Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to the bill before the chamber this morning, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, I want to start by recognising the importance of this bill and the importance of the issues that will be considered, should this bill be successful and a referendum bill brought back to this parliament. I acknowledge that this is a machinery bill; it's not the substantive referendum question. But I have to say, as a number of my colleagues in the chamber have commented—and may I commend Senator McDonald for her very good remarks here this morning—I am somewhat mystified by the approach of the government, who, apparently seriously and genuinely, want to progress a referendum on this matter to a successful outcome. Personally, I'm not seeing from the government an approach to achieving that successful outcome that I find persuasive and that I think Australians find persuasive. That, frankly, concerns me, because it needs to be a constructive and positive process. I do think governments, when they are in a position of advancing a change to the founding document of our nation, need to be prepared to listen, to engage and to take on board constructive suggestions on—even criticism of—the substance of what they intend to put before the Australian people, so that it has the best chance of success.

One of the mystifying aspects of this process was even the reference of this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the first place. It was referred on 1 December 2022, the day the parliament rose for the year. We were prepared to work and we did. The committee's deputy chair, Senator McGrath, is here in the chamber with me this morning. We had hearings on 19 December and 9 January. But really? A reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of a bill as important as this over the Christmas break and the new year doesn't smack to me of seriousness from government and of government wanting it genuinely considered. But I particularly want to thank the members of the committee, including the chair and the deputy chair, and those who took the effort, notwithstanding the time of year, to make submissions and to participate in that process, because their insights were very valuable to the committee.

It is important to look at the referendum act. As the committee report observes, that act has not been substantially updated to reflect the modernisations in Australia's federal electoral framework, let alone the other challenges that we face. A number of speakers in the chamber have adverted to those, particularly in terms of misinformation, disinformation, manipulation of electoral processes, social media, technology advances and all the things that go with them. The act hasn't been updated for many years, certainly not since the last referendum was held, in 1999. I was substantially involved in that referendum in 1999, for better or for worse, and I do acknowledge that changes need to be made to contemporise the legislation. My involvement in that referendum, at the time, was as, particularly, former deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement. I know what a negative referendum outcome feels like if you are a strong proponent of the case being put before the Australian people, and I know how important it is to try to take a constructive approach to avoid that, I would say, Madam Acting Deputy President.

One of the key matters that has been of concern to the opposition is the provision of an official pamphlet, and it was certainly a concern to the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as well. We produced a dissenting report to that committee report, which made certain observations about the importance of the official pamphlet. The evidence on the official pamphlet that was given to the committee was in many cases compelling. Not everybody agreed—I absolutely acknowledge that—but I found the evidence that came before us from a number of witnesses and a number of submitters to be persuasive and very strong. The Australian Human Rights Commission, for example, submitted that, while it may be appropriate to modernise the form and distribution of the pamphlet, it remains a valuable document which provides electors with the views of their elected officials. The Central Land Council, a very important body in remote Australia for Indigenous Australians, expressed their concern that:

… not providing a physical, posted pamphlet in remote areas would leave some people, particularly older people and Elders, without reliable access to information about the referendum, especially given the barriers to telecommunications access in some communities.

That is from paragraph 1.32 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on this matter.

We heard a range of arguments in that committee process for improving rather than suspending the official pamphlet to address concerns about its content and method of distribution. It was not part of the government's plan when they initiated this bill in December last year to include a pamphlet, but I note that we have made progress on that. I think it is very important.

The explanatory memorandum for the bill originally said that there might be a 'more effective way to engage and inform the Australian public about the Constitution and proposed constitutional change'. I didn't find the explanatory memorandum particularly informative about those ways. That is the problem with the government's current approach to the referendum question itself as well. I don't think that Australians feel particularly well informed about the specific amendment to the Constitution that is being proposed. So the pamphlet, while not always perfect—and certainly some of the historic imperfections were highlighted in evidence given to the committee—has been an important tool.

To try to understand the government's approach to these matters of considerable substance in terms of the operation of the referendum the committee's coalition members and senators sought to ask the relevant ministers, Minister Burney and Minister Farrell, to meet with the committee and provide evidence to the committee. I will stand corrected, but to the best of my knowledge the letter sent by the deputy chair in relation to that to the chair of the committee, Ms Thwaites, did receive a response from Ms Thwaites, but I don't believe that Senator McGrath received a response to his correspondence from Minister Burney or from Minister Farrell. So they remain outstanding. I don't understand that. I don't understand why ministers with a positive disposition to try to achieve a successful outcome for this referendum question would not be prepared to talk to a committee of parliamentary colleagues.

That request was declined by the committee chair, Ms Thwaites, and we were pointed to the second reading speech. We were told by Ms Thwaites, 'The government's rationale for the proposed legislative changes is contained in the second reading speech of the bill.' Taking that advice, I went to the second reading speech. I would say that it was a remarkable speech in at least one way—not for its content but rather for its absence of content. I reread it, as directed by the chair, to try to determine the government's rationale for some of the changes they are making in this bill. But, after rereading it, I was indeed none the wiser.

There are other issues of concern to the coalition in this bill, and they have been well articulated by a number of my colleagues, particularly by Senator Hume, the shadow minister. Senator Hume said in her speech in the second reading debate yesterday that we 'should treat the changes to the machinery of referenda without consideration of what the referendum question might be' and that the rules that are established under the act and that will be established through this bill should be 'rules that keep balance, fairness, legitimacy and trust in how we change our founding document'. I absolutely concur with Senator Hume's words. Our founding document is important. It is precious to many Australians.

There are some aspects of the bill that we have supported, including in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters process, as I have outlined. I don't underestimate the importance of the substantive matter which will be the subject of this referendum—not for a moment. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton; and the shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Julian Leeser, for the considered way that these matters are being engaged with within the coalition. For my own part, I come to these matters with goodwill. I have a generally constructive disposition to this bill and on the substantive issue. But I hold very deep, serious concerns in relation to the approach being taken by the government.

In the broad, Australians respect our Constitution. We amend it rarely and sparingly. Many a referendum question has gone down, notwithstanding the best, most well intentioned efforts of its strongest advocates—and I refer again to the referendum on Australia becoming a republic. I was the deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement before I entered the Senate. I was the strongest supporter of that constitutional change, of the formation and operation of Liberals and Nationals, for an Australian head of state. But it failed. We went everywhere. We did everything we could. We stood alongside all of our colleagues from across the parliament, Labor and coalition colleagues together, to campaign. But it failed.

From those standing in that position now, from those strongest advocates of the proposition that will be put forward through this referendum—and, again, seeking clarity on that proposition from the government is, I think, very important—the Australian people do want clarity. They want to know the answers to the sorts of questions that the opposition leader has posed to the Prime Minister. They want to know the clear wording proposed to be used in changing our Constitution. For Australians to be able to have the opportunity to express their views—we don't want to stand in the way of that process. But I do think that it is so important that those concerns that are being raised by genuine, committed Australians be taken on board by the government if it is genuinely seeking a successful outcome to a substantive referendum.