mayors from local councils in my office, and they're telling me the response then was faster, more effective and more comprehensive than this response now. I hope that, given all the advice Minister Watt has provided to government in the past, he has now learnt from his experience.

I look forward to further amendments to this legislation.