Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Cormann announced that the government would direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics rather than the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a $120 million, and rising, opinion poll on marriage equality—a tactic to avoid the need to negotiate legislation through the parliament. Can the minister confirm that, as a result, protections and safeguards contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918 will not apply to the Turnbull government's opinion poll?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for that question. It's right of course that the government has announced that we have decided to keep faith with our commitment to the Australian people to give everyone on the electoral roll a say on whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed. We want this to be a fair process to both sides of the argument and we want all Australians to have the opportunity to have their say in an appropriate environment. Of course, the government's first preference was for this to be conducted under the auspices of the Electoral Act as a compulsory plebiscite, but the parliament decided against that, which is why we are conducting this instead as a voluntary postal plebiscite through the Australian Bureau of Statistics under the ABS Act and the Census and Statistics Act.

A whole range of legal protections are in place under laws generally, including when it comes to certain offences that may be committed in relation to mail. For example, there are offences in relation to the stealing of mail, the tampering with mail and the interference with mail. There is a strong framework already in place for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence. There are also existing civil and criminal penalties under state and territory law that will continue to apply to ensure that appropriate penalties apply to those who commit certain offences, and so on.

But what I would say is that the government's preference clearly was for all of the usual arrangements under the Electoral Act to apply. If both sides of the argument—the advocates for the yes case and the advocates for the no case—were of the view that it would be desirable to have these protections in place, we would urge them to make representations to parties represented in the Senate, in particular, to that effect, and the government would be open to consider legislation to make sure that whatever additional appropriate safeguards would be sensible to be included in this exercise can be included. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, a supplementary question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have already seen those who are campaigning for a 'no' vote in the $122 million opinion poll spreading misleading, harmful and dangerous material. Can the minister confirm that the protections he has described previously will be as strong as those in the Electoral Act?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If your question is whether it would have been preferable to have a compulsory personal attendance plebiscite with the usual Electoral Act arrangements, the government would say yes. But given that was not an option that the parliament agreed with, we went with the next best option. Of course, all of the relevant statutory arrangements to protect—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! A point of order, Senator Moore?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really keen to get a very clear answer on this particular issue about the protections being applied. Can you confirm—I am asking particularly this question—the protections you identified there will be as strong as those that are currently in the Electoral Act?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the minister was getting there, but I'll remind the minister of the question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are some provisions—for example, the authorisation provisions—that are obviously not in force. And what I have said to the chamber is that the government is open to consider them. If the various participants in this debate are of the view that it would be useful to have these arrangements in place and if there was a consensus across this chamber that it would be a sensible thing, then the government is open to facilitate legislation to give effect to that. We want this to be a positive and fair process. We want this to facilitate, in a fair, respectful and courteous manner, the opportunity for all Australians to have their say. Some Australians will not comply with that, whether we have a plebiscite or not. Some Australians will say— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, a final supplementary question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it clear that Prime Minister Turnbull has so dismally failed to display the strong leadership he claims to possess that he has concocted a convoluted process to avoid parliamentary oversight, without care for the harm caused to the LGBTIQ Australians and also to our wider community?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the first question is no. What the government is doing is working very hard to keep faith with the commitment we made to the Australian people, and we believe that this is a pathway forward for the whole Australian community to resolve this issue on a more permanent basis. We would call on all Australians to embrace this opportunity, in that spirit, to participate, and for those who are not enrolled to enrol. We would call on those whose circumstances have changed to update their enrolment details. The deadline for that is 24 August. I say again today what I said yesterday: I encourage all Australians to participate and vote with their conscience and those who are campaigning to campaign with courtesy and respect. I believe that Australians will judge harshly those who make unacceptable, inappropriate comments as part of this exercise.